We’re often told that we should consider other people. That’s right and proper, and an integral part of being part of a co-operative group of beings. But increasingly people are misconstruing this simple injunction. When we add one word to the end of the sentence: ‘we should consider other people’s feelings’, we change the entire meaning.
I can understand how the confusion arises. All through childhood we are taught how to integrate with and behave in society. As part of this, our parents teach us to understand other people. This not only advances our mental development, as we develop theory of self and learn to anticipate others’ wants and responses (which, we are told, is why our brains are so huge: big brains aren’t needed for calculating where a falling rock will land, nor how to move our legs, but for social interaction), but as theory of self develops it also coincides with moral learning. When children are old enough to interact with others on a social level and understand their parents’ reasoning, they are at precisely the age that involves learning the rules of social interaction. It is natural to appeal to their new knowledge and abilities to help them with learning. But it isn’t necessary. Morality follows theory of self because of how we raise children, not because empathy is its basis.
If empathy were the basis of morality, then a psychopath, who has none, would not be bound by morality: he would be freed, by a chance of nature, from a social construct. That’s fine: there’s no law against such a system. But it does strike me as absurd to base rules governing society on something hidden, personal and not universally shared by members of that society. The solution, then is to argue either that empathy is a sense some of us have of a universal truth, or else that the feelings themselves are the basis of morality. Personal and not shared senses of universal truth have been addressed many times and very comprehensively by atheists the world over, so I don’t need to debunk that idea here. The second assertion, however, is the core of this post, and the one that is usually asserted; I was merely ruling out alternatives before getting to it.
It is my assertion that feelings are individual, unpredictable and unreliable. Furthermore, when the feelings themselves occur reliably when predicted for everyone, they are still incomparable, unquantifiable (precisely) and unverifiable. If we are to accept the bald assertion that feelings are the basis of morality, which I don’t feel inclined to do, we have quite a selection of practical problems with codifying morality.
We have just seen that empathy is not a good basis for morality without me even mentioning ‘the golden rule’ and its problems with masochists (and all differences in taste). Empathy is a way of judging emotions from overt responses (after the event) or predicting responses based on perceived desires. If I’m to judge using perceived desires then I need to know the person, making moral action with strangers impossible, and I might well also need, if the person’s desires differ greatly from my own, to ignore my empathy (here meaning my intuitive understanding of human nature) and rely on ‘merely’ intellectual models of desires. We can’t judge the morality of an act if we need information that we can only acquire after the act. That covers both using responses and knowledge of the person. And as for using intellectual understanding of people’s desires rather than emotional, that’s a big leap from empathy.
Of course, some people are happy with the unpredictability of the morality of an action. They don’t think that morality has to be usable as a guide about what to do, but instead can quite reasonably be judged using consequences. Morality is then not a socialising force or a set of principles to live by, but a capricious and judgemental god who imposes (original) sin on us without us having any ability to avoid it. People are welcome to believe in ‘consequentialism’, but I think it’s a vile and barbaric creed that’s amenable only to those whose lives are so chaotic or who have so little self-control that capricious judgements seem normal. I don’t think it fulfils the basic requirements of morality such as people being responsible for doing wrong.
The second part is the unquantifiability, and hence incomparability, of feelings. Feelings will often compete, just as people do, for resources or rights or actions. A system that cannot judge between these pulls is not a system at all, and is unusable.
The third part is the unverifiability of feelings. I can quite easily lie about my feelings or exaggerate. If we base our moral system on something that can be altered for and by individual participants, we don’t have a moral system, but a ‘do whatever you want’ system. Of course this is, to an extent, solely a practical point. It is quite easy to say that morality does indeed rely on feelings and that dissembling is immoral and that there is no way that we can ever be certain of our moral judgements or of doing justice, because we can never trust anyone else. If you believe that, though, you might well agree that we should introduce another ‘moral’ system for practical control, just because some form of morality might well be better than anarchy.
Anyway, the fourth and most important for me (because I’ve thought about it before) point is about how if we rely on other people’s responses, as empathy dictates (in that it anticipates those responses) then we can be controlled by others who control their responses. Not only that, which might nonetheless be moral, but if we suffer anguish from choosing an option we didn’t really want, then they have a duty to anticipate our responses and act to minimise our anguish. They are then morally bound to conceal or even falsify their responses in order to minimise our anguish. And then we are bound to prevent them anticipating our anguish in order not to control them and thereby cause them anguish… it’s an endless circle of inter-reliance, and cannot be resolved except by removing the start: that other people’s responses should govern our actions. We don’t live in a static world where everyone else is unchanging whilst we make our choices. To use other people’s responses as a guide to actions betrays a distinct solipsism and lack of consideration of others as individuals, because it needs the assumption that they’re merely predetermined experiences for us.
