FabSwingers.com > Forums > Politics > Is this a classic Tory pie scoffing exercise in GREED
Is this a classic Tory pie scoffing exercise in GREED
Jump to: Newest in thread
| |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ?" Who are you talking about? | |||
| |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? Who are you talking about?" Excuse me is this the Tory ideology | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ?" No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. | |||
"If we run own sewer pipe to the river, we can miss out the expensive middle man." The problem is ..lack of competition.. Plus if were destined to have a poor service where infrastructure is neglected.. then the system could have been ran in the public sector.. *and* have the billions that went into shareholders bank accounts into the government spending pot instead. | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule." Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? Who are you talking about? Excuse me is this the Tory ideology " It is capitalism, and I don't think the water companies are the best example of that. The dividends being paid are a poor ROI, and the debt is outrageous. | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.?" That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism. | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism." Is your inspiration Naomi Klein, it would explain a lot | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism. Is your inspiration Naomi Klein, it would explain a lot" Why are you trying to make this about me again? I mean I'm flattered that you think about me so much. But maybe try to stick to the topic? | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism. Is your inspiration Naomi Klein, it would explain a lot Why are you trying to make this about me again? I mean I'm flattered that you think about me so much. But maybe try to stick to the topic?" It is on topic you said it was the tory dream, disaster capitalism. From there I asked if the author of that was your inspiration. Does that make sense to you? | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism. Is your inspiration Naomi Klein, it would explain a lot Why are you trying to make this about me again? I mean I'm flattered that you think about me so much. But maybe try to stick to the topic? It is on topic you said it was the tory dream, disaster capitalism. From there I asked if the author of that was your inspiration. Does that make sense to you? " None of this is even vaguely related to the topic. You're trying to make this about me. | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism. Is your inspiration Naomi Klein, it would explain a lot Why are you trying to make this about me again? I mean I'm flattered that you think about me so much. But maybe try to stick to the topic? It is on topic you said it was the tory dream, disaster capitalism. From there I asked if the author of that was your inspiration. Does that make sense to you? None of this is even vaguely related to the topic. You're trying to make this about me. " What is the topic about? Did you mention disaster capitalism? | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism. Is your inspiration Naomi Klein, it would explain a lot Why are you trying to make this about me again? I mean I'm flattered that you think about me so much. But maybe try to stick to the topic? It is on topic you said it was the tory dream, disaster capitalism. From there I asked if the author of that was your inspiration. Does that make sense to you? None of this is even vaguely related to the topic. You're trying to make this about me. What is the topic about? Did you mention disaster capitalism? " Things the topic is about: Tories, the current government. This the topic is not about: Me. Hope this helps.  | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism. Is your inspiration Naomi Klein, it would explain a lot Why are you trying to make this about me again? I mean I'm flattered that you think about me so much. But maybe try to stick to the topic? It is on topic you said it was the tory dream, disaster capitalism. From there I asked if the author of that was your inspiration. Does that make sense to you? None of this is even vaguely related to the topic. You're trying to make this about me. What is the topic about? Did you mention disaster capitalism? Things the topic is about: Tories, the current government. This the topic is not about: Me. Hope this helps. "Sorry you took the question of disaster capitalism the wrong way. | |||
| |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ? No change for the past 13 years. People seem to like this kind of rule. Well the shareholders do.. If the greed and corruption continues .could we end up like Greece's crisis a few years ago.? That's the Tory dream. Plenty of opportunities for disaster capitalism. Is your inspiration Naomi Klein, it would explain a lot Why are you trying to make this about me again? I mean I'm flattered that you think about me so much. But maybe try to stick to the topic? It is on topic you said it was the tory dream, disaster capitalism. From there I asked if the author of that was your inspiration. Does that make sense to you? None of this is even vaguely related to the topic. You're trying to make this about me. What is the topic about? Did you mention disaster capitalism? Things the topic is about: Tories, the current government. This the topic is not about: Me. Hope this helps.
Sorry you took the question of disaster capitalism the wrong way.
"You didn't ask about disaster capitalism. | |||
| |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways." I can't see why water can't be offered up to resellers as is the BT open Reach network, or the energy suppliers. I guess what makes this sector unattractive to that model would be packaging product and bundling, it is hard to sell water as a product like broadband packages. The only real way to lower the price is if the water company sold on a commercial bulk level at lower rates and that could be passed onto the customer. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways." Yes exactly! Railways are too big to fail so incompetent running of them means the taxpayer.. yet again has to foot the bill to fund the disaster. Also a few years ago. Another problem mentioned was the trains not being maintained to not wear the tracks out because the tracks were someone else's problem. More money being spent on fixing the railway lines .. upping the maintenance costs | |||
 | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. I can't see why water can't be offered up to resellers as is the BT open Reach network, or the energy suppliers. I guess what makes this sector unattractive to that model would be packaging product and bundling, it is hard to sell water as a product like broadband packages. The only real way to lower the price is if the water company sold on a commercial bulk level at lower rates and that could be passed onto the customer." The network is the product when it comes to water though. All we pay for is for it to get to and from our houses. It would be massively impractical to try and have different suppliers. They would all have to use the same pipes, treatment works, reservoirs and pumping stations. There’s no margin to be had by importing cheap water from abroad or the like. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. I can't see why water can't be offered up to resellers as is the BT open Reach network, or the energy suppliers. I guess what makes this sector unattractive to that model would be packaging product and bundling, it is hard to sell water as a product like broadband packages. The only real way to lower the price is if the water company sold on a commercial bulk level at lower rates and that could be passed onto the customer. The network is the product when it comes to water though. All we pay for is for it to get to and from our houses. It would be massively impractical to try and have different suppliers. They would all have to use the same pipes, treatment works, reservoirs and pumping stations. There’s no margin to be had by importing cheap water from abroad or the like." This is how resellers work, the main operator still owns the network but sells the product commercially on bulk cheaper than you can pay for it at an individual level. The resellers bill are billed for the product and they sell it on to their customers, who they bill and troubleshoot issue with the provider on behalf of their customers. It is a pure numbers game, Thames water have 15 million customer, if I could attract 1 million of their customer base to my service through cost saving, me passing on some of the savings I made buying in bulk, if I can make £10 a customer a month I have an nice working margin to pay my staff and make a profit. This in turn creates other resellers who are trying to draw in their customers, suddenly packages will appear, take our water and get 5% cheaper electric / gas, or save X on broadband. This is the only way to drive competition into a single use network market. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways." There isn’t a single piece of infrastructure that was once publicly owned and which has since been privatised that benefits anyone but shareholders. The privatisation experiment has been a disaster for ordinary people and it serves only to transfer cash from ordinary peoples pockets into dividends to already ginormously wealthy people and institutions. I’ve heard the argument that pension funds invest in privatised bodies and so it is good for people’s pensions. Well the pension companies are really not short of entities to invest in even if U.K. infrastructure stick was taken back into public ownership. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. There isn’t a single piece of infrastructure that was once publicly owned and which has since been privatised that benefits anyone but shareholders. The privatisation experiment has been a disaster for ordinary people and it serves only to transfer cash from ordinary peoples pockets into dividends to already ginormously wealthy people and institutions. I’ve heard the argument that pension funds invest in privatised bodies and so it is good for people’s pensions. Well the pension companies are really not short of entities to invest in even if U.K. infrastructure stick was taken back into public ownership." I disagree: BT was a shambles now it’s offers good value for its customers and has increased the competition to the point of very affordable broadband services.. You are also missing the point of a shareholder, they invest and take a risk, so you don’t need to and that like everything else in business requires a ROI. We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. | |||
