 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / September 2008Hornby price increases
Hornby have just announced price increases from 1st September across its Hornby, Scalextric and Airfix brands. The majority od increases will be in the range 5 - 7½%, but certain products may be slightly higher. They claim to have had no option and the increases reflect global increases in raw materuals & general production costs. This is the second price increase Hornby have announced since their original 2008 catalogue and price list were issued in January.  SignatureMany thanks & best wishes, John, 53A Models, Hull, UK. <snip> > This is the second price increase Hornby have announced since their > original 2008 catalogue and price list were issued in January. If the pound keeps failing against world currencies it's going to make bother Hornby dash for china rather foolish... SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If the pound keeps failing against world currencies it's going to make > bother Hornby dash for china rather foolish... China is going to cost them an extra £2,000,000 this year ! If Hornby did go crash who do you think would pick up the pieces ? > If Hornby did go crash who do you think would pick up the pieces ? I can't see that happening, or at least not in the immediate term, but if it did then I suspect Bachmann would have enough global resources to swallow them up and not notice the cash drain. John. >> If Hornby did go crash who do you think would pick up the pieces ? > > I can't see that happening, or at least not in the immediate term, > but if it did then I suspect Bachmann would have enough global > resources to swallow them up and not notice the cash drain. I thought that Bachmann also had many fingers in China though, the point (that you snipped) was about the value of the GBP against other currencies, Bachmann is in the same boat as Hornby in this respect surely... Has Hornby kept any UK based injection moulding facilities or have they ripped it all out for extra warehousing space? SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > I thought that Bachmann also had many fingers in China though, the point > (that you snipped) was about the value of the GBP against other > currencies, Bachmann is in the same boat as Hornby in this respect surely Bachmann is part of Hong Kong-based Kader Industries, of which model railways is but a small part. They also own their own factories, unlike Hornby. John. >> I thought that Bachmann also had many fingers in China though, the >> point (that you snipped) was about the value of the GBP against [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > railways is but a small part. They also own their own factories, > unlike Hornby. Whooossssshhhhh..... But they are still at the mercy of currency exchange rates. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > But they are still at the mercy of currency exchange rates. Indeed, but not at the mercy of some third party manufacturer. I suspect they are able to control their costs more readily than Hornby. John. >> But they are still at the mercy of currency exchange rates. > > Indeed, but not at the mercy of some third party manufacturer. I > suspect they are able to control their costs more readily than > Hornby. Rubbish, and we have not taken shipping cost into account yet... SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > Rubbish, and we have not taken shipping cost into account yet... Really? Which part of my comment was rubbish? Shippings costs are an insignificant component in the price of any railway model. It's not that long since it cost less to ship a 45' container from China to Southampton, than the same container cost to move on to Manchester. Figures of GBP100.00 and 125.00 respectively were quoted (around five years ago from memory). You can get an awful lot of model locos in such a container, so even if they've tripled the cost per item is small. John. >> Rubbish, and we have not taken shipping cost into account yet... > > Really? Which part of my comment was rubbish? The part about the UK not being able to control supply and manufacturing costs. > Shippings costs are an insignificant component in the price of any > railway model. No they are not, a 45ft container is a 45ft container, it's matter no one jot what is inside it. It's not that long since it cost less to ship a 45' container from > China to Southampton, than the same container cost to move on to > Manchester. Except that one would not be moving 45ft containers *into the UK* if Hornby were still manufacturing in Margate! > Figures of GBP100.00 and 125.00 respectively were quoted (around > five years ago from memory). You can get an awful lot of model > locos in such a container, so even if they've tripled the cost per > item is small. That's GBP225.00 extra on the cost (remember that they need to pay both for the China > Southampton and Southampton > Margate/warehouse), *if* the costs have tripled that's ~ GBP700 that you need to get back before you even start to sell the items... SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... >>> Rubbish, and we have not taken shipping cost into account yet... >> Shippings costs are an insignificant component in the price of any >> railway model. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > *if* the costs have tripled that's ~ GBP700 that you need to get back > before you even start to sell the items... A 40ft (smaller than above) container has internal volume of 12m x 2.3m x 2.4m, which is 66.24 cubic meters and a payload of 26 tonnes. A typical Hornby model box is 40cm x 15cm x10cm, or 0.006 cubic meters (John can correct me if the box size is way out, he'll have a shop full of them!). So, dividing one volume by another, 11,040 boxes inside the container. With 26 tonnes of payload, the weight is only exceeded if the box is more than 2.3kg. I don't think model train items are that heavy (!), so the limiting factor is volume. At £700 transport, that is GBP0.063 per item. Even if the cardboard cases, pallets, etc. half the number of model boxes in the container, its still only 12.6p per box. Is that really significant on purchase price ? The incredibly low cost of moving containers around is one reason there is so many cheap Chinese products in shops (not just model shops, but everything). - Nigel SignatureNigel Cliffe, Webmaster at http://www.2mm.org.uk/ > The part about the UK not being able to control supply and manufacturing > costs. But I didn't say that. All I said was that Bachmann: 'are able to control their costs more readily than Hornby' and that because they have their own factories whereas Hornby rely on a third party to produce their models. John. > No they are not, a 45ft container is a 45ft container, it's matter no one > jot what is inside it. Of course it matters what's inside of it. If you had one Bachmann OO-scale model inside then the whole cost of shipping the container would be charged to the one model. If