To care for that person as another person, in a human way that ‘empathists’ would probably feel drawn to, needs us to acknowledge their humanity, their ability to choose and respond for themselves and the consequent impossibility of a system that sets us up to rely on each others’ responses in a self-referential way. Even though a simplistic summary might be that I’m advocating ignoring someone’s feelings in a rather inhuman way, I think that people are usually much happier when they’re not controlled or manipulated, which is what anticipating their feelings does for them. I also find that acting on principle, rather than on feelings, makes me more tolerable, not less; some people disagree with a thing here or there, but my actions and in particular my expectations (because I don’t really have any) aren’t arbitrary or capricious. And this takes me full circle to my recent note about spanking. As is agreed by experts everywhere, being arbitrary and capricious is no good way to engender love or even liking and nor does it set a good example for children.
So, in fact, the more we feel that we need to rely on others’ feelings to guide our actions, the more everyone is obliged to hide their feelings, the less guide we have, the more deceived and deceptive we become and the less genuine interaction there is.
I would rather feel free to express genuine emotion and see it, untroubled by the need to tailor it to produce the correct response in others or to interpret it carefully. This is what I do on those occasions when I do express emotion, and it’s why dogs are so rewarding. They show how they feel without concern about the effects on you, but simply because that’s what interaction ought to be. Whether they’re simple or not, their actions in this regard are remarkably wise. It’s the same joy that many people get when they deal with children: they are expressive for expression’s sake, open and honest. It is rewarding to be allowed to make one’s own decisions without interference from others, controlling their expressions.
I see no reason to ‘grow up’ past this beautiful state, and I refuse, where I can, to do so. Rejecting doctrines that require us to be closed, isolated and manipulative is certainly one way in which I can do so.
Monday, 25 July 2011
Friday, 22 July 2011
Mob rule of language
If language is entirely decided by users, then [insert random list of words here, which I can't be bothered to do].
Oh no! Wasn't my meaning clear?
Well, wasn't that surprising. Co-operative efforts require co-operation. Language, by its very nature, is a an effort in co-operation. Part of that effort is learning and obeying rules of meaning so that one's meaning is accurately conveyed. If you can't be bothered to learn the rules, find your knowledge lacking, and try to change the rules to suit yourself, it's not acceptable to pretend that actually language belongs to you and you're entitled to change it.
The whole purpose of language is that it is not a personal thing that you're allowed to redefine, but that it is an objective means of communicating. When I say one thing, it means the same to you and me. That's the point! If a lot of people can't be bothered, and some people put the effort into learning to communicate accurately, it's rather sickening if those people's efforts are destroyed by the people who can't be bothered coming up with 'clever' arguments about why words with specific meanings don't have those meanings.
It's rather similar to people making money under a system by putting in time and effort, and then being told that actually it's unjust to make money and all that time and effort is arbitrarily going to be taxed entirely away to pay for lazy people who've spent all their money. Or, to borrow a fable, the ant being told to help the grasshopper.
If you don't know the word and you get it wrong, you're wrong. It's a consequence of not caring enough about communication, and you can't escape responsibility by invoking mob rule. It's the price you pay for devoting your time to other things.
Oh no! Wasn't my meaning clear?
Well, wasn't that surprising. Co-operative efforts require co-operation. Language, by its very nature, is a an effort in co-operation. Part of that effort is learning and obeying rules of meaning so that one's meaning is accurately conveyed. If you can't be bothered to learn the rules, find your knowledge lacking, and try to change the rules to suit yourself, it's not acceptable to pretend that actually language belongs to you and you're entitled to change it.
The whole purpose of language is that it is not a personal thing that you're allowed to redefine, but that it is an objective means of communicating. When I say one thing, it means the same to you and me. That's the point! If a lot of people can't be bothered, and some people put the effort into learning to communicate accurately, it's rather sickening if those people's efforts are destroyed by the people who can't be bothered coming up with 'clever' arguments about why words with specific meanings don't have those meanings.