"So.. the shareholders get huge wedges of loot handed to them while the rivers of this land are turned into open sewers . The infrastructure.. built with public money is left to fall apart while greedy guts shareholders stuff their pockets with cash.. Is this thentory ideology ?" . You forgot to mention that many shareholders are ordinary working people who are simply investing to have a little money for their future . Greed hardly even enters the equation. Have you actually looked at the published accounts of the company and compared the dividends paid to total revenue ? Whether it is publicly or privately owned they will be a huge investment required to stop leakages . | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. There isn’t a single piece of infrastructure that was once publicly owned and which has since been privatised that benefits anyone but shareholders. The privatisation experiment has been a disaster for ordinary people and it serves only to transfer cash from ordinary peoples pockets into dividends to already ginormously wealthy people and institutions. I’ve heard the argument that pension funds invest in privatised bodies and so it is good for people’s pensions. Well the pension companies are really not short of entities to invest in even if U.K. infrastructure stick was taken back into public ownership. I disagree: BT was a shambles now it’s offers good value for its customers and has increased the competition to the point of very affordable broadband services.. You are also missing the point of a shareholder, they invest and take a risk, so you don’t need to and that like everything else in business requires a ROI. We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. " I have recently switched from Sky to BT and I do not recognise BT as providing either exceptional service or value for money particularly as they “lost” the number port for three weeks because “the system cancelled it.” BT was a shambles mainly because of technology issues of that era but year on year before privatisation more and more people had home phone lines and an ever improving service. There is absolutely no reason why a National provider could not be providing a better service for less money than BT or anybody else for that matter. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. There isn’t a single piece of infrastructure that was once publicly owned and which has since been privatised that benefits anyone but shareholders. The privatisation experiment has been a disaster for ordinary people and it serves only to transfer cash from ordinary peoples pockets into dividends to already ginormously wealthy people and institutions. I’ve heard the argument that pension funds invest in privatised bodies and so it is good for people’s pensions. Well the pension companies are really not short of entities to invest in even if U.K. infrastructure stick was taken back into public ownership. I disagree: BT was a shambles now it’s offers good value for its customers and has increased the competition to the point of very affordable broadband services.. You are also missing the point of a shareholder, they invest and take a risk, so you don’t need to and that like everything else in business requires a ROI. We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. I have recently switched from Sky to BT and I do not recognise BT as providing either exceptional service or value for money particularly as they “lost” the number port for three weeks because “the system cancelled it.” BT was a shambles mainly because of technology issues of that era but year on year before privatisation more and more people had home phone lines and an ever improving service. There is absolutely no reason why a National provider could not be providing a better service for less money than BT or anybody else for that matter." Yes there is, union and state management. You already mentioned you moved from Sky to BT, they must have been offering something worth the switch, state owned you would have no other option and you would probably be putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work… you had a problem switching, which if you look into it you are probably owed a payment for. You’re welcome. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. There isn’t a single piece of infrastructure that was once publicly owned and which has since been privatised that benefits anyone but shareholders. The privatisation experiment has been a disaster for ordinary people and it serves only to transfer cash from ordinary peoples pockets into dividends to already ginormously wealthy people and institutions. I’ve heard the argument that pension funds invest in privatised bodies and so it is good for people’s pensions. Well the pension companies are really not short of entities to invest in even if U.K. infrastructure stick was taken back into public ownership. I disagree: BT was a shambles now it’s offers good value for its customers and has increased the competition to the point of very affordable broadband services.. You are also missing the point of a shareholder, they invest and take a risk, so you don’t need to and that like everything else in business requires a ROI. We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. I have recently switched from Sky to BT and I do not recognise BT as providing either exceptional service or value for money particularly as they “lost” the number port for three weeks because “the system cancelled it.” BT was a shambles mainly because of technology issues of that era but year on year before privatisation more and more people had home phone lines and an ever improving service. There is absolutely no reason why a National provider could not be providing a better service for less money than BT or anybody else for that matter. Yes there is, union and state management. You already mentioned you moved from Sky to BT, they must have been offering something worth the switch, state owned you would have no other option and you would probably be putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work… you had a problem switching, which if you look into it you are probably owed a payment for. You’re welcome. " None of the above. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. There isn’t a single piece of infrastructure that was once publicly owned and which has since been privatised that benefits anyone but shareholders. The privatisation experiment has been a disaster for ordinary people and it serves only to transfer cash from ordinary peoples pockets into dividends to already ginormously wealthy people and institutions. I’ve heard the argument that pension funds invest in privatised bodies and so it is good for people’s pensions. Well the pension companies are really not short of entities to invest in even if U.K. infrastructure stick was taken back into public ownership. I disagree: BT was a shambles now it’s offers good value for its customers and has increased the competition to the point of very affordable broadband services.. You are also missing the point of a shareholder, they invest and take a risk, so you don’t need to and that like everything else in business requires a ROI. We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. I have recently switched from Sky to BT and I do not recognise BT as providing either exceptional service or value for money particularly as they “lost” the number port for three weeks because “the system cancelled it.” BT was a shambles mainly because of technology issues of that era but year on year before privatisation more and more people had home phone lines and an ever improving service. There is absolutely no reason why a National provider could not be providing a better service for less money than BT or anybody else for that matter. Yes there is, union and state management. You already mentioned you moved from Sky to BT, they must have been offering something worth the switch, state owned you would have no other option and you would probably be putting hundreds of thousands of people out of work… you had a problem switching, which if you look into it you are probably owed a payment for. You’re welcome. None of the above. " Of course  | |||
" We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. " How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples? | |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises." "How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples?" How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection? | |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples? How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection?" Network Rail have been using drones for years. | |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises." "How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples?" "How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection?" "Network Rail have been using drones for years." Yes, and they want to expand their usage and cut down on the amount of 'manual' inspections carried out by expensive humans, but the rail unions are opposed to the idea. | |||
| |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. I can't see why water can't be offered up to resellers as is the BT open Reach network, or the energy suppliers. I guess what makes this sector unattractive to that model would be packaging product and bundling, it is hard to sell water as a product like broadband packages. The only real way to lower the price is if the water company sold on a commercial bulk level at lower rates and that could be passed onto the customer. The network is the product when it comes to water though. All we pay for is for it to get to and from our houses. It would be massively impractical to try and have different suppliers. They would all have to use the same pipes, treatment works, reservoirs and pumping stations. There’s no margin to be had by importing cheap water from abroad or the like. This is how resellers work, the main operator still owns the network but sells the product commercially on bulk cheaper than you can pay for it at an individual level. The resellers bill are billed for the product and they sell it on to their customers, who they bill and troubleshoot issue with the provider on behalf of their customers. It is a pure numbers game, Thames water have 15 million customer, if I could attract 1 million of their customer base to my service through cost saving, me passing on some of the savings I made buying in bulk, if I can make £10 a customer a month I have an nice working margin to pay my staff and make a profit. This in turn creates other resellers who are trying to draw in their customers, suddenly packages will appear, take our water and get 5% cheaper electric / gas, or save X on broadband. This is the only way to drive competition into a single use network market. " Where are you going to buy your water from though? The people who own the pipes also own the reservoirs. Surely the best thing to do would be to let the water companies go bust, and take it all back into public ownership? | |||
"Another rule lets workers restart their lunch break if their boss speaks to them at all during the break." I actually agree with that one. There are far too many managers that think their staff should be available at all hours. Workers, especially physical workers, need to be given their legally mandated breaks with no interference. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. I can't see why water can't be offered up to resellers as is the BT open Reach network, or the energy suppliers. I guess what makes this sector unattractive to that model would be packaging product and bundling, it is hard to sell water as a product like broadband packages. The only real way to lower the price is if the water company sold on a commercial bulk level at lower rates and that could be passed onto the customer. The network is the product when it comes to water though. All we pay for is for it to get to and from our houses. It would be massively impractical to try and have different suppliers. They would all have to use the same pipes, treatment works, reservoirs and pumping stations. There’s no margin to be had by importing cheap water from abroad or the like. This is how resellers work, the main operator still owns the network but sells the product commercially on bulk cheaper than you can pay for it at an individual level. The resellers bill are billed for the product and they sell it on to their customers, who they bill and troubleshoot issue with the provider on behalf of their customers. It is a pure numbers game, Thames water have 15 million customer, if I could attract 1 million of their customer base to my service through cost saving, me passing on some of the savings I made buying in bulk, if I can make £10 a customer a month I have an nice working margin to pay my staff and make a profit. This in turn creates other resellers who are trying to draw in their customers, suddenly packages will appear, take our water and get 5% cheaper electric / gas, or save X on broadband. This is the only way to drive competition into a single use network market. Where are you going to buy your water from though? The people who own the pipes also own the reservoirs. Surely the best thing to do would be to let the water companies go bust, and take it all back into public ownership?" You are absolutely correct, but unfortunately far too many people believe the utter nonsense than gets printed in by the Conservative Government’s client journalists. National Infrastructure has to benefit ordinary people otherwise it is pointless having it. It’s actually perverse to use national infrastructure as a means of enriching people at the expense of ordinary people. Transport, water and sewerage, energy, airports, communications and health should always be retained as public assets for the benefit of the public. | |||
