iamnumerate Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 On 1/24/2018 at 7:48 PM, CommyTooper said: McDonell, just like Corbyn, is a social democrat, not a revolutionary socialist. They exist to save capitalism from its destroyers, not to destroy capitalism. Go lite on the rhetoric please, it’s getting boring. Then why did he quote from Mao? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb2 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 12 minutes ago, iamnumerate said: Sorry I didn't know that it was a private conversation. Does plastic count? You have moved the chat from a general critique about Ayn Rand economics to a local chat about one man and bent it to your UKIP agenda. Let's see if we can see the difference: Mine: The problem with the Ayn Rand lunatics is they have no imagination or appreciation of greed dynamics. Let's privatise the world. Let corporate monopolies rule. Let's have the rule of the gun - as we want no governing board to oversee law and order. Let the poor die as they deserve it for not being gold medal winning money-grubbers. Take the US private prison. What a racket. It would benefit society if there were less criminals - but giving huge wads of money to the money grubbers means that even minor misdemeanours make money - thus perpetuating the gravy train and incarcerating people for non-payment of parking fines is common. Or the opioid crisis, or the sub-prime scandal, or the libor scandal - welcome to the world of libertarian free-markets in action. And this is with some regulation - can you imagine what it would be like without an overseer? Have a look here for Meerkat's world of freeing the markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals vs. Yours: I don't like the Ayn Rand model, however our one where someone can get off a plane and get nicer housing that I can ever afford is pretty bad. Abu Qatada was living in £500K house - how is that fair? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10246167/Abu-Qatadas-family-follow-him-out-of-Britain.html BTW I don't who these so called racist groups were but well done to them Quote “Racist pressure groups in Britain hold demonstrations outside the house on a weekly basis between four in the afternoon and eleven in the evening. These demonstrators would scream and curse at us and at Islam.” I was talking about the 1% vs benefit scroungers in the Daily Mail. You mention their plastics campaign, which is commendable - but absolutely nothing to do with the Ayn Rand Scientologists. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 (edited) 10 minutes ago, jonb2 said: You have moved the chat from a general critique about Ayn Rand economics to a local chat about one man and bent it to your UKIP agenda. Let's see if we can see the difference: Mine: The problem with the Ayn Rand lunatics is they have no imagination or appreciation of greed dynamics. Let's privatise the world. Let corporate monopolies rule. Let's have the rule of the gun - as we want no governing board to oversee law and order. Let the poor die as they deserve it for not being gold medal winning money-grubbers. Take the US private prison. What a racket. It would benefit society if there were less criminals - but giving huge wads of money to the money grubbers means that even minor misdemeanours make money - thus perpetuating the gravy train and incarcerating people for non-payment of parking fines is common. Or the opioid crisis, or the sub-prime scandal, or the libor scandal - welcome to the world of libertarian free-markets in action. And this is with some regulation - can you imagine what it would be like without an overseer? Have a look here for Meerkat's world of freeing the markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals vs. Yours: I don't like the Ayn Rand model, however our one where someone can get off a plane and get nicer housing that I can ever afford is pretty bad. Abu Qatada was living in £500K house - how is that fair? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10246167/Abu-Qatadas-family-follow-him-out-of-Britain.html BTW I don't who these so called racist groups were but well done to them I was talking about the 1% vs benefit scroungers in the Daily Mail. You mention their plastics campaign, which is commendable - but absolutely nothing to do with the Ayn Rand Scientologists. The reason why Ayn Rand looks attractive is because of the flaws in the current system. The way to stop us going down that awful road is to deal with the flaws in the current system. Attacking people who complain about the flaws as having a UKIP agenda or mentioning the Daily Mail is a good way to ensure they are not fixed and move us closer to the Ayn Rand agenda. Also I would like to know what ideas someone in the UK have said is hard left* but are not regarded by hard left. (And dislike of a flaw in the current system does not mean that you think it is hard left. I don't like the current system, I don't think it is hard left, just too complicated to run on a national scale and all reforms make it more complicated). BTW Abu Qatada was an example of what is wrong with the system. I thought that was obvious. Edited January 31, 2018 by iamnumerate Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 hour ago, iamnumerate said: Out of interest, which ideals are considered hard left in the UK but accepted in other countries? I can think of some which are considered far right in the UK but are accepted in Eastern Europe. I can think of some views which are now considered right wing but used to widely accepted. Well some still have a nationalised rail service, and run them very well. We also have EDF (French state owned) company building our nuclear power stations as none of our other privatised companies appear able. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb2 Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 3 minutes ago, iamnumerate said: The reason why Ayn Rand looks attractive is because of the flaws in the current system. The way to stop us going down that awful road is to deal with the flaws in the current system. Attacking people who complain about the flaws as having a UKIP agenda or mentioning the Daily Mail is a good way to ensure they are not fixed and move us closer to the Ayn Rand agenda. Also I would like to know what ideas someone in the UK have said is hard left* but are not regarded by hard left. (And dislike of a flaw in the current system does not mean that you think it is hard left. I don't like the current system, I don't think it is hard left, just too complicated to run on a national scale and all reforms make it more complicated). You see, I would say it's Ayn Rand's dystopian vision that has guided us over the last 40 years to where we are today. It's purely about the self and without any ethics. Not what Adam Smith projected at all - he foresaw the greed. Adam Smith "An important theme that persists throughout the work is the idea that the economic system is automatic, and, when left with substantial freedom, able to regulate itself. This is often referred to as the "invisible hand." The ability to self-regulate and to ensure maximum efficiency, however, is limited by externalities, monopolies, tax preferences, lobbying groups, and other "privileges" extended to certain members of the economy at the expense of others." On your last paragraph. I can't cite anything as a quote - just interpret things as I see them - I say again, it depends on where you stand. I am not sure whether this right/left political thing is fit for purpose any more. We need an entirely new system and greed that harms should be punished by prison (state run, not private). Another quote "Development of capitalism has arrived at a stage when, although commodity production still “reigns” and continues to be regarded as the basis of economic life, it has in reality been undermined and the bulk of the profits go to the “geniuses” of financial manipulation. At the basis of these manipulations and swindles lies socialised production; but the immense progress of mankind, which achieved this socialisation, goes to benefit . . . the speculators... “On these grounds” reactionary, petty-bourgeois critics of capitalist imperialism dream of going back to “free”, “peaceful”, and “honest” competition. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 minute ago, PopGun said: Well some still have a nationalised rail service, and run them very well. We also have EDF (French state owned) company building our nuclear power stations as none of our other privatised companies appear able. Is that a view that is hard left? I don't think that a nationalized rail service is a bad idea (I am in favour of natural monopolies being nationalized, although I am not sure it should be an immediate or medium term priority. It should not have been privatized though). I don't think I am hard left. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 1 hour ago, jonb2 said: The problem with the Ayn Rand lunatics is they have no imagination or appreciation of greed dynamics. Let's privatise the world. Let corporate monopolies rule. Let's have the rule of the gun - as we want no governing board to oversee law and order. Let the poor die as they deserve it for not being gold medal winning money-grubbers. Take the US private prison. What a racket. It would benefit society if there were less criminals - but giving huge wads of money to the money grubbers means that even minor misdemeanours make money - thus perpetuating the gravy train and incarcerating people for non-payment of parking fines is common. Or the opioid crisis, or the sub-prime scandal, or the libor scandal - welcome to the world of libertarian free-markets in action. And this is with some regulation - can you imagine what it would be like without an overseer? Have a look here for Meerkat's world of freeing the markets. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_corporate_collapses_and_scandals Lovely. The only solution is then to all take their wealth and set up their prefered vision without any inconveniences such as democracy. Oh wait that would mean forming a society.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 2 minutes ago, jonb2 said: You see, I would say it's Ayn Rand's dystopian vision that has guided us over the last 40 years to where we are today. It's purely about the self and without any ethics. Not what Adam Smith projected at all - he foresaw the greed. I am not sure that is true. I don't think any Politician has said it is ok to get money dishonestly for example. (It depends on what you mean by ethics I guess). 2 minutes ago, jonb2 said: I am not sure whether this right/left political thing is fit for purpose any more. I agree with you about left and right wing. The term comes from the French revolution and most politicians even Thatcher would be "left wing" in being anti an absolute monarchy. I would write more but don't have the time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CommyTooper Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 8 hours ago, iamnumerate said: Then why did he quote from Mao? McDonell quoted Mao because he had to prove he was not a comedian.......that’s my cash in hand evening work by the way.....any bookings accepted, even for men only functions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iamnumerate Posted January 31, 2018 Share Posted January 31, 2018 43 minutes ago, CommyTooper said: McDonell quoted Mao because he had to prove he was not a comedian.......that’s my cash in hand evening work by the way.....any bookings accepted, even for men only functions. You are funnier than he was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meerkat Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 On 1/30/2018 at 9:51 PM, PopGun