David Campbell Bannerman running for leader

Millennium3 · 25-06-2006, 03:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Intbel

Quote:

Originally Posted by Millennium3

Do all Celts have the suffix -ski?

I always thought 'ski' was a Russian or Polish suffix.
Celts tend to have the prefix 'Mc' or 'Mac'.

It was intended as an amusing comment.

Britannist · 25-06-2006, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Andrew Constantine

Previous comments have blithely ignored the important constitutional principle that all party leaders in the UK must be either Scottish by descent or birth.

Hence Messrs Blair, Brown, Campbell and Cameron are in office as party leaders (and they certainly haven't got these top jobs by their talents or achivement in other spheres of life). On this basis, Mr CB is a dead cert to be UKIP#s chairman.

Does not the forum look foward to the day when Englishmen and women may become leaders of their own English nation?

It is a fact that if Nigel (Farage) becomes UKIP leader he will be the only leader of a UK political party which has seats in Brussels or the Commons who is not at least 50% of Scottish, Ulster Scottish, Northern Irish, Irish, Welsh or Scottish Irish origin (apart from the UK Green Party leader - as I understand it they don't have a leader as such, anyway).

DavidOfKent · 03-07-2006, 08:45 PM

Rail privatisation and 'Save The X Line' are not contradictory ideas or a 180 degree U-turn as it seems is suggested here. Railway privatisation has allowed many micro-franchises as they're called; local branch lines run independently, such as the Wenslydale Railway. This is impossible under a nationalised system, but are the very basis of a private one. Those lines saved independently in the past, such as the Bluebell Railway, faced constant awkwardness and blocks from BR and the Ministry, with many schemes sadly failing. This is now a thing of the past. A private system fosters this enterprise.

A privatised network simply means unprofitable companies would close due to bankrupcy, but many small lines are only unprofitable due to bad central management. A bit like the EU really. Centralised bureaucrats meddling, making costs higher, service poorer, then cutting and running.

Furthermore, many unprofitable lines would be kept on if tied to mainline companies due to competition from rivals. For example, in the late 1800s there was frantic branch line building - most losing money or being poor returns for capital - to stop rival neighbouring mainlines entering what one deemed their 'territory'. If they didn't build and run it, the other would and steal passengers and goods. Under a state monopoly, there's no point as there is no competition, so they are simply closed. If you look at the big waves of closures, they follow this; the forced grouping into 'the Big Four' regional companies in 1923, nationalisation in 1948, and then the central government's 'Beeching Modernisation Plan' in the 1960s.

Rail privatisation wasn't done entirely correctly however. I feel franchises should have been smaller, so there's true competition. For example, here in Kent, in 1896 we had two companies running trains; SER and LCDR, with lines overlapping in places [they still do]. Canterbury, Ashford, Dover, Folkestone, Ashford, Maidstone and several other towns had both companies serving them, most rural farmers had access to both. The result was competition on cost, quality, service and speed. It's all one now, so no choice, no competition. As many drive to the station today the competition had they been split back would have been even more intense.

So there you have it...off topic but felt I had to.

Bluemerle · 04-07-2006, 10:07 AM

Ski's Dad came over from Poland and worked as a miner. (can't remember if it was before the war). No doubt he will tell all in his election leaflet.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

03-07-2006, 08:45 PM	#23 (permalink)
DavidOfKent Junior Member Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: Faversham Posts: 47	Rail privatisation and 'Save The X Line' are not contradictory ideas or a 180 degree U-turn as it seems is suggested here. Railway privatisation has allowed many micro-franchises as they're called; local branch lines run independently, such as the Wenslydale Railway. This is impossible under a nationalised system, but are the very basis of a private one. Those lines saved independently in the past, such as the Bluebell Railway, faced constant awkwardness and blocks from BR and the Ministry, with many schemes sadly failing. This is now a thing of the past. A private system fosters this enterprise. A privatised network simply means unprofitable companies would close due to bankrupcy, but many small lines are only unprofitable due to bad central management. A bit like the EU really. Centralised bureaucrats meddling, making costs higher, service poorer, then cutting and running. Furthermore, many unprofitable lines would be kept on if tied to mainline companies due to competition from rivals. For example, in the late 1800s there was frantic branch line building - most losing money or being poor returns for capital - to stop rival neighbouring mainlines entering what one deemed their 'territory'. If they didn't build and run it, the other would and steal passengers and goods. Under a state monopoly, there's no point as there is no competition, so they are simply closed. If you look at the big waves of closures, they follow this; the forced grouping into 'the Big Four' regional companies in 1923, nationalisation in 1948, and then the central government's 'Beeching Modernisation Plan' in the 1960s. Rail privatisation wasn't done entirely correctly however. I feel franchises should have been smaller, so there's true competition. For example, here in Kent, in 1896 we had two companies running trains; SER and LCDR, with lines overlapping in places [they still do]. Canterbury, Ashford, Dover, Folkestone, Ashford, Maidstone and several other towns had both companies serving them, most rural farmers had access to both. The result was competition on cost, quality, service and speed. It's all one now, so no choice, no competition. As many drive to the station today the competition had they been split back would have been even more intense. So there you have it...off topic but felt I had to.

04-07-2006, 10:07 AM	#24 (permalink)
Bluemerle Uber Member Join Date: Jan 2005 Location: Dorset. Posts: 3,252	Ski's Dad came over from Poland and worked as a miner. (can't remember if it was before the war). No doubt he will tell all in his election leaflet.