It's rather similar to people making money under a system by putting in time and effort, and then being told that actually it's unjust to make money and all that time and effort is arbitrarily going to be taxed entirely away to pay for lazy people who've spent all their money. Or, to borrow a fable, the ant being told to help the grasshopper.
If you don't know the word and you get it wrong, you're wrong. It's a consequence of not caring enough about communication, and you can't escape responsibility by invoking mob rule. It's the price you pay for devoting your time to other things.
Wednesday, 20 July 2011
Spanking
I am always very shocked by people who insist that spanking is child abuse. A week or so ago I heard a radio programme (All in the Mind, I think) that examined child mental health and conflated spanking with abuse. As I said at the time 'if you get a parent who ignores or shouts at a child, doesn't play or listen or explain and also spanks, and you're running a parenting education workshop, is spanking really so shocking that you only let the listener find out about the rest from parental testimony later in the programme'?
I was spanked as a child. That doesn't mean that I was abused; both I and my mother agree that spanking is a useful punishment in a parent's arsenal. My experience is that most people who have been spanked think of it as nothing special, and that many who haven't regard it as child abuse... and that's interesting in itself. But first, some quotations from others who've discussed their experiences and attitudes:
'When I was spanked as a kid, and when I spanked my own kids, the blows were actually very weak. The purpose of a spanking is not to inflict physically damage, but to issue a strong message that the child's behavior is unacceptable.
The 'drama' factor involved with a spanking is the key. I tried to take a moment after a spanking and make them apologize for whatever they did and sometimes even ask them if they knew why what they did was wrong. My kids feared the humiliation factor of the post-spanking ritual far more than the minor physical pain of the blows themself.
I could eventually get them (usually) to behave not by threatening to hit them, but by looking them in the eye and saying in a commanding voice "DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION? (pause) ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS? (pause) JUST LET ME KNOW IF WE NEED TO WORK ON YOUR BEHAVIOR."'
'When I was a kid, I got whacked with a variety of objects: switches, belts, wooden paddles...even got spankings in school by teachers. It wasnt seen as abuse.'
'I have also been spanked in school, (actually, as a mater of fact, I only have been spanked in school). And if it is not continuous, I don't see it as abuse'
'My dad used a belt and I turned out fine. I learned right from wrong real quick.'
'My mother had a wicked slap that could catch the most tender spots, I learned right from wrong by this and would not think to tell a parent how to reprimand there child unless it constituted either mental or physical abuse.'
'My parents used spanking very rarely. When they did there was a big buildup to it that was far worse than the actual act itself, which was always restrained. I think this was an effective way to do it.'
'It worked for you, good going, I was such a colossal pain in the arse, a real rebellious and imaginitive child who could twist things to look right, my mother never took the decision to spank lightly, in fact most times she wouldn't, but it's all too easy to judge the effectiveness based on your situation, and not someone elses. And science is hardly totally in agreement over the deal. If it's often used it's detremental, if it's used sparingly it can work, but only if it's used in conjunction with a variety of punishment, spanking has to be understood to be the last resort, and a rarity, if it's a first resort or common place then it loses all meaning. This I agree with, but then I was never subjected to it regularly.'
'...Personally I see striking one's own child would only encourage the child to believe that hitting other people is alright.
I guess it depends on how you actually hit him.'
'Never had anything bad on me nor anyone in my family. Nor anyone else I know.
Are you sure? "Bad" can be many things. Do you think that you realise how your childhood has affected you? For all you know your current political view can be a direct result of it '
Just so that you all know I'm not alone. I deliberately saved the interesting comments until last, but first, let's reconsider how to punish a child.
If a punishment is to be effective in teaching then the receiver needs to know why it's being administered. Since raising children is about teaching them to grow and understand, not just to keep out of your way, any and every punishment needs explanation. Spanking is no different. I'm not arguing that parents should walk into a room and deliver a crushing blow to their children's heads just to get them out of the way.
So spanking can be a punishment delivered as part of a stern telling-off which involves an explanation of the rules and a chance to accept guilt. It is not incompatible with the vital aspects of punishment.
Next up, a child needs to be able to link a punishment with rule-breaking. That means that the two need to be related. Young children have short memories and when one runs into the road or commits a similar, immediate wrong, you won't necessarily be able to take a sweet away (if you give your child sweets in the first place!). A punishment at the end of the day can seem every unrelated to a 'crime' earlier in the day. My memories of being that young are hazy (!), but I remember babysitting a trio of young boys, and the youngest certainly had problems with not getting his sweets in the evening (with me) because of actions he'd done earlier.
