ai_Droid Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 In which case you would expect some enterprising individuals would have siezed on the opportunity to cater to the massive demand by offering similar facilities for a lower price. Yet this hasn't happened. It's entirely possible that the government hasn't done enough to advertise the possibilities for commercial expansion in the leisure industry, but I'm willing to bet that part of the reason is also that there simply isn't enough demand to justify the investment or risk. ....which is exactly why the authorities generally provide these places. Flogging memberships to people who dont use them is good business, providing a sports hall for 2 quid an hour isn't, but is a needed resource. I'm going in circles here, giving up. For instance, you were recently advocating the construction of a velodrome, which seems a bit much given that the entirity of the UK only has 22 of the things. Just because there is some demand doesn't mean that it should automatically be met by the Government. How many stock car tracks are there? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 For instance, you were recently advocating the construction of a velodrome, which seems a bit much given that the entirity of the UK only has 22 of the things. Just because there is some demand doesn't mean that it should automatically be met by the Government. How many stock car tracks are there? 31 in the UK, on a short internet search Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'm going in circles here. No, you're missing the point. I made it pretty clear that the context in which the passage you quoted was a belief that the government's responsibility isn't to meet all demand, for everything, ever, but to provide reasonable facilities. Here reasonable is taken as a function of level and nature of demand combined with the size and wealth of our community, something you've failed to address other than providing exactly same kind of anecdotal evidence that you criticise Triskelion for relying upon. For instance, you were recently advocating the construction of a velodrome, which seems a bit much given that the entirity of the UK only has 22 of the things. Just because there is some demand doesn't mean that it should automatically be met by the Government. How many stock car tracks are there? Right. So we have one thing, so that immediately justifies forking out for another? Hey, we have a stock car track. Let's build a Lido! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pamplemousse Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I realise that by there very nature internet forums generally anti-establishment, so perhaps my (admittedly often sympathetic) views make me seem much more the Government-shill than I actually am? I'm only 21, so the chances of me being in any kind of senior position are zero. I wouldn't argue with some of your points on this thread but if you're really only 21 and not employed by the Government, I'm the King of Old Siam. I've never seen a thread where your name appears where you don't appear to be vigorously defending the Govt's position. Anyway... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rallybug Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 In which case you would expect some enterprising individuals would have siezed on the opportunity to cater to the massive demand by offering similar facilities for a lower price. Yet this hasn't happened. It's entirely possible that the government hasn't done enough to advertise the possibilities for commercial expansion in the leisure industry, but I'm willing to bet that part of the reason is also that there simply isn't enough demand to justify the investment or risk. ....which is exactly why the authorities generally provide these places. Flogging memberships to people who dont use them is good business, providing a sports hall for 2 quid an hour isn't, but is a needed resource. I'm going in circles here, giving up. I suppose the flip side is, if the use of a sports hall for 5-a-side is subsidised to that extent (£2 an hour -per person, I assume?), any costs not covered by those fees are picked up by the remainder of the population who don't use those facilities. Surely it is better, and more economical, to have just enough 5-a-side halls to cover the general needs year-round, and not to have them lie empty for parts of the year - the knack is in working out the balance point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Partridge Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 How many stock car tracks are there? Not sure really, but stock car racing is more entertaining than cycling for the general public I think. Going back to the summerland site, wouldn't a kart track be a good use of that area. I'm sure locals and holiday makers would make use of it and it wouldn't be a huge investment to make a nice tidy facility! Anyway, I've spent too much time in Travel Taverns when I was on Radio Norwich! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Sorry chum, a state-granted monopoly is very much a disguised subsidy. You can bleat to the contrary as much as you like, but it won't change that underlying fact. The underlying fact seems to be that you're too stupid to tell the difference. Subsidy - Money given to provide service; typically to support a service that would otherwise not be viable, yet is vital for infrastructure or political reasons. State-granted monopoly - Indeed similar in justification (ie. Sea link could not be viably maintained in a competitive environment) but includes no giving of money, which is the whole point of a subsidy. If you are still confused by this, try consulting a dictionary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 A) There is plenty for tourists to do on the Island. Christ knows what you do on holiday if you think there is nothing to do here. If you were 21 as you claimed in previous posts in this thread you would not be saying that. Unless of course you live in a cave in Foxdale with your pet sheep and your caulifour-eared relatives. B) The lack of decent hotel accomodation for businessmen has been an ongoing problem for the Island, with many cases of them having crashed on the beds/other furniture of company staff. How would a mere slip of a lad be aware of that. Did your boss make an excuse to bunk up with you? How ongoing is this problem. Since you were 12, or just since started making the tea? C) The Island actually has excellent facilities relative to its population. Please specify these. D) Summerland, when it was there, was chronically under-used, and many of the facilities spent most of their time inactive. Considering a new facility would probably cost at least £50 million, the extent to which this would be a sound investment in recreational facilities is pretty unclear. You seem to know a lot about the past of Summerland for a poor 21 year old boy. Its been shut for 5 years at least. Please stop the bullshit and please stop pretending you don't work for the government. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 Sorry chum, a state-granted monopoly is very much a disguised subsidy. You can bleat to the contrary as much as you like, but it won't change that underlying fact. The underlying fact seems to be that you're too stupid to tell the difference. Subsidy - Money given to provide service; typically to support a service that would otherwise not be viable, yet is vital for infrastructure or political reasons. State-granted monopoly - Indeed similar in justification (ie. Sea link could not be viably maintained in a competitive environment) but includes no giving of money, which is the whole point of a subsidy. If you are still confused by this, try consulting a dictionary. I have to agree with Tugger - this is not about dictionary definitions of the word 'subsidy', you are ignoring the effect of being granted a state-granted monopoly. Any business that does not have competitors, by definition: needs to spend less (or no) money on attracting customers, less (or no) money providing competition-based offers and doesn't have to worry as much about standards of service as it would if it had competitors etc. etc. - i.e. an effective subsidy to the business by it not having to spend such monies. If that monopoly business has to provide a needed service for political/infrastructure reasons, it effectively becomes a risk-free business as well. You can't put a price on a risk-free business - because most of us couldn't find one outside of such monpolies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I certainly don't dispute the advantage the Steam Packet gains from the linkspan agreement, but I don't accept this 'effectively' equates to a subsidy. I take your point Albert, but on the other hand the Steam Packet has to run a passenger service that seems pretty marginal and a freight service that offers much, much more than the vital capacity. (at least according to their submissions to the select committee). No doubt the current arrangement reduces the Steam Packet's costs to an extent, but this doesn't make is a subsidised business. You only have to look at Manx farmers, who have both, to see that they are different. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oldmanxfella Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I certainly don't dispute the advantage the Steam Packet gains from the linkspan agreement, but I don't accept this 'effectively' equates to a subsidy. I quote from Hansard of 25th March 2003 at the time when the Sea Containers sale was being debated:- Mr Corkill I wish to reassure members and the public that whoever owns the Steam Packet, the protection afforded by the Linkspan User Agreement will remain in place. This agreement, first approved for a 10-year period in 1995, gives the Steam Packet use of the Douglas harbour linkspan [ ie. its free and maintained at taxpayers cost ] in return for undertakings on levels of service and fares. It also requires the company to consult with government on proposed timetables each year. [ that is a subsidy it is provided by the taxpayer at no cost ] Mr Houghton Thank you, Mr Speaker. May I ask the hon. Chief Minister how long his government has been aware of this news and also what commercial value would he think the Sea Containers would put on the user agreement which is currently in place? What value would he put on that as part of this sale? [ ie. What is this subsidy worth? ] Mr Corkill That is a difficult question in terms of what the value of the user agreement is, Mr Speaker. As we know, it was approved that it be extended in recent times and for that we got a return in service levels increased over and above what we were entitled to before. So I have always seen the benefit of the user agreement as a benefit to the people of the Isle of Man rather than a benefit to the company – Mr Houghton It is now a benefit to the company, isn’t it? Mr Corkill But if you create a closed market in any situation then that does create a goodwill value to any operation when something is effectively licensed [ that’s an emphatic “yes” then this taxpayer funded facility has commercial value ]. So it will have a value to the company but I think that is a strength in as much as if the company does change hands then obviously we want it to be an asset that is worth having and worth looking after. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VinnieK Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 How did we get from Summerland back to the Steam Packet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
triskelion Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'm cursed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tugger Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 It equates PRECISELY to a subsidy. The Steam Packet's state-awarded monopoly mean that it makes more money from its operations than it would in a competitive market. And really, kiddo, it's you that's making a fool of yourself here. Just like you were on the agriculture subsidies. But it's nice to know how much I'm getting under your skin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hboy Posted July 28, 2008 Share Posted July 28, 2008 I'm cursed. Never mind government loves you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.