You gave examples of where the private sector had performed poorly through the desire to cut corners, yet excluded examples within the public sector - suggesting abuse only happens where making money is the key driver?

It could be argued without the funds generated by the private sector you would not have had all those things you mentioned? chicken and egg?

We started off with democracy - which you neatly sidestepped - as you did the cosy relationship between the unions and previous regimes!! You brought up big business - did you not expect that to be challenged?

Context. We were discussing the idea of government running the country for the benefit of big business. You asked if big business should be ignored. I said that the country should not be run for it. I then gave examples of the behaviour of big business that require the state to regulate properly, if it acting in the interests of the majority.

Since I wasn't positing the idea that the country should 'be run for the benefit of public services' or suggesting that the public sector is perfect, your introduction of the public sector into the discussion is irrelevant.



In which case, you've just rather damned your original point.



No. I didn't side-step it: it was a question that was answered perfectly well by another poster who did so in direct response to your post. I don't feel the need to replicate what someone says in such a situation.

And you didn't 'challenge' it. You didn't make a comment that was remotely pertinent to the point.

Your comment about unions and "previous regimes" was crass. You seem to fall into a trap of viewing everything in strictly black and white terms. So, as here, if someone objects to government being too cosy with big business, you immediately assume that the only possible alternative to that is beer and sandwiches at No10. It's not. Like pretty much everything else in life, there are a few shades of grey between black and white.

Tfl make healthy profit on the buses but lose heavily on the Underground.
They have/are building and investing in the Overground trains, increasing frequency, rolling stock, even building tracks and stations vastly improving the network especially for those south of the river.

The bendy bus is a nuisance (i'm an ex london bus driver), it's expensive and in the tight congested roads of london wasn't fit for purpose and i can say and see that first hand.

The boris bus (for all you people concerned with job creation) is a crew bus between peak times, so every bus as an extra person with a job on board.

Cycle lane investment, and future further improvements, the (completely voluntary) boris bike scheme is a slow burning money maker.

When Ken was in charge he had a rule of if a bus company won a new tendered route that they had to put brand new buses as part of the contract also bus companies couldn't have a bus beyond 10years old on the road in London, looks great for the public but costly. Boris scrapped that saving money and unnecessary wastage.

It's gtreat for, say Park and ride in York, straight in, straight out.
But you're right, I've seen loads of snarl-ups where the bendybus has got part way round a congested crossroads and holds up the traffic on all four exits.
It also takes up lots more road space than a double decker ... and is, by definition, a congestion-increaser.


Or, inefficient.


Really?
How slow burning can you get, he's just had to double the rental cost.


... and spent hundreds of millions on a bus that was supposed to be for 87 passengers but only carries 78, that weighs a ton more than it was meant to and that the operators didn't want and wouldn't buy, so TfL will have to pay for them.
Just so that Boris could have an open step at the back, off-the-shelf buses were ignored.

I was resident Monday to Friday and contributing to the local economy both in working there and spendng money there.

Save money by not spending it on stuff that people don't want.

What?

Did you read this on the previous page?



TfL have never worked at a profit, whether over or underground, the massive subsidies they have always received saw to that. TfL are not there to make a profit, they exist to regulate and fund the PRIVATE operators of the bus fleet and ensure the rail fleet operates at something like efficiency

Between 1997 and 2004 I worked closely with TfL and all the LtB operators on the drive to clean up exhaust emissions of their fleets in the capital. This included the design of particulate traps and catalysts for new buses and also a massive retrofit programme for the existing fleet. The retrofit programme included re-powering to more modern diesel units, even on Routemasters. That programme was fully-funded by TfL.

When a new bus was specified on a particular route, the existing fleet wasn't scrapped. The operators were all national companies. All that happened is the older buses were shipped out to the provinces where air quality wasn't such a problem.

If tfl scrapped the trains, they would run on very healthy profits on the buses alone, i was told this personally at their head office in Victoria St.
I agree on the Boris bus, i was being a little playful about the job creation. It's a vanity project, people say boris bikes were also a vanity project but i personally think it's a good think for the city log term, long overdue too.

Seeing as you worked on that project as you said you may be in a position to help answer a question.
To keep the emissions down they use adblue but also even though the emissions are down is it right that by doing this you decrease the full efficiency of the bus?

Adblu, in conjunction with a particulate trap was only introduced relatively recently in order to reduce NOx (oxides of nitrogen), I was primarily involved in reducing PM (particulate matter) and HC (hydrocarbons). From my experience of particulate traps, the effect of fuel consumption was negligible. There was a far greater variable ina driver's right boot than could ever be evidenced from a trap. The only time a trap would cause a problem with fuel economy is if the the duty cycle (or stupid maintenance*) caused the trap to clog up and increase exhaust back-pressure. We had very few examples of this simply because we used to coduct extensive datalogging of the duty cycles on each route and model of bus operating on that route. If we presented a case to TfL that the route was not suitable for particulate traps, then they would allow the bus to operate on catalyst only.