This gets me to the third main point, which is that a short, sharp punishment is not necessarily the cruelist. Throughout my life, and amongst many people I've known, many people have expressed the idea that long, drawn-out punishments can be worse than relatively painful, but brief, ones. It's not that new, either: Billy Bunter preferred a caning to coventry (being deliberately ignored by your peers) about a century ago.
There's something quite refreshing about getting the punishment over and done with, as presumably the action also is. You can return to liking your parents again without the dark clouds of abnormality hanging over you. I know I brooded and got angriest when I had time to brood about it (a bit like writing notes such as this when I have time). I think that there's a place for being grounded or stuck in one's bedroom, but not as a replacement for spanking.
Especially, I think that spanking a child early, when it has a shorter memory and perhaps less ability or inclination to consider the issue carefully, is justifiable. I'd agree that older children might need other punishments. Hitting doesn't teach a child to mistrust you if you explain causes and effects, and administer sane rules consistently. The difference from a dog is that a child does have understanding and can be reasoned with (/at).
But there's more than simply spanking to talk about! Let's return to those quotations which illustrate my thoughts:
'Are you sure? "Bad" can be many things. Do you think that you realise how your childhood has affected you? For all you know your current political view can be a direct result of it'
'...Personally I see striking one's own child would only encourage the child to believe that hitting other people is alright.'
Spanking is a political issue because it involves moulding people's childhoods. Some people see the body as sacrosanct and live in a world where violence is the ultimate evil. People who've grown up in an environment where it's not the worst thing that can happen, and where it is part of life, can't easily share that philosophy. I've considered violence before, when thinking about bullying:
http://whirlingsilently.blogspot.com/2010/04/greatest-evil.html
Do we live in an insulated bubble, protected from the world around us? Most of us do, mentally and physically, but I'm keen to burst that bubble. I like knowing the temperature outside, feeling the seasons and enjoying fresh air. I don't like closed, stale, hot rooms full of cleaning-fluid vapours (if I'm lucky). I know that I can fall down a hillside, get knocked off my bike or encounter new data. People might pursue a life of comfort and certainty, but that's not life; it's merely existence.
Spanking breaks down the barriers of dignity that a person builds, even at that young an age. But really, is it bad if you learn that your self-esteem doesn't come from what is done to you, but what you do?
Would I want my child to be repulsed by normal aspects of life, such as physical danger (when I take my child hiking, for example), or watching police, wars, or animals?
These are important questions about education and upbringing. They are not clear rights and wrongs, although it's obvious which side I prefer. You can't dismiss spanking because it makes someone more accepting of violence. Violence is a tool, not an outcome. Violence used by police to restrain a dangerous criminal is good.
Is my keenness on principles, and subordination of other concerns, such as the avoidance of violence, due to my upbringing, in which my mother stated rules (with reasons), and then enforced them, including using spanking (3 times I think)? When someone wants to ban spanking, it's an implicit assertion of a philosophical system that regards violence as wrong.
It includes intrinsic respect of others, no matter what their actions, which is a pleasant and modern humanistic doctrine, but a philosophical opinion nonetheless. What if I think that people who are grossly criminal don't deserve respect and that there is no such thing as deserving respect through being human: that one must earn respect?
To forbid spanking is a difficult issue, because there needs to be some control over what can be done to children, but it also naturally involves shaping their knowledge and view of the world, and that is how to teach the next generation to agree with your opinions. How are we to define abuse when we haven't agreed an over-arching philosophy by which to make laws and run the country?
Well, we can exclude things that are harmful, and beatings qualify there, as physical harms that can impede a child's physical growth and development. But when it comes to mental development, we might have to control ouselves, because what to one person might be bad, to another is his most cherished opinion.
I was spanked as a child. That doesn't mean that I was abused; both I and my mother agree that spanking is a useful punishment in a parent's arsenal. My experience is that most people who have been spanked think of it as nothing special, and that many who haven't regard it as child abuse... and that's interesting in itself. But first, some quotations from others who've discussed their experiences and attitudes:
'When I was spanked as a kid, and when I spanked my own kids, the blows were actually very weak. The purpose of a spanking is not to inflict physically damage, but to issue a strong message that the child's behavior is unacceptable.
