Tweak

At least you can get around that.

Isn't Revolut that company owned by the son of a member of the board of Russia's Gazprom? Weren't they also partnering with a mobile phone company that was owned by Russians, so to get around sanctions they sold it to a German Russophile for €1, meanwhile continuing to pay profits to sanctioned Russians?

Revolut isn't really a good alternative for Buy European - and I say that as a user myself. By all means take advantage of the deals and low rates (good currency exchange rates), but be wary of integrating it into your traditional banking and definitely think twice before making it your main bank.

Rail contracts and train companies aren't the problem. The problem is rail stock leasing, which has obsene prices and pushes the public-facing train companies to both be expensive but also run a paper thin margin. Nationalising the train companies won't do anything about rail stock leasing, the government needs to focus on the root problem, not buy out the under-performing public facing business at a high price.

The thing is there are multiple companies/sectors involved here, and this isn't addressing the worst of them (yet, if ever).

First you have the railway lines themselves. These are run by Network Rail, which is already a part of the Department for Transport. This part covers a significant expense, but it's needed and run fairly lean.

Then you have the train companies. These are the ones running the trains, they are typically private businesses. They lease rail stock (trains and carriages) and sell tickets, while paying Network Rail for the use of the lines. These are the customer facing businesses, and South Western Rail is one of them and the one nationalised in this story. In spite of having high ticket prices and revenue, they have low profits due to high costs.

Lastly you have the rail stock companies. These are the real villains, frankly, much moreso than train companies. They set leasing prices for trains, and in turn cause the train companies to run at paper thin margins. They aren't customer facing, so the public eye isn't upon them and they get away with a lot. They have established long term contracts, so simply nationalising a train company won't end this deal.

However, nationalising train companies does mean that the government (either the DfT or the new Great British Railways) will be negotiating with rail stock companies. In theory, the government are a bigger entity, so have a better negotiating position, and also they should be more motivated to bring the costs down. Private rail companies make more money overall with paper thin margins on high prices, not only because a small percentage of a bigger number can be bigger, but because having a small margin puts them in a better negotiating position with local government ("You have to give us a good deal, we can't afford to operate otherwise, and you need us").

So nationalising train companies might lead to lower prices in future, through fairer leasing rates on rail stock. However this won't start to happen until these contracts are renewed.

Really, a much heavier hand is needed from the government, one that focuses specifically on the rail stock leasing sector.

This show is special, because it's a level of satire that Americans rarely manage - so much so it's almost unbelievable that it even is satire.

To do that you'd need to... watch so much.. to... get the files.

They already fulfilled their targets in the stock market, time to reset the deal until they're ready for the next round of manipulation.

Not that odd, if anything I thought it was strange that someone would give their name and their family's image to a paper, particularly on a subject as contentious as this.

"Al Moy" may also be a pseudonym. I wonder if "Al Moy" even exists.

Also, while the Torygraph have pulled the article on their site, it's still up on yahoo: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/earn-345k-soaring-private-school-090000096.html

“It seems as though families like us are paying more and more, and being squeezed on everything from our salaries to our outgoings. I know each party has its flaws, but I think the Conservatives are at least a bit more transparent,” he says.

More like the Conservatives didn't target those with lots of money, those who can make reasonable adjustments, instead focusing on those who already have very little.

They were required to apologise also, although sincerity cannot be ensured.

Edit: Or rather, the Met police and NPCC have apologised, it seems like the officer has not and generally shows no remorse.

He should have been charged. The fact that none of the legal avenues have involved him is obscene.