you have ten thousand locos inside said container then the cost is shared between all ten thousand. > Except that one would not be moving 45ft containers *into the UK* if > Hornby were still manufacturing in Margate! I never suggested otherwise. > That's GBP225.00 extra on the cost (remember that they need to pay both > for the China > Southampton and Southampton > Margate/warehouse), *if* the > costs have tripled that's ~ GBP700 that you need to get back before you > even start to sell the items... I believe Hornby ship into London (not Southampton) and I only gave the Southampton figures because I had them to hand. Even so if the cost of shipping has tripled to GBP700 and there are 10,000 items in the container then the extra cost per item is only GBP0.07 per item - not exactly significant in the overall picture. John >> But they are still at the mercy of currency exchange rates. > > Indeed, but not at the mercy of some third party manufacturer. I suspect > they are able to control their costs more readily than Hornby. > > John. Not so sure about that, Bachmann UK may have the ability to ask for a spec at a set price but have to accept what they are given - they can hardly say to their parernt company no thanks we'll take our custom elsewhere. Whereas Hornby could spread their manufacturing between several factories and if they dont like one then move to another. Cheers, Simon > Not so sure about that, Bachmann UK may have the ability to ask for a spec > at a set price but have to accept what they are given - they can hardly > say to their parernt company no thanks we'll take our custom elsewhere. No but there should be a desire by the parent company to allow their subsidiaries to be as competitive as possible bearing in mind market conditions. They may be able to ride out a storm better in the short term. > Whereas Hornby could spread their manufacturing between several factories > and if they dont like one then move to another. Which of course Hornby Group do, with various ranges manufactured not only in China, but India and in the UK too, but they are still beholden to third party manufacturers, and it may not be too easy to replace them in the short term. John. > "simon" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > party manufacturers, and it may not be too easy to replace them in the short > term. Especially when an existing manufacturer could be "difficult" over returning moulds and tools. I believe there was some concern along these lines when Hornby were taking over Airfix, but all the moulds were in possesion of the French company that went under (and thus in possesion og=f the French receivers). Andrew >> Not so sure about that, Bachmann UK may have the ability to ask for a >> spec at a set price but have to accept what they are given - they can [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > conditions. They may be able to ride out a storm better in the short > term. True there should be, but the global companies I've suffered or heard about dont work like that. They are run and staffed by individuals who tend to have their own agendas for making themselves and there own areas look good and to hell with anyone else. >> Whereas Hornby could spread their manufacturing between several factories >> and if they dont like one then move to another. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > John. Again true, but they can write contracts which cover certain eventualities, but most important its beneficial to both parties to work together. they have the incentive that money doesnt change hands unless targets are reached. Its one of the reasons that certain services are best contracted out rather than managed in house. Cheers, Simon >>> Not so sure about that, Bachmann UK may have the ability to ask for a >>> spec at a set price but have to accept what they are given - they can [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > have their own agendas for making themselves and there own areas look good > and to hell with anyone else. Just like the government... [...] Signaturewolf k. >>>> Not so sure about that, Bachmann UK may have the ability to ask for a >>>> spec at a set price but have to accept what they are given - they can [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > [...] Yep and theyre the worst cos they cant sack anyone - just promote them somewhere else. Even this government has realised contracting out can be much better than in house. unfortunately however, this government couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag. Appearences is everything, results nothing. Now Margeret Thatcher - oh thats a diofferent group. Cheers, Simon <snip> > Yep and theyre the worst cos they cant sack anyone - just promote > them somewhere else. Even this government has realised contracting > out can be much better than in house. unfortunately however, this > government couldnt manage their way out of a paper bag. Appearences > is everything, results nothing. Now Margeret Thatcher - oh thats a > diofferent group. Sure they have! I suspect outside contractors who are loosing personal, sensitive data as if it's confetti has actually done the exact opposite - and don't suggest that it's a 'Nu-Labour' thing, Thatcher and her cronies were doing the exact same (except they just lost briefcases rather than DVD/CDs, they also managed to hush things up a bit more) back in the 1980s. The ONLY solution is to bring all work back within government departments, if outside specialist have to be employed they should be contracted to the civil-service on short term contacts and all work done within secure offices. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > <snip> >> Yep and theyre the worst cos they cant sack anyone - just promote them [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > civil-service on short term contacts and all work done within secure > offices. Sorry missed the original reference to losing data. Was thinking more on the lines of the exam marking fiasco. Seems the outside contracter made a complete and utter hash of it yet the contract was terminated by mutual agreement Cheers, Simon >> <snip> >>> Yep and theyre the worst cos they cant sack anyone - just promote [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Sorry missed the original reference to losing data. Was thinking > more on the I don't think there was one... > lines of the exam marking fiasco. Seems the outside contracter made > a complete and utter hash of it yet the contract was terminated by > mutual agreement ...hmm, I think I might have miss understood your point, yes HMG can sack outside contractors easier than if they were employed by the civil service but (and this was my point), and it's a big 'but', the opposite side of the coin is that data - of what sort - is more difficult to monitor. Remember, the only people who keep telling us, commerce and HMG, that contracting out is better than in-house data processing are the contractors looking for work and an easy 'buck'... SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... >>>>> Not so sure about that, Bachmann UK may have the ability to ask for a >>>>> spec at a set price but have to accept what they are given - they can [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > Cheers, > Simon And what makes you think corporations sack anyone other than the drones at the bottom? Once you reach a certain level, you are "fired upstairs" or "promoted sideways", both time-honoured methods of dumping deadwood onto other poor saps. 