The 'drama' factor involved with a spanking is the key. I tried to take a moment after a spanking and make them apologize for whatever they did and sometimes even ask them if they knew why what they did was wrong. My kids feared the humiliation factor of the post-spanking ritual far more than the minor physical pain of the blows themself.
I could eventually get them (usually) to behave not by threatening to hit them, but by looking them in the eye and saying in a commanding voice "DO I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION? (pause) ARE WE GOING TO HAVE TO TALK ABOUT THIS? (pause) JUST LET ME KNOW IF WE NEED TO WORK ON YOUR BEHAVIOR."'
'When I was a kid, I got whacked with a variety of objects: switches, belts, wooden paddles...even got spankings in school by teachers. It wasnt seen as abuse.'
'I have also been spanked in school, (actually, as a mater of fact, I only have been spanked in school). And if it is not continuous, I don't see it as abuse'
'My dad used a belt and I turned out fine. I learned right from wrong real quick.'
'My mother had a wicked slap that could catch the most tender spots, I learned right from wrong by this and would not think to tell a parent how to reprimand there child unless it constituted either mental or physical abuse.'
'My parents used spanking very rarely. When they did there was a big buildup to it that was far worse than the actual act itself, which was always restrained. I think this was an effective way to do it.'
'It worked for you, good going, I was such a colossal pain in the arse, a real rebellious and imaginitive child who could twist things to look right, my mother never took the decision to spank lightly, in fact most times she wouldn't, but it's all too easy to judge the effectiveness based on your situation, and not someone elses. And science is hardly totally in agreement over the deal. If it's often used it's detremental, if it's used sparingly it can work, but only if it's used in conjunction with a variety of punishment, spanking has to be understood to be the last resort, and a rarity, if it's a first resort or common place then it loses all meaning. This I agree with, but then I was never subjected to it regularly.'
'...Personally I see striking one's own child would only encourage the child to believe that hitting other people is alright.
I guess it depends on how you actually hit him.'
'Never had anything bad on me nor anyone in my family. Nor anyone else I know.
Are you sure? "Bad" can be many things. Do you think that you realise how your childhood has affected you? For all you know your current political view can be a direct result of it '
Just so that you all know I'm not alone. I deliberately saved the interesting comments until last, but first, let's reconsider how to punish a child.
If a punishment is to be effective in teaching then the receiver needs to know why it's being administered. Since raising children is about teaching them to grow and understand, not just to keep out of your way, any and every punishment needs explanation. Spanking is no different. I'm not arguing that parents should walk into a room and deliver a crushing blow to their children's heads just to get them out of the way.
So spanking can be a punishment delivered as part of a stern telling-off which involves an explanation of the rules and a chance to accept guilt. It is not incompatible with the vital aspects of punishment.
Next up, a child needs to be able to link a punishment with rule-breaking. That means that the two need to be related. Young children have short memories and when one runs into the road or commits a similar, immediate wrong, you won't necessarily be able to take a sweet away (if you give your child sweets in the first place!). A punishment at the end of the day can seem every unrelated to a 'crime' earlier in the day. My memories of being that young are hazy (!), but I remember babysitting a trio of young boys, and the youngest certainly had problems with not getting his sweets in the evening (with me) because of actions he'd done earlier.
This gets me to the third main point, which is that a short, sharp punishment is not necessarily the cruelist. Throughout my life, and amongst many people I've known, many people have expressed the idea that long, drawn-out punishments can be worse than relatively painful, but brief, ones. It's not that new, either: Billy Bunter preferred a caning to coventry (being deliberately ignored by your peers) about a century ago.
There's something quite refreshing about getting the punishment over and done with, as presumably the action also is. You can return to liking your parents again without the dark clouds of abnormality hanging over you. I know I brooded and got angriest when I had time to brood about it (a bit like writing notes such as this when I have time). I think that there's a place for being grounded or stuck in one's bedroom, but not as a replacement for spanking.
Especially, I think that spanking a child early, when it has a shorter memory and perhaps less ability or inclination to consider the issue carefully, is justifiable. I'd agree that older children might need other punishments. Hitting doesn't teach a child to mistrust you if you explain causes and effects, and administer sane rules consistently. The difference from a dog is that a child does have understanding and can be reasoned with (/at).