"The railway union is still.fighting for the continuation of archaic customs that the rest of the world thinks absolutely stupid. Network Rail can't roster individuals, only teams and can't train multi-skilled teams so they send a team of three electricians, three tilers and three plumbers to do a job of changing a plug. Managers couldn't use FaceTime to talk to staff during Covid because that was a technology that hadn't been consulted on. Another rule lets workers restart their lunch break if their boss speaks to them at all during the break. Another.rule gives drivers a 12 minute leeway as a walking allowance for a walk of 1 minute. The unions have safeguarded their.members rights that were originally designed for the railway of the steam age. " As someone with 21 years operational experience on the railway, you’re talking a mixture of unmitigated bollocks, and also misrepresenting easily understood agreements that are regularly revisited. | |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples? How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection? Network Rail have been using drones for years. Yes, and they want to expand their usage and cut down on the amount of 'manual' inspections carried out by expensive humans, but the rail unions are opposed to the idea." Maybe humans on the ground are better at the safety critical job (they are). Drones have a purpose, undoubtedly, but they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. I can't see why water can't be offered up to resellers as is the BT open Reach network, or the energy suppliers. I guess what makes this sector unattractive to that model would be packaging product and bundling, it is hard to sell water as a product like broadband packages. The only real way to lower the price is if the water company sold on a commercial bulk level at lower rates and that could be passed onto the customer. The network is the product when it comes to water though. All we pay for is for it to get to and from our houses. It would be massively impractical to try and have different suppliers. They would all have to use the same pipes, treatment works, reservoirs and pumping stations. There’s no margin to be had by importing cheap water from abroad or the like. This is how resellers work, the main operator still owns the network but sells the product commercially on bulk cheaper than you can pay for it at an individual level. The resellers bill are billed for the product and they sell it on to their customers, who they bill and troubleshoot issue with the provider on behalf of their customers. It is a pure numbers game, Thames water have 15 million customer, if I could attract 1 million of their customer base to my service through cost saving, me passing on some of the savings I made buying in bulk, if I can make £10 a customer a month I have an nice working margin to pay my staff and make a profit. This in turn creates other resellers who are trying to draw in their customers, suddenly packages will appear, take our water and get 5% cheaper electric / gas, or save X on broadband. This is the only way to drive competition into a single use network market. Where are you going to buy your water from though? The people who own the pipes also own the reservoirs. Surely the best thing to do would be to let the water companies go bust, and take it all back into public ownership? You are absolutely correct, but unfortunately far too many people believe the utter nonsense than gets printed in by the Conservative Government’s client journalists. National Infrastructure has to benefit ordinary people otherwise it is pointless having it. It’s actually perverse to use national infrastructure as a means of enriching people at the expense of ordinary people. Transport, water and sewerage, energy, airports, communications and health should always be retained as public assets for the benefit of the public." You would do ever so well in North Korea. I'm so pleased you are minority view, communications, health and airports what could go wrong.. | |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples? How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection? Network Rail have been using drones for years. Yes, and they want to expand their usage and cut down on the amount of 'manual' inspections carried out by expensive humans, but the rail unions are opposed to the idea. Maybe humans on the ground are better at the safety critical job (they are). Drones have a purpose, undoubtedly, but they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks." "they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks": luddites 1816 | |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples? How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection? Network Rail have been using drones for years. Yes, and they want to expand their usage and cut down on the amount of 'manual' inspections carried out by expensive humans, but the rail unions are opposed to the idea. Maybe humans on the ground are better at the safety critical job (they are). Drones have a purpose, undoubtedly, but they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks. "they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks": luddites 1816" Or maybe I have a better understanding of railway operational safety than you? | |||
| |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples? How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection? Network Rail have been using drones for years. Yes, and they want to expand their usage and cut down on the amount of 'manual' inspections carried out by expensive humans, but the rail unions are opposed to the idea. Maybe humans on the ground are better at the safety critical job (they are). Drones have a purpose, undoubtedly, but they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks. "they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks": luddites 1816 Or maybe I have a better understanding of railway operational safety than you? "This is generally how this type of conversation flows every time by SME's. It won't work because of x y z. I know I have been doing this job for over X years. The last time we tried this it failed because of x y z. I see that type of mentality everyday and in here when future state is being discussed and a person cannot let go of the here and now, in their head it will not work because it doesn't work like that, here and now. | |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises. How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples? How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection? Network Rail have been using drones for years. Yes, and they want to expand their usage and cut down on the amount of 'manual' inspections carried out by expensive humans, but the rail unions are opposed to the idea. Maybe humans on the ground are better at the safety critical job (they are). Drones have a purpose, undoubtedly, but they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks. "they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks": luddites 1816 Or maybe I have a better understanding of railway operational safety than you?
This is generally how this type of conversation flows every time by SME's.
It won't work because of x y z. I know I have been doing this job for over X years. The last time we tried this it failed because of x y z.
I see that type of mentality everyday and in here when future state is being discussed and a person cannot let go of the here and now, in their head it will not work because it doesn't work like that, here and now."Nobody says drones don’t work, they’re used now. Experts in rail safety are aware of the limitations of exclusive drone use. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. I can't see why water can't be offered up to resellers as is the BT open Reach network, or the energy suppliers. I guess what makes this sector unattractive to that model would be packaging product and bundling, it is hard to sell water as a product like broadband packages. The only real way to lower the price is if the water company sold on a commercial bulk level at lower rates and that could be passed onto the customer. The network is the product when it comes to water though. All we pay for is for it to get to and from our houses. It would be massively impractical to try and have different suppliers. They would all have to use the same pipes, treatment works, reservoirs and pumping stations. There’s no margin to be had by importing cheap water from abroad or the like. This is how resellers work, the main operator still owns the network but sells the product commercially on bulk cheaper than you can pay for it at an individual level. The resellers bill are billed for the product and they sell it on to their customers, who they bill and troubleshoot issue with the provider on behalf of their customers. It is a pure numbers game, Thames water have 15 million customer, if I could attract 1 million of their customer base to my service through cost saving, me passing on some of the savings I made buying in bulk, if I can make £10 a customer a month I have an nice working margin to pay my staff and make a profit. This in turn creates other resellers who are trying to draw in their customers, suddenly packages will appear, take our water and get 5% cheaper electric / gas, or save X on broadband. This is the only way to drive competition into a single use network market. Where are you going to buy your water from though? The people who own the pipes also own the reservoirs. Surely the best thing to do would be to let the water companies go bust, and take it all back into public ownership? You are absolutely correct, but unfortunately far too many people believe the utter nonsense than gets printed in by the Conservative Government’s client journalists. National Infrastructure has to benefit ordinary people otherwise it is pointless having it. It’s actually perverse to use national infrastructure as a means of enriching people at the expense of ordinary people. Transport, water and sewerage, energy, airports, communications and health should always be retained as public assets for the benefit of the public." Others don't agree with you but I do. Essential services need to be protected and selling off these assets for a few selfish greedy private people to make money diverts profits from being ploughed into maintenance if these essential services. Imagine if the police or fire brigade was sold off?! I dread the thought but some selfish greedy people would do that. | |||