said: You can’t provide an exanple simply because there isn’t one. Yet you seem to insist that something you have very little idea about, exposition to and no experience is definitely inferior. You are quite right in the sense that many places that were closer to a free market some time ago have been on a slippery slope towards a system that is increasingly dominated by state interventions and socialism (Switzerland and Hong Kong sadly fit that bill). The starkest example is probably the U.S. of A. Up until the establishment of the Fed in 1913, it was probably as close as you have ever had a major country represent a free market in practice. Go and compare how the US did vs the rest of the world up until early 1970s when the last free market shackles were removed (complete abandoning of gold standard). And let me know if you can figure it out why the economic well-being of your average US family has not improved since then and why the US have lost their relative might. As Hayek wrote in "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism": "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb2 Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 29 minutes ago, Meerkat said: Yet you seem to insist that something you have very little idea about, exposition to and no experience is definitely inferior. You are quite right in the sense that many places that were closer to a free market some time ago have been on a slippery slope towards a system that is increasingly dominated by state interventions and socialism (Switzerland and Hong Kong sadly fit that bill). The starkest example is probably the U.S. of A. Up until the establishment of the Fed in 1913, it was probably as close as you have ever had a major country represent a free market in practice. Go and compare how the US did vs the rest of the world up until early 1970s when the last free market shackles were removed (complete abandoning of gold standard). And let me know if you can figure it out why the economic well-being of your average US family has not improved since then and why the US have lost their relative might. As Hayek wrote in "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism": "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account." Free markets don't exist. They are open to abuse by both the greedy and corrupt. Since the late 70s, deregulation, lobbied for by wealthy corporate interests have lead to where we are today - a kleptocracy enabled by dropping the game's rules. The trouble with people like Hayek is that they never built humans into their theories. It was all numbers, fine for the Borg, but not how history has taught us humans behave. Bad people will find anyway round doing the right thing if there's a bent shortcut to be had. I say again - free markets are a myth, they depend on good behaviour. Which is why governments had to get involved. Now the politicos are owned by the VIs of mega corporations, there is no way to compete without a bunch of money and influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kosmin Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 On 31/01/2018 at 10:54 AM, jonb2 said: The problem with the Ayn Rand lunatics is they have no imagination or appreciation of greed dynamics. Let's privatise the world. Let corporate monopolies rule. Let's have the rule of the gun - as we want no governing board to oversee law and order. Let the poor die as they deserve it for not being gold medal winning money-grubbers. Take the US private prison. What a racket. It would benefit society if there were less criminals - but giving huge wads of money to the money grubbers means that even minor misdemeanours make money - thus perpetuating the gravy train and incarcerating people for non-payment of parking fines is common. Or the opioid crisis, or the sub-prime scandal, or the libor scandal - welcome to the world of libertarian free-markets in action. And this is with some regulation - can you imagine what it would be like without an overseer? In many ways the current system is the worst of both worlds. The examples of you give - private prisons in particular - are of private enterprise and government working together to exploit the masses. They would be unable to do this under a true libertarian system. In some cases - such as prisons - there should simply be a realisation that these operate outside of capitalism (law and order is one of the few functions of the nightwatchman state). In others there simply mustn't be an opportunity for businesses to work with government. In a "privatised world" as envisaged by Rand and others, there would not be these sources of corruption, which would be good. There might be greater inequality, which is bad. But it is not actually obvious that inequality would be greater (some inequality is due to governments allowing the accumulation of wealth, but some is also due to corruptly facilitating monopolies). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PopGun Posted March 9, 2018 Share Posted March 9, 2018 (edited) 2 hours ago, Meerkat said: Yet you seem to insist that something you have very little idea about, exposition to and no experience is definitely inferior. You are quite right in the sense that many places that were closer to a free market some time ago have been on a slippery slope towards a system that is increasingly dominated by state interventions and socialism (Switzerland and Hong Kong sadly fit that bill). The starkest example is probably the U.S. of A. Up until the establishment of the Fed in 1913, it was probably as close as you have ever had a major country represent a free market in practice. Go and compare how the US did vs the rest of the world up until early 1970s when the last free market shackles were removed (complete abandoning of gold standard). And let me know if you can figure it out why the economic well-being of your average