But there's more than simply spanking to talk about! Let's return to those quotations which illustrate my thoughts:
'Are you sure? "Bad" can be many things. Do you think that you realise how your childhood has affected you? For all you know your current political view can be a direct result of it'
'...Personally I see striking one's own child would only encourage the child to believe that hitting other people is alright.'
Spanking is a political issue because it involves moulding people's childhoods. Some people see the body as sacrosanct and live in a world where violence is the ultimate evil. People who've grown up in an environment where it's not the worst thing that can happen, and where it is part of life, can't easily share that philosophy. I've considered violence before, when thinking about bullying:
http://whirlingsilently.blogspot.com/2010/04/greatest-evil.html
Do we live in an insulated bubble, protected from the world around us? Most of us do, mentally and physically, but I'm keen to burst that bubble. I like knowing the temperature outside, feeling the seasons and enjoying fresh air. I don't like closed, stale, hot rooms full of cleaning-fluid vapours (if I'm lucky). I know that I can fall down a hillside, get knocked off my bike or encounter new data. People might pursue a life of comfort and certainty, but that's not life; it's merely existence.
Spanking breaks down the barriers of dignity that a person builds, even at that young an age. But really, is it bad if you learn that your self-esteem doesn't come from what is done to you, but what you do?
Would I want my child to be repulsed by normal aspects of life, such as physical danger (when I take my child hiking, for example), or watching police, wars, or animals?
These are important questions about education and upbringing. They are not clear rights and wrongs, although it's obvious which side I prefer. You can't dismiss spanking because it makes someone more accepting of violence. Violence is a tool, not an outcome. Violence used by police to restrain a dangerous criminal is good.
Is my keenness on principles, and subordination of other concerns, such as the avoidance of violence, due to my upbringing, in which my mother stated rules (with reasons), and then enforced them, including using spanking (3 times I think)? When someone wants to ban spanking, it's an implicit assertion of a philosophical system that regards violence as wrong.
It includes intrinsic respect of others, no matter what their actions, which is a pleasant and modern humanistic doctrine, but a philosophical opinion nonetheless. What if I think that people who are grossly criminal don't deserve respect and that there is no such thing as deserving respect through being human: that one must earn respect?
To forbid spanking is a difficult issue, because there needs to be some control over what can be done to children, but it also naturally involves shaping their knowledge and view of the world, and that is how to teach the next generation to agree with your opinions. How are we to define abuse when we haven't agreed an over-arching philosophy by which to make laws and run the country?
Well, we can exclude things that are harmful, and beatings qualify there, as physical harms that can impede a child's physical growth and development. But when it comes to mental development, we might have to control ouselves, because what to one person might be bad, to another is his most cherished opinion.
Saturday, 9 July 2011
Railways
I was chatting to a friend yesterday (amongst others) who said that the British railways are very efficiently run: we have more trains travelling at over 100mph than any other country, we get more fuel efficiency from them than, for example, the French TGV (and the rest of the French rail network is poor), that diesel is better than electrification and that rail companies must be working very well for passenger numbers to have doubled in the last few years.
This sounds very much like the propaganda that the rail companies produce, and which I have seen criticised in print, mostly in Private Eye, so I want to summarise a few articles from PE here as a stored answer.
PE 1291: Northern Ireland Railways is protected from fare rises 3% above inflation because it is publicly owned and says that improved efficiency means it doesn't need more fare income. From 2004 to 2009 its subsidy dropped by 26% to about £2 per passenger. The privatised network received an increase of 13% to £4 per passenger. The 22% rise in passengers should have cut costs. Fares are already much cheaper. The recent rail value for money study (Roy McNulty) didn't even mention NIR, but did mention the rail industry's multiple misaligned incentives.
e.g rail companies are fined for being late, so they pad out timetables with waiting, so that all journeys are effectively late.
Or trains deliberately leave before the connecting train arrives because a train that has a long 'dwell time' at a station incurs charges to Network Rail.
NIR doesn't need complicated charging structures that cause mismanagement, because it's all one organisation with one board of directors and one aim.
Eye 1290: The 'value for money' study concludes that competitive tendering for track renewal has not yielded any greater efficiency, and that bringing maintenance in-house improved efficiency and safety, and that therefore there needed to be even more competitive tendering to achieve efficiency. It recommends another five agencies to oversee more benchmarking and comparisons, which will be paid for by the government and passengers.
