Campaign on track

Campaign on track

Campaign on track

First published in Your Letters
Last updated

THE Echo published an article on the progress of the Green Party campaign to renationalise the railways (August 19).

Since then we've had lots of positive responses online, thank you for your support!

Comments were also made about the importance of bus services across Dorset, and we couldn’t agree more.

They are a lifeline for Dorset, connecting villages and towns, and homes and workplaces.

That’s why last winter, Greens fought against cuts to bus subsidies and services connecting Lyme Regis and Swanage to the bigger towns.

The success of our campaign and the pressure of many other organisations and individuals saw the size of the cutbacks reduced – a small success.

However, as a community we can't stop there, our public transport needs to be affordable, regular and reliable if it is to support people all across Dorset, and this can’t be done when trains are only working for shareholders, and bus services are being repeatedly cut back!

These counterproductive measures will only weaken Dorset’s economy and trap people from travelling to schools, jobs and high streets.

Only a well-financed bus service and public ownership of our railways will ensure these essential services are always provided.

Lloyd Hatton
West and South Dorset Young Greens

Comments (2)

Please log in to enable comment sorting

12:08pm Thu 28 Aug 14

WykeReg says...

Why is it that the loony lefties (and the Greens are the looniest of the lefties) insist on insulting shareholders? Please explain what is wrong with investors risking their hard-earned in a business in the hope of a return which is not guaranteed? How do businesses raise capital to invest in the business if no-one steps forward to invest? Have the greens ever read the first chapter in any Economics textbook?

As for 'well-funded' bus services (or any other business) the only way that can be achieved is if there are sufficient customer using the services. You cannot expect to fund (well or otherwise) an undertaking that runs empty buses and trains - to do so is a charity or a hobby, not a viable business. I could get more technical about load factors and break-even points, but I guess the Greens wouldn't understand.
Why is it that the loony lefties (and the Greens are the looniest of the lefties) insist on insulting shareholders? Please explain what is wrong with investors risking their hard-earned in a business in the hope of a return which is not guaranteed? How do businesses raise capital to invest in the business if no-one steps forward to invest? Have the greens ever read the first chapter in any Economics textbook? As for 'well-funded' bus services (or any other business) the only way that can be achieved is if there are sufficient customer using the services. You cannot expect to fund (well or otherwise) an undertaking that runs empty buses and trains - to do so is a charity or a hobby, not a viable business. I could get more technical about load factors and break-even points, but I guess the Greens wouldn't understand. WykeReg
  • Score: 3

9:52am Fri 29 Aug 14

JamesYoung says...

WykeReg wrote:
Why is it that the loony lefties (and the Greens are the looniest of the lefties) insist on insulting shareholders? Please explain what is wrong with investors risking their hard-earned in a business in the hope of a return which is not guaranteed? How do businesses raise capital to invest in the business if no-one steps forward to invest? Have the greens ever read the first chapter in any Economics textbook?

As for 'well-funded' bus services (or any other business) the only way that can be achieved is if there are sufficient customer using the services. You cannot expect to fund (well or otherwise) an undertaking that runs empty buses and trains - to do so is a charity or a hobby, not a viable business. I could get more technical about load factors and break-even points, but I guess the Greens wouldn't understand.
I agree entirely with your point about the Greens appearing to be a little out of touch with economics.
I do, however, partially agree with their stance on shareholders as i think it is one of the biggest issues we face.
Let's say you start a building company. You need some cash so you sell some shares to family and friends. Your business grows, so you employ other family and friends and, eventually, strangers, to work for you. All of these people have a vested interest in the long term health of the company.
Business is good, and your company grows so large that you decide to float your shares on the stock market. Over time, the value of your own shares gets diluted. You don't mind too much - you've made your millions by now. However, as your share gets diluted, so does your voice. And now, there is a critical difference: the person managing the business is no longer the person who benefits from its long term success or failure. In fact, the majority of stock market investors are banks and pension funds. They are only interested in short term performance. If they can buy in on a Monday and sell for a profit on a Thursday based on their analysis of a stock chart, they don't care what happens to the company in two years time. They'll stay invested for as long as you keep returning a growing profit.
One year, your profit drops from 1 million to 2 million. In the old days, you might have worried a little bit about this and watched your costs a little better. Today, though, this reduction in profit - which is still a profit - alarms your shareholders. Within hours of the announcement, you and all your family and friends have been removed from your management roles and an announcement has been made that half of your workforce is to be sacked.
This is my problem with stock market style shareholding. Every year, Barclays or some other large bank makes profits that most of us can barely conceptualise, but they then fire tens of thousands of worker ants because they want to extract just that little bit more.
[quote][p][bold]WykeReg[/bold] wrote: Why is it that the loony lefties (and the Greens are the looniest of the lefties) insist on insulting shareholders? Please explain what is wrong with investors risking their hard-earned in a business in the hope of a return which is not guaranteed? How do businesses raise capital to invest in the business if no-one steps forward to invest? Have the greens ever read the first chapter in any Economics textbook? As for 'well-funded' bus services (or any other business) the only way that can be achieved is if there are sufficient customer using the services. You cannot expect to fund (well or otherwise) an undertaking that runs empty buses and trains - to do so is a charity or a hobby, not a viable business. I could get more technical about load factors and break-even points, but I guess the Greens wouldn't understand.[/p][/quote]I agree entirely with your point about the Greens appearing to be a little out of touch with economics. I do, however, partially agree with their stance on shareholders as i think it is one of the biggest issues we face. Let's say you start a building company. You need some cash so you sell some shares to family and friends. Your business grows, so you employ other family and friends and, eventually, strangers, to work for you. All of these people have a vested interest in the long term health of the company. Business is good, and your company grows so large that you decide to float your shares on the stock market. Over time, the value of your own shares gets diluted. You don't mind too much - you've made your millions by now. However, as your share gets diluted, so does your voice. And now, there is a critical difference: the person managing the business is no longer the person who benefits from its long term success or failure. In fact, the majority of stock market investors are banks and pension funds. They are only interested in short term performance. If they can buy in on a Monday and sell for a profit on a Thursday based on their analysis of a stock chart, they don't care what happens to the company in two years time. They'll stay invested for as long as you keep returning a growing profit. One year, your profit drops from 1 million to 2 million. In the old days, you might have worried a little bit about this and watched your costs a little better. Today, though, this reduction in profit - which is still a profit - alarms your shareholders. Within hours of the announcement, you and all your family and friends have been removed from your management roles and an announcement has been made that half of your workforce is to be sacked. This is my problem with stock market style shareholding. Every year, Barclays or some other large bank makes profits that most of us can barely conceptualise, but they then fire tens of thousands of worker ants because they want to extract just that little bit more. JamesYoung
  • Score: 2

Comments are closed on this article.

Send us your news, pictures and videos

Most read stories

Local Info

Enter your postcode, town or place name

About cookies

We want you to enjoy your visit to our website. That's why we use cookies to enhance your experience. By staying on our website you agree to our use of cookies. Find out more about the cookies we use.

I agree