US family has not improved since then and why the US have lost their relative might. As Hayek wrote in "The Fatal Conceit: The Errors of Socialism": "The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine they can design. To the naive mind that can conceive of order only as the product of deliberate arrangement, it may seem absurd that in complex conditions order, and adaptation to the unknown, can be achieved more effectively by decentralizing decisions and that a division of authority will actually extend the possibility of overall order. Yet that decentralization actually leads to more information being taken into account." More hot air BS. The concept of the American dream peaked in the 50s. That’s when all of today’s crumbling infrastructure was built. Guess what the effective tax and spending rates where... It was neo con politics that set the long road to decline, not some mythical abandonment of free markets.. Seriously just admit you have no answer, rather than painting yourself further into a corner with your conceited fantasy laden dogma. Edited March 9, 2018 by PopGun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meerkat Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 On 3/9/2018 at 8:58 PM, jonb2 said: Free markets don't exist. They are open to abuse by both the greedy and corrupt. Since the late 70s, deregulation, lobbied for by wealthy corporate interests have lead to where we are today - a kleptocracy enabled by dropping the game's rules. Free markets do exist wherever they are allowed to and to the extent they are allowed to by the state bureaucracy. Wherever resources are privately owned (and their application is not dictated by a fuehrer), you will see free market play out with the consumer determining who will stay in the game. The discussion is about where it is beneficial to get the state involved and where - not. The second part of what you said above is again from the "are you being serious?" compartment. So you would assert there is no corruption and abuse with heavy bureaucracy and massive centralised resource re-allocation thru taxation and banking, monetary system set-up? In fact, your statement there is almost an oxymoron - indeed, corporate interests in the shape of economic fascism (i.e. state sponsored) are much to blame for many problems. It has nothing to do with free markets in the first place. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb2 Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Meerkat said: Free markets do exist wherever they are allowed to and to the extent they are allowed to by the state bureaucracy. Wherever resources are privately owned (and their application is not dictated by a fuehrer), you will see free market play out with the consumer determining who will stay in the game. The discussion is about where it is beneficial to get the state involved and where - not. The second part of what you said above is again from the "are you being serious?" compartment. So you would assert there is no corruption and abuse with heavy bureaucracy and massive centralised resource re-allocation thru taxation and banking, monetary system set-up? In fact, your statement there is almost an oxymoron - indeed, corporate interests in the shape of economic fascism (i.e. state sponsored) are much to blame for many problems. It has nothing to do with free markets in the first place. Banking works on your free market principle. In fact Wall Street's greed is testament to how wrong you are. The less regulation, the more corruption. I pointed out that Adam Smith earlier, the hallowed father of free markets said that they would need over-seeing for the very reason of greed destroying the concept. But you choose to ignore this. You think that free markets are self-regulating - self-policing. Bit like the media, big pharma, the defence industry, the gun industry, the alcohol business, banks, hedge funds, the big tech companies etc. Dream on. There's a dead science fiction writer that wants to know if you will join his cult. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meerkat Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 On 3/9/2018 at 10:20 PM, PopGun said: More hot air BS. The concept of the American dream peaked in the 50s. That’s when all of today’s crumbling infrastructure was built. Guess what the effective tax and spending rates where... It was neo con politics that set the long road to decline, not some mythical abandonment of free markets.. Seriously just admit you have no answer, rather than painting yourself further into a corner with your conceited fantasy laden dogma. Oh really. BS & mythical abandonment - are you serious? I present you some facts and all you come back with is - it's BS. Did the Fed exist before 1913? No, it did not. Check what taxes were and how they gradually were increased since the credit implosion of 1929. The American dream in principle peaked in early 20th century - it has been on a slide since the Fed and especially since the abandonment of any reference to honest money with Bretton Woods ditched and initiation of runaway deficit spending by the American government. So, just to clarify, I have no answer to what exactly? Getting a bit lost Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meerkat Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 minute ago, jonb2 said: Banking works on your free market principle. In fact Wall Street's greed is testament to how wrong you are. The less regulation, the more corruption. Really - so what is the monetary system? Do you have a clue how fractional reserve banking works and if fiat is the means of exchange and store of value what laissez fair market would choose if given choice? You start with a corrupted, state enforced system in the first place and then blame the consequences on free market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonb2 Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 2 minutes ago, Meerkat said: Really - so what is the monetary system? Do you have a clue how fractional reserve banking works and if fiat is the means of exchange and store of value what laissez fair market would choose if given choice? You start with a corrupted, state enforced system in the first place and then blame the consequences on free market? Ah yes. But you assume the corporates don't own the system. They do. Plus, what happens when you have a monopoly - are you a Peter Thiel/Warren Buffet fan that thinks monopolies are good and the pinnacle result of free markets? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Sacks Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 24 minutes ago, Meerkat said: Really - so what is the monetary system? Do you have a clue how fractional reserve banking works and if fiat is the means of exchange and store of value what laissez fair market would choose if given choice? You start with a corrupted, state enforced system in the first place and then blame the consequences on free market? LOL! It's been corrupted by deregulation. 3-6-3 banking was relatively stable by today's standards. It's not what you use as money it's all about who controls the quantity. The free market has been handed the reins and withing 40 years their asset base is multiples of their sovereign's GDP. They have even managed to socialise the risk, after they completely externalised it, of course. Edited March 12, 2018 by dom Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doomed Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 35 minutes ago, dom said: LOL! It's been corrupted by deregulation. 3-6-3 banking was relatively stable by today's standards. It's not what you use as money it's all about who controls the quantity. The free market has been handed the reins and withing 40 years their asset base is multiples of their sovereign's GDP. They have even managed to socialise the risk, after they completely externalised it, of course. It is so far from a free market that I can only assume you are a moron or paid by the state/banks to post such nonsense. Try opening your own bank or printing your own bank notes and see what happens. Banking is a state enforced monopoly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 On 1/31/2018 at 11:17 AM, PopGun said: Well some still have a nationalised rail service, and run them very well. We also have EDF (French state owned) company building our nuclear power stations as none of our other privatised companies appear able. http://www.cityam.com/275616/edf-share-price-plunges-french-energy-giant-cuts-2018 It's not built yet . imho it's actually quite sensible to get them to build it. Overruns are backstopped by the French govt (that only owns a stake and not the whole lot) and if there's ever (god forbid) an accident the UK govt can blame it on someone else. Really though its even smarter to just pull power through the undersea cable and leave the French to deal with all the generation, waste disposal and decommissioning issues. With respect to public transport the UK has privatised it and it suffers some of the highest fares in Europe - but the issue isn't that privatisation isn't efficient, it's simply that the government isn't subsiding the costs... quite as much. Railways weren't even built by the state in the first instance. Under nationalisation things were so dire that passenger journeys actually fell! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_rail_transport_in_Great_Britain The rail network itself is owned by a not for dividend company which I didn't know before reading the above link. I dare say the biggest obstacle to further railway improvement is the employees (they don't want in-cab signalling for instance because their jobs would be one step closer to automation). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHorseWaits-NoMore Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 (edited) 17 minutes ago, adarmo said: With respect to public transport the UK has privatised it and it suffers some of the highest fares in Europe - but the issue isn't that privatisation isn't efficient, it's simply that the government isn't subsiding the costs... quite as much. Here's some more related links and supporting info in this thread: Edited March 12, 2018 by DarkHorseWaits-NoMore add links Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
adarmo Posted March 12, 2018 Share Posted March 12, 2018 1 hour ago, DarkHorseWaits-NoMore said: Here's some more related links and supporting info in this thread: Interesting link. Check this out though. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_subsidies#Europe Select Europe: Per passenger mile I think we're the most efficient. By a long way. Country Subsidy in billions of Euros Year Billion passenger-km travelled in 2014[7] Germany 17.0 2014[8] 79.3 France 13.2 2013[9] 83.9 Italy 7.6 2012[10] 39.7 Switzerland 5.8 2012[11] 18.4 Spain 5.1 2015[12] 24.5 United Kingdom 4.4 2016[13] 65.1 Belgium 2.8 2012[14] 10.8 Netherlands 2.5 2014[15] 17 Austria 2.3 2009[5] 11.4 Denmark 1.7 2008[5] 5.8 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DarkHorseWaits-NoMore Posted March 13, 2018 Share Posted March 13, 2018 On that metric, India's railway dwarfs our efficiency at 1147 Bn passanger-kilometers for just a $5.8Bn subsidy.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_rail_usage I guess we just need to pack em in at a higher density . Yet the UK rail user (with a +30% taxpayer price subsidy) still pays 5 to 7 times more than European users. Something doesn't add up.http://metro.co.uk/2018/01/02/uk-rail-fares-five-times-higher-europe-7196333/ http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/british-rail-passengers-rpice-hike-train-fares-europe-income-southern-virgin-gwr-a7506711.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.