'Nother problem is that corporations waste a helluva lot of money with no public oversight and usually not even awareness. There's just increased prices to the consumers, to make up for money-wasting mistakes. Bureaucracies are all alike, It matters not where the money to support them comes from. The differentiation between public and private money is a chimera. There's only one wallet. And Maggie Thatcher had it wrong: consolidating small local governments into larger administrative bodies does not increase efficiency - it just makes the senior bureaucracies even larger, and gives them more power, because they have larger junior bodies to oversee. In fact Maggie, like a number of other right-wing, "common sense" dingbats in other "developed" countries was hoodwinked by the senior bureaucracy, for whom "efficiency in government" meant a golden opportunity for creating ever bigger personal empires. Bah! (I'm feeling more curmudgeonly than usual tonight. Try a dose of curmudgeonitis. Feels good, don't it? ;-)) Signaturewolf k. >>>>>> Not so sure about that, Bachmann UK may have the ability to ask >>>>>> for a spec at a set price but have to accept what they are given [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > senior bureaucracy, for whom "efficiency in government" meant a > golden opportunity for creating ever bigger personal empires. A minor point but it was actually the Edward Heath administration which created the regional super authorities and the smaller local ones weren't abolished, they just ceased to be as relevant. What Thatcher did was take away from those regional and local authorities the right to make any spending decisions with which central government did not agree. (kim) [...] > A minor point but it was actually the Edward Heath administration which > created the regional super authorities and the smaller local ones weren't [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > (kim) Thanks for the correction. Anyhow, the mania for "efficiency" drifted across the Atlantic, and infected our politicians, too. The semantic trick was to equate efficiency with saving money, which is not the same thing. If efficiency == saving money, then you are most efficient when you spend no money at all.... which is absurd, as my teacher used to say in math class. ;-) Signaturewolf k. >>>>>> Not so sure about that, Bachmann UK may have the ability to ask for a >>>>>> spec at a set price but have to accept what they are given - they can [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > just increased prices to the consumers, to make up for money-wasting > mistakes. Not the corporations I've suffered, they sack left right and centre with the occasional purge from top to bottom. The really seriuos clearouts ones being when they merge or take over. of course those at the top get a nice fat packet to go away with - theres a big difference. > Bah! (I'm feeling more curmudgeonly than usual tonight. Try a dose of > curmudgeonitis. Feels good, don't it? ;-)) Cheers, Simon > Now Margeret Thatcher - oh thats a diofferent group. Ah yes, if it moves privatise it, if it doesn't move, kick it until it does and then privatise it. We've really seen the benefits of privatisation of late. A railway network which costs four or five times what it did when in public hands. Gas and electric prices escalating out of mosts people's level of affordability (and don't tell me that nationalised utilities would be going down the same route), same with water and so on ................ John. >> Now Margeret Thatcher - oh thats a diofferent group. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > John. Yeah, but just think of the profits accumulating in your private, equity-based pension plan.... Signaturewolf k. > Yeah, but just think of the profits accumulating in your private, > equity-based pension plan.... Doesn't seem to work that way - the value of my pension plan is down 20% in the past year. John. > "Wolf Kirchmeir" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Doesn't seem to work that way - the value of my pension plan is down 20% in > the past year. Then you need to take a serious look at what the feck the fund manager is playing at, especially if you have been paying premiums over that time. I have a number of plans that I no longer pay into, they are all down, but nothing like 20% year on year August - August. I don't know the figure for the one I'm actively funding, but I'm sure it's nothing like 20% down. MBQ >> Yeah, but just think of the profits accumulating in your private, >> equity-based pension plan.... [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John. Sorry but if that means youre keeping the shop for lot longer then its good news for us :-) CHeers, Simon <snip> > Yeah, but just think of the profits accumulating in your private, > equity-based pension plan.... Tell that to all those "Equity Life" (sp?) policy holders... SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > <snip> >> >> Yeah, but just think of the profits accumulating in your private, >> equity-based pension plan.... > > Tell that to all those "Equity Life" (sp?) policy holders... In retrospect they did better than people in other companies as they were forced to sell shares before the others did and as a consequence did not lose out as much as the policy holders in other companies. The same happened for Railtrack investors as the FTSE fell substantially after it went bust and before they were compensated based on the pre FTSE fall. Chris >> <snip> >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fell substantially after it went bust and before they were > compensated based on the pre FTSE fall. I thought Railtrack investors didn't get any compensation, due to the company being (effectively) nationalised, as the company went bust - or was compensation paid after court action by share holder, due to the fact that Railtrack was effectively sent bankrupt due to the removal of HMG grants and other payments due? SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... >>> <snip> >>>> Yeah, but just think of the profits accumulating in your private, [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > the fact that Railtrack was effectively sent bankrupt due to the > removal of HMG grants and other payments due? Railtrack was put into Railway Administration by HMG the regulator at the time Tim Winsor drop very broad hints before this happened