* one example of poor maintenance that I encountered was an excessive rate of sooting up on buses in one particular garage, after a trap post-mortem, we also found high levels of mineral oil in the soot. The most obvious cause of excess sooting and oil contamination would be worn rings or valve guides but there was no evidence of blue smole from the bus exhausts. I was waiting at the garage one evening to commence fitting more logging equipment and was parked opposite the fuelling island. The yard monkey drove the bus to the island and as the tank was filling he also put a litre of oil in the engine. He never bothered dipping the sump, just put the oil in regardless. I wandered over to him and asked if it was normal practice and he confirmed that it was HIS normal practice. Once he drove the bus into the garage so I could fit the logger, I took the opportunity to check the dipstick. The oil was about 4" above the FULL level. Result was: I had a word with the fleet engineer, he bollocked the fuel island chimp, they changed the practice, the sooting problem disappeared and they saved £1000s in lubricating oil

You criticised big business as you do all the time - how your suggest there are shades of grey - defies belief when you read your stuff. My point about the unions was simply to suggesting another interest group that has influence - a group that you deem beyond criticism. This was obviously lost on you.

The point about regulation was also lost on you - the health service should be pretty stringently regulated, the fact they have paid out million in compromise agreements to cover up their short comings was again an illustration of a similar but different situation involving another of your sacred cows - again woos.

If you want to create growth through employment I would suggest it could be a good idea to get large business on side and consult with them - let's face it they do know a thing or two about wealth and job creation - Morrisons employs 160k staff and turns over 18bn and made of profit of 850m - to run a business of this size takes quite a lot of skill and know how.

I never damned my original point - your point was big business would not be the same without the public money spent with it - my point was without business you might not have public services. Take Salts Mill - without the mill and the profits it generated there would have been no village, hospital, school etc.

Now compare Titus Salt or Joseph Rowntree or James Reckitt or the Cadbury Brothers to any of the faceless, nameless funds that are running large businesses these days.

All of the former invested in their employees' welfare. They may have been accused of exploitation but they made sure their workforce had comfortable homes (at affordable rents), canteens supplying good food at subsidised prices and leisure & health facilities to ensure their workforce were at peak productivity.

Now the faceless corporations attempt to achieve the same result through fear and intimidation.

That's what you get when you go for a secular rather than a Christian society.

No that's what you get when you go for largely unrestrained capitalism driven solely by profit through companies who feel no allegiance or responsibility to either the society they operate in or their own workforce.

Titus Salt was far from secular in his beliefs, building a congregational church opposite his mill and donating land for a weslyan church.

He was a remarkable man though and a wander through his village is a very pleasant way to spend a sunday afternoon, but you can also say the same about many other Victorian philanthropists who saw the value in treating their workforce humanely rather than as items on a balance sheet.

I rather think that was Dally's point mate

Pity John Lewis doesn't tie in with that analysis.

Ha! Well thats what I get for contradicting everything he says without reading it first.

Rubbish.
You don't have to be a Christian to have a conscience and a secular society does not prohibit an individual's adherence to a faith.

You really do knee-jerk some bollox Dally.

Meanwhile, back in the real world inter-personal relationships, business ethics, etc, etc have all mardedly improved with the decline in religious observance haven't they. That's at a stage when most people in influence still grew up with a degree of religion in their childhood. That won't be the case in a few years time.

The ethics of (some) big businesses have got worse in part because, with so many of said big businesses now having no real home base and no concomitant sense of loyalty to any place, they have no sense of ethical obligation to anything other than the company bank account/shareholders/owners. And with both their increased size and deregulation, they can better get away with such behaviour.

Your point about religion is irrelevant.

If religion ensured good behaviour, we'd have had thousands of years of peace and no crime.

I just think his trolling is getting more obvious/desperate.

And a level of wealth that would make many of today's rich look poor. Society was very different then and whilst he had a superb way of treating his staff how much of what he did was from a selfish point of view i.e. the need to keep the factory staffed and functional?

Hw was also in a very competitive market for staff - the industrial revolution especially in Bradford expanded at an incredible rate - if you wanted the right staff you had to present a compelling argument for them to work for you.

What is interesting is how quickly the fortune evaporated.

There's nothing wrong with a spot of enlightened self interest.

Between that and a spot of common sense, it's difficult to understand why some employers don't realise that treating employees well is actually good for recruitment, retention, sickness rates, productivity ...

Rubbish again.
In the days of such things as the slave trade, child labour and hanging kids for stealing petty items "[imost people in influence still grew up with a degree of religion in their childhood[/i".

The good examples we can point at such as Cadbury, Rowntreee and the like were largely Quakers or non-conformists and ostracised by mainstream Christians.

THINK before you post, Dally.

Linking this to something else that's arisen, it's actually quite intriguing to compare Britain with Germany during a period in which the latter is asserted, by certain types of historians, to have been dreadfully militaristic and simply paving the way for old Adolf.

This is usually claimed to have started under Old Fritz, yet comparisons of rates of execution, for instance, show that non-militaristic (

) Britain executed vastly more of its people than did Frederich's Prussia. And like his friend Voltaire, Frederich was hardly convinced of there being any sort of deity.



Oh now you're really pushing it.