"The ridiculous part of the privatisation programme. It simply doesn’t work without competition. What onus is there on a company to lower prices and provide better service if it faces no competition? See also the railways. I can't see why water can't be offered up to resellers as is the BT open Reach network, or the energy suppliers. I guess what makes this sector unattractive to that model would be packaging product and bundling, it is hard to sell water as a product like broadband packages. The only real way to lower the price is if the water company sold on a commercial bulk level at lower rates and that could be passed onto the customer. The network is the product when it comes to water though. All we pay for is for it to get to and from our houses. It would be massively impractical to try and have different suppliers. They would all have to use the same pipes, treatment works, reservoirs and pumping stations. There’s no margin to be had by importing cheap water from abroad or the like. This is how resellers work, the main operator still owns the network but sells the product commercially on bulk cheaper than you can pay for it at an individual level. The resellers bill are billed for the product and they sell it on to their customers, who they bill and troubleshoot issue with the provider on behalf of their customers. It is a pure numbers game, Thames water have 15 million customer, if I could attract 1 million of their customer base to my service through cost saving, me passing on some of the savings I made buying in bulk, if I can make £10 a customer a month I have an nice working margin to pay my staff and make a profit. This in turn creates other resellers who are trying to draw in their customers, suddenly packages will appear, take our water and get 5% cheaper electric / gas, or save X on broadband. This is the only way to drive competition into a single use network market. Where are you going to buy your water from though? The people who own the pipes also own the reservoirs. Surely the best thing to do would be to let the water companies go bust, and take it all back into public ownership? You are absolutely correct, but unfortunately far too many people believe the utter nonsense than gets printed in by the Conservative Government’s client journalists. National Infrastructure has to benefit ordinary people otherwise it is pointless having it. It’s actually perverse to use national infrastructure as a means of enriching people at the expense of ordinary people. Transport, water and sewerage, energy, airports, communications and health should always be retained as public assets for the benefit of the public. Others don't agree with you but I do. Essential services need to be protected and selling off these assets for a few selfish greedy private people to make money diverts profits from being ploughed into maintenance if these essential services. Imagine if the police or fire brigade was sold off?! I dread the thought but some selfish greedy people would do that. " why do you believe money is not spent on maintenance, the service needs to deliver or it will not be paid for, that is a fact. Name previously state owned successful utilities, and what made them successful? | |||
"We could also argue that the only thing that has not improved since state ownership is the railways, and that is the hold of the unions preventing modernisation and over inflated pay rises." "How have the unions prevented modernisation of the railways? Give us some examples?" "How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection?" "Network Rail have been using drones for years." "Yes, and they want to expand their usage and cut down on the amount of 'manual' inspections carried out by expensive humans, but the rail unions are opposed to the idea." "Maybe humans on the ground are better at the safety critical job (they are)." They aren't. Humans are rubbish at safety critical jobs. They get distracted, or bored, or tired, and they miss critical things. Drones just work as designed, all the time. That's why aviation safety has improved massively over the past couple of decades, because planes now fly themselves. Machines don't get confused when things go wrong, and they don't panic. "Drones have a purpose, undoubtedly, but they’re not an adequate replacement for all checks." No one said "all checks". I said 'cut down' not 'eliminate'. But you've demonstrated the usual way that unions work. First claim that they aren't stopping progress, then claim that the machines won't work anyway, then claim that they're only opposing them for safety. | |||
" No one said "all checks". I said 'cut down' not 'eliminate'. But you've demonstrated the usual way that unions work. First claim that they aren't stopping progress, then claim that the machines won't work anyway, then claim that they're only opposing them for safety." Didn’t you start this with the statement “How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection?” - Despite the fact that the unions have accepted drones for years now? | |||
"No one said "all checks". I said 'cut down' not 'eliminate'. But you've demonstrated the usual way that unions work. First claim that they aren't stopping progress, then claim that the machines won't work anyway, then claim that they're only opposing them for safety." "Didn’t you start this with the statement “How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection?” - Despite the fact that the unions have accepted drones for years now?" Ah, so we've gone full circle and are back to denying that they are stopping progress. I think 'accepted drones' might not be the correct phrase there. 'Realised that they can't prevent drones' might be more accurate. If the unions have accepted the use of drones, why haven't they said so? Why do they refuse to discuss the issue whenever the media ask them about it? | |||
"No one said "all checks". I said 'cut down' not 'eliminate'. But you've demonstrated the usual way that unions work. First claim that they aren't stopping progress, then claim that the machines won't work anyway, then claim that they're only opposing them for safety. Didn’t you start this with the statement “How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection?” - Despite the fact that the unions have accepted drones for years now? Ah, so we've gone full circle and are back to denying that they are stopping progress. I think 'accepted drones' might not be the correct phrase there. 'Realised that they can't prevent drones' might be more accurate. If the unions have accepted the use of drones, why haven't they said so? Why do they refuse to discuss the issue whenever the media ask them about it?" They’ve clearly accepted the use of drones, because drones are used, and have been for a long time now. That doesn’t sound like ‘implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones’ to me. Mayhap they have legitimate concerns about increasing drone usage and loss of skill/knowledge from experienced engineers (something Railtrack suffered from immensely at the beginning of privatisation). | |||
"No one said "all checks". I said 'cut down' not 'eliminate'. But you've demonstrated the usual way that unions work. First claim that they aren't stopping progress, then claim that the machines won't work anyway, then claim that they're only opposing them for safety." "Didn’t you start this with the statement “How about their implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones for track inspection?” - Despite the fact that the unions have accepted drones for years now?" "Ah, so we've gone full circle and are back to denying that they are stopping progress. I think 'accepted drones' might not be the correct phrase there. 'Realised that they can't prevent drones' might be more accurate. If the unions have accepted the use of drones, why haven't they said so? Why do they refuse to discuss the issue whenever the media ask them about it?" "They’ve clearly accepted the use of drones, because drones are used, and have been for a long time now. That doesn’t sound like ‘implacable opposition to allowing the use of drones’ to me." Really? Can we say that rail companies have clearly accepted fare avoidance, because it's been happening for ages and still goes on? Is it fair to say that society accepts crime because there's a long history of it and it's still happening? "Mayhap they have legitimate concerns about increasing drone usage and loss of skill/knowledge from experienced engineers" And now we're back to 'the machines can't do the job anyway'. | |||
" Really? Can we say that rail companies have clearly accepted fare avoidance, because it's been happening for ages and still goes on? Is it fair to say that society accepts crime because there's a long history of it and it's still happening? Mayhap they have legitimate concerns about increasing drone usage and loss of skill/knowledge from experienced engineers And now we're back to 'the machines can't do the job anyway'." - Yes we can say that companies accept fare avoidance to an extent. It can be combatted but will always exist, and budgets take it into account. - And no, we’re not saying that machines can’t do the job. We’re saying that there’s a place for machines, and always will be, and tech will improve and increase in usage, but there will always be a requirement for humans in the chain as well. | |||
"Really? Can we say that rail companies have clearly accepted fare avoidance, because it's been happening for ages and still goes on? Is it fair to say that society accepts crime because there's a long history of it and it's still happening?" "- Yes we can say that companies accept fare avoidance to an extent. It can be combatted but will always exist, and budgets take it into account." In which case we can also say that the unions accept that they aren't going to get a pay rise, because they haven't had one for some time now, and all their members have made appropriate adjustments. "Mayhap they have legitimate concerns about increasing drone usage and loss of skill/knowledge from experienced engineers" "And now we're back to 'the machines can't do the job anyway'." "- And no, we’re not saying that machines can’t do the job. We’re saying that there’s a place for machines, and always will be, and tech will improve and increase in usage, but there will always be a requirement for humans in the chain as well." In which case why are the unions worried? If there will always be a requirement for humans, the companies will continue to employ humans. There's nothing for the unions to do. And why do they keep refusing to talk about drone usage when asked? | |||
"Really? Can we say that rail companies have clearly accepted fare avoidance, because it's been happening for ages and still goes on? Is it fair to say that society accepts crime because there's a long history of it and it's still happening? - Yes we can say that companies accept fare avoidance to an extent. It can be combatted but will always exist, and budgets take it into account. In which case we can also say that the unions accept that they aren't going to get a pay rise, because they haven't had one for some time now, and all their members have made appropriate adjustments. Mayhap they have legitimate concerns about increasing drone usage and loss of skill/knowledge from experienced engineers And now we're back to 'the machines can't do the job anyway'. - And no, we’re not saying that machines can’t do the job. We’re saying that there’s a place for machines, and always will be, and tech will improve and increase in usage, but there will always be a requirement for humans in the chain as well. In which case why are the unions worried? If there will always be a requirement for humans, the companies will continue to employ humans. There's nothing for the unions to do. And why do they keep refusing to talk about drone usage when asked?" Your conflation of pay rises and fare evasion is ludicrous, as I suspect you already know. And are you privy to what’s discussed between NR and the RMT? How do you know what is talked about? | |||
"Your conflation of pay rises and fare evasion is ludicrous, as I suspect you already know." And your conflation of 'accept' meaning 'acknowledge the existence of', and 'accept' meaning 'agree with', is plain to see in your earlier posts where you claim that the unions 'accept' the use of drones. "And are you privy to what’s discussed between NR and the RMT? How do you know what is talked about?" I was talking about the unions public appearances, and how they always avoid talking about drone usage when questioned by the media. | |||