that he would look very favourable on a review of track access charges. The board of Railtrack did not take the hint and the rest is history. HMG did pay out based on the share price before administration was invoked but not at the level that Railtrack was at before the crisis which is the compensation that shareholders tried to pursue. It took a year or two for the valuation to be agreed. Roger Ford has put his Modern Railway column musings since the turn of the century on his web site http://www.alycidon.com/ALYCIDON%20RAIL/alycidon%20RAIL%20home.htm website. BTW he is the technical journalist at Modern Railways who's presently trying to work out DFt Rails rolling stock cascade plan, Septembers Modern Railways and ePreview at the above website. Back to the subject there's probably some musings in his columns of the period going into the detail. Chris > "simon" wrote > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > don't tell me that nationalised utilities would be going down the same > route), If they didn't, how do you think the shortfall would be made up? MBQ On Aug 27, 7:21 pm, "John Turner" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote: <snip> > We've really seen the benefits of privatisation of late. > A railway network which costs four or five times what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >> If they didn't, how do you think the shortfall would be made up? From not paying frecking great bonuses and dividends to directors/share-holders, also through the previous building of mass storage facilities (something that the private sector is only just, begrudgingly, accepting they will need to invest/build) so that gas can be bought and stored when the world price is low and then used to pad out the supply when the price is high. Don't even start on about the railway system, more public money has been given to private TOCs over the last 16 years than was invested in the nationalised rail system in the last 16 years of BR. What is more, just at the time when more people should have been/should be travelling by public transport the service (in many cases) got worse (who remembers Connex in the south...) whilst ticket prices went through the roof - never mind getting so complicated that people just gave up trying to understand just which trains they could travel on, not only which times they can travel but on which actual trains they can travel on. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... [...] > Don't even start on about the railway system, more public money has > been given to private TOCs over the last 16 years than was invested in > the nationalised rail system in the last 16 years of BR.[...] Well, of course. The purpose of privatisation is to provide profit for the Friends of the Government. <snip> > Well, of course. The purpose of privatisation is to provide profit > for the Friends of the Government. Indeed, what is more annoying though is that Blair and Brown carried on with the policy [1], we are now (as john Turner said) seeing the folly of such policies... [1] excluding the exception made for when Failtrac... sorry I mean, Railtrack, went bust - after killing passengers in the Ladbroke Grove & Hatfield rail crashes in 2000 - when they ran out of money to rectify faulty and poorly designed infrastructure. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > On Aug 27, 7:21 pm, "John Turner" <nos...@nospam.invalid> wrote: > <snip> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > directors/share-holders, also through the previous building of mass > storage facilities (something that the private sector is only just, Power companies should never have been allowed to use North Sea gas to generate power, the policy before BG was privatised when we had an energy policy. > begrudgingly, accepting they will need to invest/build) so that gas > can be bought and stored when the world price is low and then used to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > not only which times they can travel but on which actual trains they > can travel on. That was the privatisation that even Maggie baulked at. Chris <snip> > Power companies should never have been allowed to use North Sea gas > to generate power, the policy before BG was privatised when we had > an energy policy. We should have listened to a certain Arthur Scargill to, which is the real point as to why Maggie allowed NSG (and oil) to be used as a prime energy source power generation... >> Don't even start on about the railway system, <snip> > That was the privatisation that even Maggie baulked at. Unfortunately it was always on the cards, in time she would have, she just chose to sell off the easy stuff first. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > <snip> >> Power companies should never have been allowed to use North Sea gas [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > real point as to why Maggie allowed NSG (and oil) to be used as a > prime energy source power generation... Mr Scargill done Maggies job for her in not having a vote on strike action and causing a split in the union which it never recovered from. >>> Don't even start on about the railway system, > <snip> >> That was the privatisation that even Maggie baulked at. > > Unfortunately it was always on the cards, in time she would have, she > just chose to sell off the easy stuff first. She distinctly said she did not want to do it because of fallout from it going wrong. Think of people using trains, natural tory voters being generally more affluent than the general population. No qualms about privitising the buses as the users were less liekly to vote Tory anyway. Chris >> <snip> >>> Power companies should never have been allowed to use North Sea [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > action and causing a split in the union which it never recovered > from. As may be, we should still have listened to him - even after the strike. >>>> Don't even start on about the railway system, >> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > from it going wrong. Think of people using trains, natural tory > voters being generally more affluent than the general population. Hmm, that reasoning doesn't hold water, she privatised the telecoms industry (BT to those outside the UK) very early on but had that privatisation gone tits-up it would have been even more disastrous for the natural Tory voter than any rail privatisation, at the time many 'working class' didn't have phone lines and those that did often were on 'party lines' - OTOH the City and companies could have lost a vital means of communication! > No qualms about privitising the buses as the users were less liekly > to vote Tory anyway. Well yes, except those living in the country areas, the first casualty of profit before need... >>> <snip> >>>> Power companies should never have been allowed to use North Sea [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > As may be, we should still have listened to him - even after