Eye 1289: An in-depth look at how the franchise agreements allow rail franchisees to walk away without paying their debts to the government but ensure that subsidies are paid at the beginning of the franchise. The people in charge of each side swap around a lot, as in all areas of government and business, making cosy deals that benefit past or future employers rather than current ones. Revenue support makes the taxpayer liable for bringing revenue up to 80% of forecasts (and how accurate will those be!?). The recent study hasn't mentioned franchising flaws at all, instead recommending more fake competition. As a quick aside, the article also mentions some instances of rail companies breaking rules (e.g lying about statistics).
Eye 1288: This examines the huge bills for legal disputes apportioning blame between companies. For example, improvements in train brakes helps with punctuality targets of network rail, who receive fees for getting the franchisees trains around efficiently, and there was a large dispute over how much was owed by whom.
We also encounter hundreds of thousands each in retention payments for top management, who then leave anyway, having ensured that profits fell.
Eye 1281: Franchisees don't have to worry, as normal businesses do, about economic cycles and changes in demand: this is a financial risk that is outside the operator's control, and the government accepts that it must shoulder it. They are therefore free from worrying about overcrowding or providing additional carriages. Residual value left behind in train and station upgrades is currently unaccounted for, and changing that would require huge amounts of legal wrangling.
Rail lines are grouped together so that high-speed lines nudge badly-run lines above delay targets and no compensation is paid to passengers who couldn't use the high-speed line. Accidents are under-reported because of pressure to announce good statistics.
Eye 1288: The interim value for money study, that 'has confirmed privatisation made the railways more costly and inefficient and robbed them of leadership'. Trains offer better fares where they genuinely compete with each other on large, muli-track lines, and compensate by overpricing on monopoly lines.
Eye 1286: HS2 is poorly thought-out and planners should examine other countries such as France or Japan.
Eye 1284: Rail companies make money despite no capital investment, hiring facilities already in place and dumping risk on the government. There are huge cuts to ticket offices, forcing passengers to use machines and the byzantine fare systems with extraordinarily high prices for truly 'any-time' tickets and no help in finding cheap fares that companies are obliged to offer so that they can claim to have raised average fares by a certain amount. Complex systems like ticket pricing make it impossible for a consumer to achieve the best deal for himself without help from an expert in a ticket office.
Eye 1278: Despite encountering snow the year before, promising to learn lessons and improve services, rail companies cancelled most trains in the snow.
Eye 1273: Cheap advance bookings, where they are available, come with thousands of words of regulations, including not getting off early. A number of passengers have been fined for using less of a service than they have paid for; the punitive terms remain despite outcry. Cheap advance bookings and hideously expensive tickets at the time make people buy multiple tickets, inflating passenger statistics. If the train is empty, what purpose is served by charging more at the time?
Eye 1275: Manipulation of conditions that define when a service can be changed or fares increased. E.g making a route loss-making by adjusting times and carriage numbers, then being allowed to cancel services or raise prices. Private dinners with decision-makes get wrong decisions made.
And that's my Eye collection. I was rather hoping to find the article that examined the cunning incentive 'avoidance' surrounding crowded peak-time trains, cuts in services when in demand and peak/off-peak games in fare pricing and service provision. Yes, you could say that the misaligned incentives were set up badly by the government, just as poor franchising could be blamed on the government, and bad management plagues every type of organisation.
But if we're not to have franchising, what else will we have? Multiple railways taking up huge stretches of countryside? Demolished town centres in order to have multiple railways stations all near the centre? If fake competition, in the form of franchising, is so hard to implement effectively that we need huge amounts of legal experts, consultants (who we already have to advise the government to give out lots of money to everyone) and bureaucracy, then perhaps we're better off with the supposed inefficiencies of British Rail, which had similar rates of accidents, far cheaper services and more services.
This sounds very much like the propaganda that the rail companies produce, and which I have seen criticised in print, mostly in Private Eye, so I want to summarise a few articles from PE here as a stored answer.
PE 1291: Northern Ireland Railways is protected from fare rises 3% above inflation because it is publicly owned and says that improved efficiency means it doesn't need more fare income. From 2004 to 2009 its subsidy dropped by 26% to about £2 per passenger. The privatised network received an increase of 13% to £4 per passenger. The 22% rise in passengers should have cut costs. Fares are already much cheaper. The recent rail value for money study (Roy McNulty) didn't even mention NIR, but did mention the rail industry's multiple misaligned incentives.
e.g rail companies are fined for being late, so they pad out timetables with waiting, so that all journeys are effectively late.