" I was talking about the unions public appearances, and how they always avoid talking about drone usage when questioned by the media." I can’t say I’ve noticed too much specific questioning on the matter, to be honest. This notion that the union’s are somehow against the use of technology is simply a non-starter. We have new technology all the time in the industry (at a faster rate than ever, in fact). Were it true, we’d not be seeing the introduction of in-cab signalling, new rail maintenance practices, new signaling centres being built etc. | |||
"This notion that the union’s are somehow against the use of technology is simply a non-starter. We have new technology all the time in the industry (at a faster rate than ever, in fact). Were it trond not be seeing the introduction of in-cab signalling, new rail maintenance practices, new signaling centres being built etc." No one is suggesting that the unions are against technology in general. What we are saying is that the unions are against any technology that can be used to replace on one of their members. | |||
"This notion that the union’s are somehow against the use of technology is simply a non-starter. We have new technology all the time in the industry (at a faster rate than ever, in fact). Were it trond not be seeing the introduction of in-cab signalling, new rail maintenance practices, new signaling centres being built etc. No one is suggesting that the unions are against technology in general. What we are saying is that the unions are against any technology that can be used to replace on one of their members." Firstly - we should all be concerned about technology that replaces humans wholesale, and more so if the technology isn’t proven as being superior to the human that it replaces - especially when dealing with safety critical issues. | |||
"Firstly - we should all be concerned about technology that replaces humans wholesale, and more so if the technology isn’t proven as being superior to the human that it replaces - especially when dealing with safety critical issues. " You forget to quote your source: Luddites 1812  | |||
"Healthcare, one could make a moral argument to bring it under public sector. Education - One could argue that building skills is the backbone of economy and hence we need to fund it through taxes. Water, transport - One could argue that it's hard to build competitiveness given the limited resources. There are also counter arguments to it. Japan seems to do much better with transport being in private sector. But I can see both sides of the argument. But communications, there is zero reason to make it public sector. Check the cost of sending one text message two decades back and compare it with current costs. There has been immense competition that has driven the cost down and also improved the quality exponentially. India has a government owned communications company named BSNL which they eventually had to sell because they just couldn't compete with private players in both price and quality of service. Not to mention, letting the government own all the communications channel and giving them an easy way to eavesdrop. The kind of idea Joseph Stalin would have loved." I think communications has been the only real success story of privatisation, to be honest. | |||
"Firstly - we should all be concerned about technology that replaces humans wholesale, and more so if the technology isn’t proven as being superior to the human that it replaces - especially when dealing with safety critical issues. You forget to quote your source: Luddites 1812 "The railway rulebook is written in blood. Practices were put in place for a reason | |||
"This notion that the union’s are somehow against the use of technology is simply a non-starter. We have new technology all the time in the industry (at a faster rate than ever, in fact). Were it trond not be seeing the introduction of in-cab signalling, new rail maintenance practices, new signaling centres being built etc." "No one is suggesting that the unions are against technology in general. What we are saying is that the unions are against any technology that can be used to replace on one of their members." "Firstly - we should all be concerned about technology that replaces humans wholesale, and more so if the technology isn’t proven as being superior to the human that it replaces - especially when dealing with safety critical issues." Aaand, we're back to safety again. Round and round we go. | |||
"This notion that the union’s are somehow against the use of technology is simply a non-starter. We have new technology all the time in the industry (at a faster rate than ever, in fact). Were it trond not be seeing the introduction of in-cab signalling, new rail maintenance practices, new signaling centres being built etc. No one is suggesting that the unions are against technology in general. What we are saying is that the unions are against any technology that can be used to replace on one of their members. Firstly - we should all be concerned about technology that replaces humans wholesale, and more so if the technology isn’t proven as being superior to the human that it replaces - especially when dealing with safety critical issues. Aaand, we're back to safety again. Round and round we go." Of course we’re back to safety. That’s what the issue is about, I thought that much was obvious? | |||
"Healthcare, one could make a moral argument to bring it under public sector. Education - One could argue that building skills is the backbone of economy and hence we need to fund it through taxes. Water, transport - One could argue that it's hard to build competitiveness given the limited resources. There are also counter arguments to it. Japan seems to do much better with transport being in private sector. But I can see both sides of the argument. But communications, there is zero reason to make it public sector. Check the cost of sending one text message two decades back and compare it with current costs. There has been immense competition that has driven the cost down and also improved the quality exponentially. India has a government owned communications company named BSNL which they eventually had to sell because they just couldn't compete with private players in both price and quality of service. Not to mention, letting the government own all the communications channel and giving them an easy way to eavesdrop. The kind of idea Joseph Stalin would have loved. I think communications has been the only real success story of privatisation, to be honest." Why not gas and electric? | |||
"Of course we’re back to safety. That’s what the issue is about, I thought that much was obvious?" Only for you. This started when someone observed that the unions have prevented modernisation of the railways, and you denied this and challenged him to point out how. Now that it's been pointed out, You've changed your tune to say that they're doing it for a good reason. | |||
"Of course we’re back to safety. That’s what the issue is about, I thought that much was obvious? Only for you. This started when someone observed that the unions have prevented modernisation of the railways, and you denied this and challenged him to point out how. Now that it's been pointed out, You've changed your tune to say that they're doing it for a good reason." Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You mentioned airline industry earlier. Quite rugby you point out that technology allows plans to fly themselves - that’s a good thing. But removing the pilot would be a bad thing, I’m sure we’d agree. Mayhap you’re comfortable with potentially lower safety in the name of ‘progress’, but that’s not how it works when you’re actually in charge of people’s lives. | |||
"Healthcare, one could make a moral argument to bring it under public sector. Education - One could argue that building skills is the backbone of economy and hence we need to fund it through taxes. Water, transport - One could argue that it's hard to build competitiveness given the limited resources. There are also counter arguments to it. Japan seems to do much better with transport being in private sector. But I can see both sides of the argument. But communications, there is zero reason to make it public sector. Check the cost of sending one text message two decades back and compare it with current costs. There has been immense competition that has driven the cost down and also improved the quality exponentially. India has a government owned communications company named BSNL which they eventually had to sell because they just couldn't compete with private players in both price and quality of service. Not to mention, letting the government own all the communications channel and giving them an easy way to eavesdrop. The kind of idea Joseph Stalin would have loved. I think communications has been the only real success story of privatisation, to be honest. Why not gas and electric?" You’ve obviously not been taking notice these last couple of years. | |||
| |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology?" Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive. | |||
"Healthcare, one could make a moral argument to bring it under public sector. Education - One could argue that building skills is the backbone of economy and hence we need to fund it through taxes. Water, transport - One could argue that it's hard to build competitiveness given the limited resources. There are also counter arguments to it. Japan seems to do much better with transport being in private sector. But I can see both sides of the argument. But communications, there is zero reason to make it public sector. Check the cost of sending one text message two decades back and compare it with current costs. There has been immense competition that has driven the cost down and also improved the quality exponentially. India has a government owned communications company named BSNL which they eventually had to sell because they just couldn't compete with private players in both price and quality of service. Not to mention, letting the government own all the communications channel and giving them an easy way to eavesdrop. The kind of idea Joseph Stalin would have loved. I think communications has been the only real success story of privatisation, to be honest." Depends on how you define success. Anything can be made to look great of you pump enough money into it so that people don't notice the inefficiencies. It was all fine when Europe had a greater percentage of active productive population paying lots of taxes with a fair proportion of people using these servives. Now that we have an ageing population, the deep problems in these services are getting more visible. | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it?" You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. "You mentioned airline industry earlier. Quite rugby you point out that technology allows plans to fly themselves - that’s a good thing. But removing the pilot would be a bad thing, I’m sure we’d agree." No, we wouldn't. If you look at all of the plane crashes over the past 20 years, they've all been caused by the human at the front. Getting rid of the pilots would make planes considerably safer. But I don't know why I'm bothering to argue. You started this by claiming that the unions weren't preventing progress at all, and now you're claiming that the rail companies want 'bad' progress, and the unions are doing a good job by preventing it. If you can't see that you are changing your position, I don't think there's any point in this continuing. | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. You mentioned airline industry earlier. Quite rugby you point out that technology allows plans to fly themselves - that’s a good thing. But removing the pilot would be a bad thing, I’m sure we’d agree. No, we wouldn't. If you look at all of the plane crashes over the past 20 years, they've all been caused by the human at the front. Getting rid of the pilots would make planes considerably safer. But I don't know why I'm bothering to argue. You started this by claiming that the unions weren't preventing progress at all, and now you're claiming that the rail companies want 'bad' progress, and the unions are doing a good job by preventing it. If you can't see that you are changing your position, I don't think there's any point in this continuing." No, there’s no point continuing since (once again) you’re waxing lyrical on a subject about which you know nothing. | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. " As always, some other countries without unions will try it out. Once the stats are out, the unions will not have an excuse to fall back on. | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. As always, some other countries without unions will try it out. Once the stats are out, the unions will not have an excuse to fall back on." Would you care to share your experience in railway operations that makes you so certain? | |||