the > strike. He had lost all creditiabiltyby then >>>>> Don't even start on about the railway system, >>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > on 'party lines' - OTOH the City and companies could have lost a vital > means of communication! Look at BT's capitilastion and share price and they are about the same as when it was privatised. >> No qualms about privitising the buses as the users were less liekly >> to vote Tory anyway. > > Well yes, except those living in the country areas, the first casualty > of profit before need... >>>> <snip> >>>>> Power companies should never have been allowed to use North Sea [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >> > He had lost all creditiabiltyby then Due to Thatcher lies, that is the point WE SHOULD have listened, he has been proved right! >>>>>> Don't even start on about the railway system, >>>> <snip> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Look at BT's capitilastion and share price and they are about the > same as when it was privatised. Your point being what? I wasn't thinking of a failure in monetary terms but more like the post Hatfield debacle that crippling of the railway system - if something like that had hit BTs infrastructure it would have crippled general commerce a especially the 'City'. Don't forget how important BT land lines were back then, no mobile phones and the only company allowed (outside of the railways) to install telecom cables was BT. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... >>>> Mr Scargill done Maggies job for her in not having a vote on >>>> strike action and causing a split in the union which it never [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >Due to Thatcher lies, that is the point WE SHOULD have listened, he >has been proved right! Scargill's problem was that he didn't really know how to lead a strike effectively. If the miners had had Mick McGahie (leader of the Scottish miners) as their leader during the strike, then Thatcher would have had a much more formidable opponent who knew how to operate politically. Scargill was his own worst enemy and never took advantage of the many situations in Thatcher's handling of the dispute, even comical occurrences like MacGregor turning up for a meeting with Scargill with a paper bag over his head. Jim. >>>>> Mr Scargill done Maggies job for her in not having a vote on >>>>> strike action and causing a split in the union which it never [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Jim. That's was the point I was trying to make about Scargill. Chris > and the only company allowed (outside of the railways) to install > telecom cables was BT. They had phones in Hull, too. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >> and the only company allowed (outside of the railways) to install >> telecom cables was BT. > > They had phones in Hull, too. If you are going to be pedantic I think you mean "Kingston-upon-Hull"... :~P SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > If you are going to be pedantic I think you mean "Kingston-upon-Hull"... > :~P It's Hull City Council *this* week - will probably by Kingston-upon-Hull City Council next week. No-one here calls the place KUH or even Kingston - it's alway been known here as 'ull, irrespective of its *official* name. John. >> If you are going to be pedantic I think you mean "Kingston-upon-Hull"... >> :~P Using hyphens would be unusual. > It's Hull City Council *this* week - will probably by Kingston-upon-Hull > City Council next week. > > No-one here calls the place KUH or even Kingston - it's alway been known > here as 'ull, irrespective of its *official* name. And the telecoms company covers a wider area than the city council. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >>> If you are going to be pedantic I think you mean >>> "Kingston-upon-Hull"... [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > And the telecoms company covers a wider area than the city council. You mean "Kingston Communications"? SignatureMartin S. > Due to Thatcher lies, that is the point WE SHOULD have listened, he has > been proved right! Indeed, but unless the government listened there would have been little point. John. >> Due to Thatcher lies, that is the point WE SHOULD have listened, he >> has been proved right! > > Indeed, but unless the government listened there would have been > little point. If we *had* listened, Thatcher would not have been re elected in '83 - remember Arthur Scargill (and others) warned us about her true intensions/policies should she be re elected - unfortunately Michael Foot had allowed what has become know as the "Longest suicide note in history" to become the Labour Parties Manifesto whilst the Liberal and SDP parties were splitting the centre left vote, meaning that Thatcher didn't win, the others lost and in no way did she actually obtain a 'mandate for change'. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > Thatcher > didn't win, the others lost and in no way did she actually obtain a > 'mandate for change'. Why single out Thatcher? Exactly the same applies to Tory B Liar and his cronies. Now we have a totally unelected PM. MBQ On Aug 31, 12:33 pm, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote: > Thatcher >> didn't win, the others lost and in no way did she actually >> obtain a 'mandate for change'. > Why single out Thatcher? Exactly the same applies to > Tory B Liar and his cronies. Now we have a totally > unelected PM. Indeed :~( This country badly needs some version of PR. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > This country badly needs some version of PR. Ask a few New Zealanders about that. MBQ On Sep 1, 3:42 pm, "Jerry" <INVA...@INVALID.INVALID> wrote: <snip> >> This country badly needs some version of PR. > Ask a few New Zealanders about that. Why, this is not New Zealand... Yes, PR has it's faults but it does give the electorate a better voice, but the main thing it would do in this country is to break the two party system - something that needs to be done as they are now both signing from the same hymn-sheet, the only difference is the tempo the conductor (PM) is choosing to use... SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > Ask a few New Zealanders about that. Same wherever PR exists - excellent for non-government. John. >> Ask a few New Zealanders about that. > > Same wherever PR exists - excellent for non-government. Governments don't like it because they need to have consensus government rather than "Do as I say, not as I do" movement - which is the norm in any FPTP electoral system. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > > Ask a few New Zealanders about that. > > Same wherever PR exists - excellent for non-government. We need the German attitude - have an election, someone gets into power, but once it's settled *everyone* pulls together for the benefit of all - coopertive government, rather than confrontational goverment. Sadly it takes a war for us to get real.... > John. Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > John. FPTP and PR (as in NZ) are just 2 forms of electing representatives - another method is the Preferential System (as in Aust) where the member is not elected until they have minimum 50% of the vote. Same dog, different leg action perhaps? :) Steve >> Ask a few New Zealanders about that. > > Same wherever PR exists - excellent for non-government. I'm slightly late to this but that's not the case in The Netherlands. Over here it may take them a while to get a cabinet together (*) but they're quite adept at making the same mistakes as a first-past-the-post gov't. In other words, they can govern with a PR system and we can be just as miserable. (*) Unlike Belgium where it takes an aeon :-) -- Rod >> This country badly needs some version of PR. >Ask a few New Zealanders about that. Why pick on NZ? As far as I recall last time I checked Europe had only two countries which did not use some form of PR, the UK and Liechtenstein. I believe Liechtenstein has since changed. The idea that polling 40% of those who bother to vote in some way entitles a party to an absolute majority in Parliament seems to me to be absurd. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound >>> This country badly needs some version of PR. >> Ask a few New Zealanders about that. > > Why pick on NZ? As far as I recall last time I checked Europe had > only two countries which did not use some form of PR, the UK and > Liechtenstein. There is France. At least one country votes on the basis of old men locked in a room and emitting coloured smoke :-) Whatever system they use in Belarus probably doesn't stand up to close inspection. > I believe Liechtenstein has since changed. IIRC they voted to give the prince more personal power. Places like Liechtenstein have noticed that "no taxation without representation" can be read two ways, and can be a trade-off some people are willing to accept. > The idea that polling 40% of those who bother to vote in some way > entitles a party to an absolute majority in Parliament seems to me > to be absurd. But a system which only mathematicians and Liberal Democrats understand may not be perfect, either. FPTP also usually keeps out the nutters, which may or may not be a bad thing (do we really want the BNP on the London Assembly? They don't even make the trains run on time). SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >a system which only mathematicians and Liberal Democrats understand >may not be perfect, either. FPTP also usually keeps out the nutters, >which may or may not be a bad thing I like the single transferable vote system. At least that way if there are three candidates and you're happy with two but definitely not the third, you're more likely to have an MP you support to at least some degree. Guy SignatureMay contain traces of irony. Contents liable to settle after posting. http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk 85% of helmet statistics are made up, 69% of them at CHS, Puget Sound > >a system which only mathematicians and Liberal Democrats understand > >may not be perfect, either. FPTP also usually keeps out the nutters, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not the third, you're more likely to have an MP you support to at > least some degree. Even better is the "none of the above" idea - at least one gets a vote then which is counted and can't be ignored by all concerned, rather than having to just not vote at all which is studiously ignored at present, or labelled conveineiently as "apathy". > Guy Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb <snip> > Even better is the "none of the above" idea - at least one gets > a vote then which is counted and can't be ignored by all concerned, > rather than having to just not vote at all which is studiously > ignored at present, or labelled conveineiently as "apathy". You already have that option, it's called spoiling your ballot paper, all spoilt papers *have* to be counted and recorded - it is not the same as not bothering to vote (apathy). The problem with your suggestion is, someone has to be returned as MP, electing no one is *not* an option! SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > You already have that option, it's called spoiling your ballot paper, all > spoilt papers *have* to be counted and recorded - it is not the same as > not bothering to vote (apathy). The problem with your suggestion is, > someone has to be returned as MP, electing no one is *not* an option! That's correct. If no-one bothered to vote at all, then the election would be decised by the drawing of lots, just as it is when the two highest-polling candidates are tied in the number of votes received. John. >>a system which only mathematicians and Liberal Democrats understand >>may not be perfect, either. FPTP also usually keeps out the nutters, >>which may or may not be a bad thing Unfortunately FPTP *keeps the 'nutters' in* but keeps those with fresh or alternative ideas out from the "There is no other way" mentality that the two party club has now adopted. > I like the single transferable vote system. At least that way if > there are three candidates and you're happy with two but definitely > not the third, you're more likely to have an MP you support to at > least some degree. Indeed, I would also like to make it law so that no MP can stand before the age of 40, this would make sure that MPs have real world experience and thus stop the career politicians we get now, those who went from school/college to Uni' [1] to MP researcher to MP themselves... [1] no doubt studying political science... SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > Indeed, I would also like to make it law so that no MP can stand before > the age of 40, this would make sure that MPs have real world experience > and thus stop the career politicians we get now, those who went from > school/college to Uni' [1] to MP researcher to MP themselves... You could make a similar case for school teachers. John. >> Indeed, I would also like to make it law so that no MP can stand >> before the age of 40, this would make sure that MPs have real world [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > You could make a similar case for school teachers. Indeed, for practical subjects anyway, for theory/academic subjects I don't see the need. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > Indeed, for practical subjects anyway, for theory/academic subjects I > don't see the need. Oh I don't know; surely education is all about equipping young people for life not just academic achievement. If you agree with that premise, then teachers need a wider sphere of experience than just the inside of educational establishments. John. >> Indeed, I would also like to make it law so that no MP can stand before >> the age of 40, this would make sure that MPs have real world experience >> and thus stop the career politicians we get now, those who went from >> school/college to Uni' [1] to MP researcher to MP themselves... > > You could make a similar case for school teachers. Or anything. Except maybe mathematicians and medics. Look how many people moan like mad about teachers struggling to control 30 screaming thugs, yet they themselves can't use their own real world experience to control 2.4 kids who are little angels... SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >>> Indeed, I would also like to make it law so that no MP can stand before >>> the age of 40, this would make sure that MPs have real world experience [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > screaming thugs, yet they themselves can't use their own real world > experience to control 2.4 kids who are little angels... Yes but how many teachers can cope with 30 'others' but not their own ? Cheers, Simon > "Arthur Figgis" <afiggis@example.com.invalid> wrote... >>> [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] >> > Yes but how many teachers can cope with 30 'others' but not their own? How many teachers decide not to have any kids of their own? SignatureMartin S. >> a system which only mathematicians and Liberal Democrats understand >> may not be perfect, either. FPTP also usually keeps out the nutters, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > not the third, you're more likely to have an MP you support to at > least some degree. At the last election for London mayor (not STV), one of the local rags printed two box saying something to the effect of "How to vote 'Anything But Boris'" and one saying "... 'Anything But Ken'" SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK In article <7fcf0c43-14b0-4811-935b-a377041552d0@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, > Now we have a totally unelected PM We have never been able to elect a PM. We elect our local MP and it is the majority party which decides which of their MPs will be PM. Alan Signaturealan.dawes@argonet.co.uk alan.dawes@riscos.org Using an Acorn RiscPC > In article > <7fcf0c43-14b0-4811-935b-a37704155...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > We have never been able to elect a PM. We elect our local MP and it is the > majority party which decides which of their MPs will be PM. In general the electorate know who will be PM before a general election and can make a choice. Do you think Labour would have won the last election if GB were in line for the job immediately rather than some vague promise? MBQ >In general the electorate know who will be PM before a general >election and can make a choice. Do you think Labour would have won the >last election if GB were in line for the job immediately rather than >some vague promise? If I remember correctly, it was felt that Labour won the last election because Gordon Brown was waiting in the wings to take over from Tony Blair. I get the feeling that if the Tories win the next election then Mr Cameron will have done his job and will be promoted sideways to let the preferred leader take over. Me, cynical? :-) Just remember that the Tories have the most experience at shafting their leaders. :-) Jim. > If I remember correctly, it was felt that Labour won the last > election because Gordon Brown was waiting in the wings to take over > from Tony Blair. That sounds familiar. I think we'd all got sick of Blair, but many said at the time that Brown would make Blair look like a really good politician. > I get the feeling that if the Tories win the next election then Mr > Cameron will have done his job and will be promoted sideways to let > the preferred leader take over. Me, cynical? :-) Just remember that > the Tories have the most experience at shafting their leaders. :-) Oh yes - just ask Mrs T. John. <snip> > I get the feeling that if the Tories win the next election God forbid, <FX>shudder</FX> SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... >Now we have a totally unelected PM. When has the British PM ever been elected by the populace? The populace elect members of parliament and these MPs choose their leader. In the party system that operates in the UK, the PM is normally the leader of the political party in power and there are no rules that say that a party leader cannot be changed during a parliament. Jim. >>Now we have a totally unelected PM. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > rules that say that a party leader cannot be changed during a > parliament. Indeed and IIRC the PM doesn't even need to sit in the House of Commons, nor does the PM have to be a party leader - convention says that both are normally the case though. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > there are no rules that say that a party leader cannot be changed during a > parliament. Indeed and it has happened on a number of occasions during my life, both where the party has been in power or in opposition. John. > Don't even start on about the railway system, more public money has > been given to private TOCs over the last 16 years than was invested in [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > (who remembers Connex in the south...) whilst ticket prices went > through the roof Yet the railways are the busiest they have been since WWII (or is it now ever?). Season ticket price increases were pegged /below/ inflation for some time. Only newspaper comparisons and airline marketing departments use standard open returns for every trip. >- never mind getting so complicated that people just > gave up trying to understand just which trains they could travel on, > not only which times they can travel but on which actual trains they > can travel on. This is misleading. Does anyone try to "understand" airline or ferry tickets, or do they just want a price? Sure, working out quotas on each train is complicated, just as it is with Easyjet, but not many people actually want to do that. "I want to go from A to B on Tuesday, what is the cost". Only anoraks need to worry about the routeing guide, obscure ticket validities etc etc. Anoraks don't want to book ahead and travel dirt cheap (except when they are flying), but it would appear lots of passengers do. "Flatter" fares could be simple: but try telling students they can't get home in first class for a tenner any more, or you can't take the kids to London for next to nothing next month. Or there is no incentive for the little old lady who could travel at any time of day to avoid the crush-loaded 08.00 to the city. SignatureArthur Figgis Surrey, UK >> Don't even start on about the railway system, more public money has >> been given to private TOCs over the last 16 years than was invested [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Yet the railways are the busiest they have been since WWII (or is it > now ever?). Not very difficult when you consider the population figures, what people also forget is that the roads are also then busiest ever, as are air flights, there has never been so many kids in education (it doesn't mean that it's