But arguably considerably less. High ranking civil servants tend to be a lot lower on the pay scale than CEOs - and of course are much more accountable via the Minister for Transport.

Although in my experience, a privitised service tends to be cheaper to run but less efficient, harder to control by the state and somewhat less accountable and reliable; a nationalized service tends to cost the state more, but tends to be more efficient to end users, easily controlled by state, accountable and more consistent.

I'd generally say that if you want cheap, but minimal services, private sector is the way forwards. However if you want good services, and don't mind paying the extra taxation, then the state generally does it better.

The problem with the later of course is that not everyone will get to see the 'better service', as private companies tend to do the core and front facing services really well, but then save on the fringe and less common services.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

Fat Cat as a term would suggest that payments made are above the norm. They imply that that recipient is receiving money for doing nothing or is receiving excessively more money than they are due.

Looking at the figures in your two year old report, most of the figures presented (GBP 100,000 to GBP 200,000) seem within the norm for directors and executives.

The bigger figures of the CEO's of companies have their salaries approved by shareholders.

Nice attempt to swerve and introduce yet more emotion over substance with the satisfaction issue. 25% dissatisfaction doesn't appear that bad at face value. Your last part is emotive guff.

In response to Jamies point about civil servants, firstly there are many civil servants earning the same band of GBP 100,000 to GBP 200,000. And, again, where does Jamie think all the rail/transport savvy civil servants who could run a nationalised rail network are now? They are working for the rail companies and they will earn the same regardless of whether they work for the private or public sector.

Face it, you are ideologically wedded to the concept of a nationalised rail network without being prepared to face the reality that renationalisation is illegal under your precious EU law, the cost is prohibitive and it is hard to see how, given that the budget for investment would be roughly the same as present, how services could be much improved. No one has provided a convincing argyment for this, just emotive blackmail and ideological nonsense.

"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02

I'm not entirely convinced on the idea of actually paying to nationalize the railways is a good idea. I don't really think it seems very economical at the likely costs, within our 'reality'.

That said the key aspect of executive earnings isn't salary, but bonuses and equity in terms of shares etc which isn't really a factor for senior civil servants. I don't really have an issue with someone earning a salary of 100-200k. Its a lot, but its not excessive. Its when they're also taking home 200-800k a year on top in bonuses just for doing their job.

Most executives aren't actually qualified or experienced in running a railway (if any are), they tend to come from other executive positions at different companies. Arguably the same applies to Senior civil servants who typically will have worked their way up their career ladder through civil service positions and even from the private sector.

"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug"
[Link]

The pertinent question is, is it an insurmountable problem this EU railway law? Some important peeps who looked into it say it is and some other important peeps who have looked into it say it isn't.

I find it very difficult to believe the former due to the fact that we have ridden roughshod over the EU since 1985 regarding our railways anyway so don't see it as a sudden problem for the future.

And do your own research for evidence before you ask mr H as I did.

Big chest and massive boobs

[Link]

I don't know who is right or wrong about the legality of re-nationalizing the railroads, but I do remember British Rail and it was dreadful. Late, dirty, crowded, and much more expensive than the bus. The food was crap and the staff were invariably rude.

The current railways have some good companies and some poor ones, but when I travel in the UK the trains are light years ahead of where they were under government ownership.

That being said, I have often had better experiences with the trains in Germany, Switzerland, France, and sometimes even Italy. Thus, to me, it is not so much the problem of nationalization as to why nationalization ends up being so crap when combined with a British work force.

If you come to a fork in the road, take it.

I'm pretty sure I'll find a way of getting ripped off regardless of who runs our trains!

Edited by oldcodger (23 Sep 2015 10.34pm)