"Healthcare, one could make a moral argument to bring it under public sector. Education - One could argue that building skills is the backbone of economy and hence we need to fund it through taxes. Water, transport - One could argue that it's hard to build competitiveness given the limited resources. There are also counter arguments to it. Japan seems to do much better with transport being in private sector. But I can see both sides of the argument. But communications, there is zero reason to make it public sector. Check the cost of sending one text message two decades back and compare it with current costs. There has been immense competition that has driven the cost down and also improved the quality exponentially. India has a government owned communications company named BSNL which they eventually had to sell because they just couldn't compete with private players in both price and quality of service. Not to mention, letting the government own all the communications channel and giving them an easy way to eavesdrop. The kind of idea Joseph Stalin would have loved. I think communications has been the only real success story of privatisation, to be honest. Why not gas and electric? You’ve obviously not been taking notice these last couple of years." You can't blame being privatised or state owned on the market price of the product. | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. As always, some other countries without unions will try it out. Once the stats are out, the unions will not have an excuse to fall back on. Would you care to share your experience in railway operations that makes you so certain? " I have done some software work when it comes to automation and have followed many automation projects closely. In the initial stages of automation, there will be some problems for sure. But they tend to be overblown and it won't be long before people realise that in spite of occasional glitches(which also get resolved eventually), automation is much better, safer and in many cases even cheaper in the long run. Doctors are already using robotics to perform surgeries because the robotic arms don't shake and are much more precise. It's shown that people who take these robotic surgeries tend to have much quicker recovery times. If unions say that robots are unsafe and hence they won't allow, it almost always means that they are trying to save their own ass. | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive." | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. As always, some other countries without unions will try it out. Once the stats are out, the unions will not have an excuse to fall back on. Would you care to share your experience in railway operations that makes you so certain? I have done some software work when it comes to automation and have followed many automation projects closely. In the initial stages of automation, there will be some problems for sure. But they tend to be overblown and it won't be long before people realise that in spite of occasional glitches(which also get resolved eventually), automation is much better, safer and in many cases even cheaper in the long run. Doctors are already using robotics to perform surgeries because the robotic arms don't shake and are much more precise. It's shown that people who take these robotic surgeries tend to have much quicker recovery times. If unions say that robots are unsafe and hence they won't allow, it almost always means that they are trying to save their own ass." But | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. As always, some other countries without unions will try it out. Once the stats are out, the unions will not have an excuse to fall back on. Would you care to share your experience in railway operations that makes you so certain? I have done some software work when it comes to automation and have followed many automation projects closely. In the initial stages of automation, there will be some problems for sure. But they tend to be overblown and it won't be long before people realise that in spite of occasional glitches(which also get resolved eventually), automation is much better, safer and in many cases even cheaper in the long run. Doctors are already using robotics to perform surgeries because the robotic arms don't shake and are much more precise. It's shown that people who take these robotic surgeries tend to have much quicker recovery times. If unions say that robots are unsafe and hence they won't allow, it almost always means that they are trying to save their own ass." Who has said any of this is unsafe? As has been stated repeatedly, drones have been used by NR for years now. The unions aren’t against their use. They’re concerned with their overuse, and the subsequent loss of experienced engineers in the maintenance process. (Lessons learned from the early days of privatisation where we saw an enormous skills/knowledge gap arrive after large scale redundancies. | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive. "If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities. | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities."Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role? | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?"That’s correct. Not sure what your point is? | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is? "Why the animosity? | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?"No animosity at all  | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?
No animosity at all "Why ask what my point is when I ask a question in order to get her some facts? This is why we can never have a reasoned debate. | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?
No animosity at all
Why ask what my point is when I ask a question in order to get her some facts?
This is why we can never have a reasoned debate. "Because you assume animosity where there is none? I agree | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?
No animosity at all
Why ask what my point is when I ask a question in order to get her some facts?
This is why we can never have a reasoned debate.
Because you assume animosity where there is none? I agree "This too, instead of replying to my question you go off on one. Anyway, back to my fact gathering mission. You've spent 21 years in trains or offices, what makes you an expert on track maintenance, alongside being an expert in socialism, immigration, economics and multiple other disciplines? | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?
No animosity at all
Why ask what my point is when I ask a question in order to get her some facts?
This is why we can never have a reasoned debate.
Because you assume animosity where there is none? I agree
This too, instead of replying to my question you go off on one.
Anyway, back to my fact gathering mission.
You've spent 21 years in trains or offices, what makes you an expert on track maintenance, alongside being an expert in socialism, immigration, economics and multiple other disciplines?"My role is broad, and involves meetings with NR as well as trade unions, attending conferences, both within the company/region and with the wider network, liaising with other depots and management, as well as the train suppliers, undertaking track safety walks and checks (especially before and after large-scale maintenance schemes) You learn a thing or two doing all that stuff. Hope that helps | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities."This what made me smile, some of us work in many different sectors and use other consultants to build the full E2E of how something operates, fails and can succeed to help drive innovation and ROI. We tend to hear the same message from all sectors from the same type of people, and this is going to sound harsh but the doom and gloom merchants are always proven wrong. Now I will admit, I have never been involved in the railways, there are other sectors / industries I wouldn't touch, due to the red tape and frustration of trying to achieve against a wall of resistance is not worth the effort. And this is why we can't have good railway services, in my opinion, the people / organisations that can implement positive change can't be bothered. | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?
No animosity at all
Why ask what my point is when I ask a question in order to get her some facts?
This is why we can never have a reasoned debate.
Because you assume animosity where there is none? I agree
This too, instead of replying to my question you go off on one.
Anyway, back to my fact gathering mission.
You've spent 21 years in trains or offices, what makes you an expert on track maintenance, alongside being an expert in socialism, immigration, economics and multiple other disciplines?
My role is broad, and involves meetings with NR as well as trade unions, attending conferences, both within the company/region and with the wider network, liaising with other depots and management, as well as the train suppliers, undertaking track safety walks and checks (especially before and after large-scale maintenance schemes) You learn a thing or two doing all that stuff.
Hope that helps "I’ll ignore the snark, because I’ve never claimed to be an expert in anything else you’ve mentioned. I just happen to know more about socialism (through my own political interest) than the amateur-hour stuff written on here. | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
This what made me smile, some of us work in many different sectors and use other consultants to build the full E2E of how something operates, fails and can succeed to help drive innovation and ROI.
We tend to hear the same message from all sectors from the same type of people, and this is going to sound harsh but the doom and gloom merchants are always proven wrong.
Now I will admit, I have never been involved in the railways, there are other sectors / industries I wouldn't touch, due to the red tape and frustration of trying to achieve against a wall of resistance is not worth the effort.
And this is why we can't have good railway services, in my opinion, the people / organisations that can implement positive change can't be bothered.
"The reason why we won’t expand automation wholesale is cost over benefit. (It would make HS2 look like pocket change, and not result in the removal of drivers). Simple as that. | |||
| |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?
No animosity at all
Why ask what my point is when I ask a question in order to get her some facts?
This is why we can never have a reasoned debate.
Because you assume animosity where there is none? I agree
This too, instead of replying to my question you go off on one.
Anyway, back to my fact gathering mission.
You've spent 21 years in trains or offices, what makes you an expert on track maintenance, alongside being an expert in socialism, immigration, economics and multiple other disciplines?
My role is broad, and involves meetings with NR as well as trade unions, attending conferences, both within the company/region and with the wider network, liaising with other depots and management, as well as the train suppliers, undertaking track safety walks and checks (especially before and after large-scale maintenance schemes) You learn a thing or two doing all that stuff.