because education is better that ever - just that kids have to attend school, just like people have to travel, no matter what... > Season ticket price increases were pegged /below/ inflation for some > time. Only newspaper comparisons and airline marketing departments [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Tuesday, what is the cost". Only anoraks need to worry about the > routeing guide, obscure ticket validities etc etc. Not so, people sometimes want to 'break' their journeys (perhaps to visit a certain shop in one town) before travelling on to their end destination, under BR that was simple, not these-days, one has to understand the TT, TOC and fare structure before knowing if there is going to be a valid onward service. Anoraks don't want to book ahead and travel > dirt cheap (except when they are flying), but it would appear lots > of passengers do. When you go to an airport you KNOW what flight you are boarding, and unlike railways, air travel (in this country at least) has never really been a 'turn up and travel' on the next available service. The fact remains, 30 years ago one could have travelled from London Kings X to Edinburgh using nothing but local inner, outer and country (DMU type) services if you were so inclined (!) - OTOH one could have travelled from Kings Cross to Finsbury Park [1] using any inter-city train that was scheduled to stop at the station. Now, not only does one have to travel on the correct type of train but one has to also travel on the correct TOC. [1] for those who don't know the line, FP is the next station out of KX, about 4 miles. > "Flatter" fares could be simple: but try telling students they can't > get home in first class for a tenner any more, or you can't take the > kids to London for next to nothing next month. Or there is no > incentive for the little old lady who could travel at any time of > day to avoid the crush-loaded 08.00 to the city. Funny that, BR managed, and they didn't have the sort of government aid that the current (and past) privatised TOCs have, in fact BR was bluntly refused such grants by Thatcher/Major - go figure... SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > "Arthur Figgis" <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message > > Yet the railways are the busiest they have been since WWII (or is it > > now ever?). > > Not very difficult when you consider the population figures, what > people also forget is that the roads are also then busiest ever, Thankfully getting quieter now that some people are getting a harsh lesson in economics. > Not so, people sometimes want to 'break' their journeys (perhaps to > visit a certain shop in one town) before travelling on to their end > destination How many actually want to do that though? How small a minority do you want the railways to pander to? > The > fact remains, 30 years ago one could have travelled from London Kings > X to Edinburgh using nothing but local inner, outer and country (DMU > type) services if you were so inclined How many people were so inclined? A few enthusiasts perhaps. I suspect the vast majority just want to get to their destination as quickly as possible, by the most direct route possible. > (!) - OTOH one could have > travelled from Kings Cross to Finsbury Park [1] using any inter-city > train that was scheduled to stop at the station. Now, not only does > one have to travel on the correct type of train but one has to also > travel on the correct TOC. It's not so difficult to understand, though, is it? MBQ <snip> I'm using the following quote as it seem to sum up MBQs comments relating to the vagurise of induvidul travel arrangments/needs; > How many actually want to do that though? How > small a minority do you want the railways to > pander to? I suspect that quite a few, anyway it's not pandering, as it's (or should not be) costing the railways anything. SignatureWikipedia: the Internet equivalent of Hyde Park and 'speakers corner'... > > "Arthur Figgis" <afig...@example.com.invalid> wrote in message > > > Yet the railways are the busiest they have been since WWII (or is it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Thankfully getting quieter now that some people are getting a harsh > lesson in economics. That's a bit harsh - I take it "some poeople" are those who happen to be on low incomes - do they not count somehow? > > (!) - OTOH one could have > > travelled from Kings Cross to Finsbury Park [1] using any inter-city [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's not so difficult to understand, though, is it? It is it you are not a regular traveller - it certainly is a factor in deciding not to rely on the railway for essential journeys! > MBQ Cheers Richard Signaturewww.beamends-lrspares.co.uk sales@beamends-lrspares.co.uk I have become... comfortably numb > In message <72378ab6-825b-4bd5-88b3-9113ac3c7...@r66g2000hsg.googlegroups.com> > "manatba...@hotmail.com" <manatba...@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > That's a bit harsh - I take it "some poeople" are those who happen to > be on low incomes - do they not count somehow? No, I was thinking more of those a bit higher up the ladder who have relied on the hope of ever increasing house prices to fund an unsustainable lifestyle. MBQ >>> - never mind getting so complicated that people just gave up trying >>> to understand just which trains they could travel on, not only which [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > understand the TT, TOC and fare structure before knowing if there is > going to be a valid onward service. But you don't have to understand those things. Are you outside the UK, perhaps? A lot of people seem to assume it now works like that in Britain (AIUI it does work like that in Germany to a certain extent), but it doesn't. Inter-available ticketing is one of the things which the privatisation model actually got right. There are a few situations where you can get a lower fare by gettting a TOC-specific ticket, but you can just get a normal ticket if that is a problem. The then-MD of WAGN moaned that they had introduced a new WAGN-only Peterborough-London annual season ticket which was a lot cheaper than the ticket inherited from BR which inter-available with GNER. The expensive ticket was still available of course, but they now offered a way for people willing to take a bit longer to save a grand or so. Needless to say, the local paper moaned that the cheap ticket was not valid on GNER, rather than celebrating that you could save a grand if you didn't need the standard product. > Anoraks don't want to book ahead and travel >> dirt cheap (except when they are flying), but it would appear lots >> of passengers do. > > When you go to an airport you KNOW what flight you are boarding, By the time you are going to the station you probably know what train you are catching in most cases where TOC-specific ticketing might be an option. and |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message