Or trains deliberately leave before the connecting train arrives because a train that has a long 'dwell time' at a station incurs charges to Network Rail.
NIR doesn't need complicated charging structures that cause mismanagement, because it's all one organisation with one board of directors and one aim.
Eye 1290: The 'value for money' study concludes that competitive tendering for track renewal has not yielded any greater efficiency, and that bringing maintenance in-house improved efficiency and safety, and that therefore there needed to be even more competitive tendering to achieve efficiency. It recommends another five agencies to oversee more benchmarking and comparisons, which will be paid for by the government and passengers.
Eye 1289: An in-depth look at how the franchise agreements allow rail franchisees to walk away without paying their debts to the government but ensure that subsidies are paid at the beginning of the franchise. The people in charge of each side swap around a lot, as in all areas of government and business, making cosy deals that benefit past or future employers rather than current ones. Revenue support makes the taxpayer liable for bringing revenue up to 80% of forecasts (and how accurate will those be!?). The recent study hasn't mentioned franchising flaws at all, instead recommending more fake competition. As a quick aside, the article also mentions some instances of rail companies breaking rules (e.g lying about statistics).
Eye 1288: This examines the huge bills for legal disputes apportioning blame between companies. For example, improvements in train brakes helps with punctuality targets of network rail, who receive fees for getting the franchisees trains around efficiently, and there was a large dispute over how much was owed by whom.
We also encounter hundreds of thousands each in retention payments for top management, who then leave anyway, having ensured that profits fell.
Eye 1281: Franchisees don't have to worry, as normal businesses do, about economic cycles and changes in demand: this is a financial risk that is outside the operator's control, and the government accepts that it must shoulder it. They are therefore free from worrying about overcrowding or providing additional carriages. Residual value left behind in train and station upgrades is currently unaccounted for, and changing that would require huge amounts of legal wrangling.
Rail lines are grouped together so that high-speed lines nudge badly-run lines above delay targets and no compensation is paid to passengers who couldn't use the high-speed line. Accidents are under-reported because of pressure to announce good statistics.
Eye 1288: The interim value for money study, that 'has confirmed privatisation made the railways more costly and inefficient and robbed them of leadership'. Trains offer better fares where they genuinely compete with each other on large, muli-track lines, and compensate by overpricing on monopoly lines.
Eye 1286: HS2 is poorly thought-out and planners should examine other countries such as France or Japan.
Eye 1284: Rail companies make money despite no capital investment, hiring facilities already in place and dumping risk on the government. There are huge cuts to ticket offices, forcing passengers to use machines and the byzantine fare systems with extraordinarily high prices for truly 'any-time' tickets and no help in finding cheap fares that companies are obliged to offer so that they can claim to have raised average fares by a certain amount. Complex systems like ticket pricing make it impossible for a consumer to achieve the best deal for himself without help from an expert in a ticket office.
Eye 1278: Despite encountering snow the year before, promising to learn lessons and improve services, rail companies cancelled most trains in the snow.
Eye 1273: Cheap advance bookings, where they are available, come with thousands of words of regulations, including not getting off early. A number of passengers have been fined for using less of a service than they have paid for; the punitive terms remain despite outcry. Cheap advance bookings and hideously expensive tickets at the time make people buy multiple tickets, inflating passenger statistics. If the train is empty, what purpose is served by charging more at the time?
Eye 1275: Manipulation of conditions that define when a service can be changed or fares increased. E.g making a route loss-making by adjusting times and carriage numbers, then being allowed to cancel services or raise prices. Private dinners with decision-makes get wrong decisions made.
And that's my Eye collection. I was rather hoping to find the article that examined the cunning incentive 'avoidance' surrounding crowded peak-time trains, cuts in services when in demand and peak/off-peak games in fare pricing and service provision. Yes, you could say that the misaligned incentives were set up badly by the government, just as poor franchising could be blamed on the government, and bad management plagues every type of organisation.
But if we're not to have franchising, what else will we have? Multiple railways taking up huge stretches of countryside? Demolished town centres in order to have multiple railways stations all near the centre? If fake competition, in the form of franchising, is so hard to implement effectively that we need huge amounts of legal experts, consultants (who we already have to advise the government to give out lots of money to everyone) and bureaucracy, then perhaps we're better off with the supposed inefficiencies of British Rail, which had similar rates of accidents, far cheaper services and more services.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)