Hope that helps
I’ll ignore the snark, because I’ve never claimed to be an expert in anything else you’ve mentioned. I just happen to know more about socialism (through my own political interest) than the amateur-hour stuff written on here."You're often on here telling people they're wrong and you're right. Anyway, the point is, you seem to think you know an awful lot about other subjects even though you've spent your entire career in the rail industry. Just because another person hasn't worked in the rail industry, that doesn't mean they don't know anything about it. | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. As always, some other countries without unions will try it out. Once the stats are out, the unions will not have an excuse to fall back on. Would you care to share your experience in railway operations that makes you so certain? I have done some software work when it comes to automation and have followed many automation projects closely. In the initial stages of automation, there will be some problems for sure. But they tend to be overblown and it won't be long before people realise that in spite of occasional glitches(which also get resolved eventually), automation is much better, safer and in many cases even cheaper in the long run. Doctors are already using robotics to perform surgeries because the robotic arms don't shake and are much more precise. It's shown that people who take these robotic surgeries tend to have much quicker recovery times. If unions say that robots are unsafe and hence they won't allow, it almost always means that they are trying to save their own ass. Who has said any of this is unsafe? " You said this about using drones: " Maybe humans on the ground are better at the safety critical job (they are). " If bots can be considered more safe to use in surgeries, pretty sure they can be considered more safe to use in track maintenance too. There will be a slow transition phase obviously. " As has been stated repeatedly, drones have been used by NR for years now. The unions aren’t against their use. They’re concerned with their overuse, and the subsequent loss of experienced engineers in the maintenance process. (Lessons learned from the early days of privatisation where we saw an enormous skills/knowledge gap arrive after large scale redundancies. " What's wrong with overuse? If they make the process easy and cheaper for people, it's a good thing definitely? As for your worry about loss of experienced engineers, it's another small issue which happens every time a job gets automated. Companies will figure a way out as they always have. | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
This what made me smile, some of us work in many different sectors and use other consultants to build the full E2E of how something operates, fails and can succeed to help drive innovation and ROI.
We tend to hear the same message from all sectors from the same type of people, and this is going to sound harsh but the doom and gloom merchants are always proven wrong.
Now I will admit, I have never been involved in the railways, there are other sectors / industries I wouldn't touch, due to the red tape and frustration of trying to achieve against a wall of resistance is not worth the effort.
And this is why we can't have good railway services, in my opinion, the people / organisations that can implement positive change can't be bothered.
The reason why we won’t expand automation wholesale is cost over benefit. (It would make HS2 look like pocket change, and not result in the removal of drivers).
Simple as that. "It isn't all about 1 individual thing, there are usually many things that link together to make the whole successful and remove dependencies along the way. It won't be done, because of attitude not because it can't be done. | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?
No animosity at all
Why ask what my point is when I ask a question in order to get her some facts?
This is why we can never have a reasoned debate.
Because you assume animosity where there is none? I agree
This too, instead of replying to my question you go off on one.
Anyway, back to my fact gathering mission.
You've spent 21 years in trains or offices, what makes you an expert on track maintenance, alongside being an expert in socialism, immigration, economics and multiple other disciplines?
My role is broad, and involves meetings with NR as well as trade unions, attending conferences, both within the company/region and with the wider network, liaising with other depots and management, as well as the train suppliers, undertaking track safety walks and checks (especially before and after large-scale maintenance schemes) You learn a thing or two doing all that stuff.
Hope that helps
I’ll ignore the snark, because I’ve never claimed to be an expert in anything else you’ve mentioned. I just happen to know more about socialism (through my own political interest) than the amateur-hour stuff written on here.
You're often on here telling people they're wrong and you're right.
Anyway, the point is, you seem to think you know an awful lot about other subjects even though you've spent your entire career in the rail industry. Just because another person hasn't worked in the rail industry, that doesn't mean they don't know anything about it. "I’d happily argue that they know less about it than me. More so when they make ridiculous statements about wholesale automation or replacing people with drones to improve safety. | |||
"Healthcare, one could make a moral argument to bring it under public sector. Education - One could argue that building skills is the backbone of economy and hence we need to fund it through taxes. Water, transport - One could argue that it's hard to build competitiveness given the limited resources. There are also counter arguments to it. Japan seems to do much better with transport being in private sector. But I can see both sides of the argument. But communications, there is zero reason to make it public sector. Check the cost of sending one text message two decades back and compare it with current costs. There has been immense competition that has driven the cost down and also improved the quality exponentially. India has a government owned communications company named BSNL which they eventually had to sell because they just couldn't compete with private players in both price and quality of service. Not to mention, letting the government own all the communications channel and giving them an easy way to eavesdrop. The kind of idea Joseph Stalin would have loved. I think communications has been the only real success story of privatisation, to be honest. Why not gas and electric? You’ve obviously not been taking notice these last couple of years. You can't blame being privatised or state owned on the market price of the product." By how much did the price of energy go up in France, where EDF is state owned? By how much did the profits of privatised British Gas rise in the last year? | |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
Did you tell us before that you drove trains for X number of years and are now in a management role?
That’s correct. Not sure what your point is?
Why the animosity?
No animosity at all
Why ask what my point is when I ask a question in order to get her some facts?
This is why we can never have a reasoned debate.
Because you assume animosity where there is none? I agree
This too, instead of replying to my question you go off on one.
Anyway, back to my fact gathering mission.
You've spent 21 years in trains or offices, what makes you an expert on track maintenance, alongside being an expert in socialism, immigration, economics and multiple other disciplines?
My role is broad, and involves meetings with NR as well as trade unions, attending conferences, both within the company/region and with the wider network, liaising with other depots and management, as well as the train suppliers, undertaking track safety walks and checks (especially before and after large-scale maintenance schemes) You learn a thing or two doing all that stuff.
Hope that helps
I’ll ignore the snark, because I’ve never claimed to be an expert in anything else you’ve mentioned. I just happen to know more about socialism (through my own political interest) than the amateur-hour stuff written on here.
You're often on here telling people they're wrong and you're right.
Anyway, the point is, you seem to think you know an awful lot about other subjects even though you've spent your entire career in the rail industry. Just because another person hasn't worked in the rail industry, that doesn't mean they don't know anything about it.
I’d happily argue that they know less about it than me. More so when they make ridiculous statements about wholesale automation or replacing people with drones to improve safety. "You could've stopped at 'I'd happily argue'
| |||
"Why is it that people think that things that they aren’t involved in, and have no real knowledge of, are simple and can be easily done by technology? Because they read it somewhere, written by someone with similar lack of knowledge and/or ulterior motive.
If you have something to add to the topic, please feel free. Always happy to discuss the railways and pass on some much-needed knowledge to a nation who fail to understand the complexities.
This what made me smile, some of us work in many different sectors and use other consultants to build the full E2E of how something operates, fails and can succeed to help drive innovation and ROI.
We tend to hear the same message from all sectors from the same type of people, and this is going to sound harsh but the doom and gloom merchants are always proven wrong.
Now I will admit, I have never been involved in the railways, there are other sectors / industries I wouldn't touch, due to the red tape and frustration of trying to achieve against a wall of resistance is not worth the effort.
And this is why we can't have good railway services, in my opinion, the people / organisations that can implement positive change can't be bothered.
The reason why we won’t expand automation wholesale is cost over benefit. (It would make HS2 look like pocket change, and not result in the removal of drivers).
Simple as that.
It isn't all about 1 individual thing, there are usually many things that link together to make the whole successful and remove dependencies along the way.
It won't be done, because of attitude not because it can't be done. "Literally nobody says it can’t be done. But you’re right, it won’t be done - it’s not cost effective to do so, and some of the tech still hasn’t been produced beyond theory. | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. As always, some other countries without unions will try it out. Once the stats are out, the unions will not have an excuse to fall back on. Would you care to share your experience in railway operations that makes you so certain? I have done some software work when it comes to automation and have followed many automation projects closely. In the initial stages of automation, there will be some problems for sure. But they tend to be overblown and it won't be long before people realise that in spite of occasional glitches(which also get resolved eventually), automation is much better, safer and in many cases even cheaper in the long run. Doctors are already using robotics to perform surgeries because the robotic arms don't shake and are much more precise. It's shown that people who take these robotic surgeries tend to have much quicker recovery times. If unions say that robots are unsafe and hence they won't allow, it almost always means that they are trying to save their own ass." When the robots perform surgery, are there human surgeons present? | |||
"Modernisation that potentially impacts safety isn’t a benefit, is it? You think it might impact safety, but lots of other people disagree. The unions mean that we'll never find out. As always, some other countries without unions will try it out. Once the stats are out, the unions will not have an excuse to fall back on. Would you care to share your experience in railway operations that makes you so certain? I have done some software work when it comes to automation and have followed many automation projects closely. In the initial stages of automation, there will be some problems for sure. But they tend to be overblown and it won't be long before people realise that in spite of occasional glitches(which also get resolved eventually), automation is much better, safer and in many cases even cheaper in the long run. Doctors are already using robotics to perform surgeries because the robotic arms don't shake and are much more precise. It's shown that people who take these robotic surgeries tend to have much quicker recovery times. If unions say that robots are unsafe and hence they won't allow, it almost always means that they are trying to save their own ass. When the robots perform surgery, are there human surgeons present?" For now, the robot controls are with the surgeon who sits a bit far from the patient in the room. | |||
| |||
"I’d happily argue ... when they make ridiculous statements about ... replacing people with drones to improve safety." No one in this thread has made any such statement. | |||
| |||
"So basically the robot is a very flash scalpel, the surgeon is performing the surgery and the robot is a surgical implement." The robot comes with multiple arms, tools and programmed actions that the surgeon can control and perform the operation. It reduces the number of surgeons/nurses needed for the operation, saves time and also has much better outcomes. While for now, the surgeons are inside the room, it's not impossible for the surgeon to do it remotely as long as there isn't a big time lag. | |||
| |||
"So it’s a surgical implement, the surgeon is the person performing the surgery?" Automation doesn't happen overnight where a robot walks in one day and asks humans to get out and take the job. Right now, the surgeon does the procedure using a robot. But Imaging AI is used by the robot to ensure that the actions are done with accuracy, like using stitches in a way that causes least damage. It also helps surgeons to identify the best way to perform biopsies. This is how automation starts in any new field. Slowly, it takes over more complex actions. Maybe we will never get rid of a human surgeon completely. But the human's supervision requirement will become minimal. | |||
"So it’s a surgical implement, the surgeon is the person performing the surgery? Automation doesn't happen overnight where a robot walks in one day and asks humans to get out and take the job. Right now, the surgeon does the procedure using a robot. But Imaging AI is used by the robot to ensure that the actions are done with accuracy, like using stitches in a way that causes least damage. It also helps surgeons to identify the best way to perform biopsies. This is how automation starts in any new field. Slowly, it takes over more complex actions. Maybe we will never get rid of a human surgeon completely. But the human's supervision requirement will become minimal." AI is a basic set of rules pre programmed, AGI is the real deal which learns on the go. | |||
"So it’s a surgical implement, the surgeon is the person performing the surgery? Automation doesn't happen overnight where a robot walks in one day and asks humans to get out and take the job. Right now, the surgeon does the procedure using a robot. But Imaging AI is used by the robot to ensure that the actions are done with accuracy, like using stitches in a way that causes least damage. It also helps surgeons to identify the best way to perform biopsies. This is how automation starts in any new field. Slowly, it takes over more complex actions. Maybe we will never get rid of a human surgeon completely. But the human's supervision requirement will become minimal." The robot does as it’s s told though, there simply isn’t the technology to allow a robot to be able to perform surgery on its own. It’s also very unlikely that the current trend of AI development will ever produce an artificial general intelligence. Human supervision is how it should be because it’s not safe to automate healthcare. Technology is a useful tool but it is just a tool. Similarly in transport safety, drones are an excellent tool as far as they go but they cannot currently replace the skilled and experienced eye of a human. | |||
"So it’s a surgical implement, the surgeon is the person performing the surgery? Automation doesn't happen overnight where a robot walks in one day and asks humans to get out and take the job. Right now, the surgeon does the procedure using a robot. But Imaging AI is used by the robot to ensure that the actions are done with accuracy, like using stitches in a way that causes least damage. It also helps surgeons to identify the best way to perform biopsies. This is how automation starts in any new field. Slowly, it takes over more complex actions. Maybe we will never get rid of a human surgeon completely. But the human's supervision requirement will become minimal. AI is a basic set of rules pre programmed, AGI is the real deal which learns on the go." Yes, if AGI becomes a thing, we could see robots learning things much faster and with mechanical parts, they can do things better too. | |||
"So it’s a surgical implement, the surgeon is the person performing the surgery? Automation doesn't happen overnight where a robot walks in one day and asks humans to get out and take the job. Right now, the surgeon does the procedure using a robot. But Imaging AI is used by the robot to ensure that the actions are done with accuracy, like using stitches in a way that causes least damage. It also helps surgeons to identify the best way to perform biopsies. This is how automation starts in any new field. Slowly, it takes over more complex actions. Maybe we will never get rid of a human surgeon completely. But the human's supervision requirement will become minimal. The robot does as it’s s told though, there simply isn’t the technology to allow a robot to be able to perform surgery on its own. It’s also very unlikely that the current trend of AI development will ever produce an artificial general intelligence. Human supervision is how it should be because it’s not safe to automate healthcare. Technology is a useful tool but it is just a tool. Similarly in transport safety, drones are an excellent tool as far as they go but they cannot currently replace the skilled and experienced eye of a human. " You don't need artificial general intelligence to develop a robot that does only surgery. You can build different robots which do different surgeries. None of that requires AGI. Human supervision is needed because we probably will never get the courage to leave such important things to the bots. But number of humans needed and time spent by each human on it will become minimal. | |||
"Healthcare, one could make a moral argument to bring it under public sector. Education - One could argue that building skills is the backbone of economy and hence we need to fund it through taxes. Water, transport - One could argue that it's hard to build competitiveness given the limited resources. There are also counter arguments to it. Japan seems to do much better with transport being in private sector. But I can see both sides of the argument. But communications, there is zero reason to make it public sector. Check the cost of sending one text message two decades back and compare it with current costs. There has been immense competition that has driven the cost down and also improved the quality exponentially. India has a government owned communications company named BSNL which they eventually had to sell because they just couldn't compete with private players in both price and quality of service. Not to mention, letting the government own all the communications channel and giving them an easy way to eavesdrop. The kind of idea Joseph Stalin would have loved. I think communications has been the only real success story of privatisation, to be honest. Why not gas and electric? You’ve obviously not been taking notice these last couple of years. You can't blame being privatised or state owned on the market price of the product. By how much did the price of energy go up in France, where EDF is state owned? By how much did the profits of privatised British Gas rise in the last year?" That could have been managed much better through windfall taxes, the government let us down | |||
"So it’s a surgical implement, the surgeon is the person performing the surgery? Automation doesn't happen overnight where a robot walks in one day and asks humans to get out and take the job. Right now, the surgeon does the procedure using a robot. But Imaging AI is used by the robot to ensure that the actions are done with accuracy, like using stitches in a way that causes least damage. It also helps surgeons to identify the best way to perform biopsies. This is how automation starts in any new field. Slowly, it takes over more complex actions. Maybe we will never get rid of a human surgeon completely. But the human's supervision requirement will become minimal. AI is a basic set of rules pre programmed, AGI is the real deal which learns on the go. Yes, if AGI becomes a thing, we could see robots learning things much faster and with mechanical parts, they can do things better too." I can't wait, life on the beach for the human race. | |||
"So it’s a surgical implement, the surgeon is the person performing the surgery? Automation doesn't happen overnight where a robot walks in one day and asks humans to get out and take the job. Right now, the surgeon does the procedure using a robot. But Imaging AI is used by the robot to ensure that the actions are done with accuracy, like using stitches in a way that causes least damage. It also helps surgeons to identify the best way to perform biopsies. This is how automation starts in any new field. Slowly, it takes over more complex actions. Maybe we will never get rid of a human surgeon completely. But the human's supervision requirement will become minimal. The robot does as it’s s told though, there simply isn’t the technology to allow a robot to be able to perform surgery on its own. It’s also very unlikely that the current trend of AI development will ever produce an artificial general intelligence. Human supervision is how it should be because it’s not safe to automate healthcare. Technology is a useful tool but it is just a tool. Similarly in transport safety, drones are an excellent tool as far as they go but they cannot currently replace the skilled and experienced eye of a human. " The eye of a human is a good tool that can be made better by taking the capabilities of the eye and removing the human. It never gets tired or emotional. | |||
"So it’s a surgical implement, the surgeon is the person performing the surgery? Automation doesn't happen overnight where a robot walks in one day and asks humans to get out and take the job. Right now, the surgeon does the procedure using a robot. But Imaging AI is used by the robot to ensure that the actions are done with accuracy, like using stitches in a way that causes least damage. It also helps surgeons to identify the best way to perform biopsies. This is how automation starts in any new field. Slowly, it takes over more complex actions. Maybe we will never get rid of a human surgeon completely. But the human's supervision requirement will become minimal. AI is a basic set of rules pre programmed, AGI is the real deal which learns on the go. Yes, if AGI becomes a thing, we could see robots learning things much faster and with mechanical parts, they can do things better too. I can't wait, life on the beach for the human race. "Just recently watched both the Blade Runner films in the theatre as part of the Sci-Fi month that Cineworld is doing. Won't say No to a robotic girlfriend who looks hot and tells me what I want to hear | |||
