Any ideas what the Government is going to suggest?

[IanXC]

I am not a Tory, I be a card carrying Liberal Democrat for 12 years (and counting).

Not all countries suffered as we did - the reason why the UK collapsed so harshly was exactly because of Labour's economic illiteracy. To borrow so much, to spend so wildly, and to ignore warnings about costs spiralling in IT projects/PFI schemes etc, Labour did what they always did. As in 1979, again in 2010, Labour left the country on its financial knees.

And yes, privatisation has its faults, but the alternative would be a state run railway costing the country far more for far less, in hock to the Unions, and we all know where that led us last time.

Gordon Brown sold gold cheap and spent money we didn't have through a perverse obsession with headlines. I am glad the Labour Party are not in power- that's the problem with socialism, you always run out of other peoples money.

Indeed, I hold a very similar position, but I'd add one more monumental policy error. Removing banking supervision from the Bank of England and giving it to the Financial Services Authority, which was too wrapped up in how consumers were being treated, rather than thinking about whether banks were on a sound financial path. I remember writing essays to that effect around about 2001.

Luckily that crazy plan is about to be undone.

Sorry for the massive OT!

 

[jon0844]

Gordon Brown sold gold cheap and spent money we didn't have through a perverse obsession with headlines. I am glad the Labour Party are not in power- that's the problem with socialism, you always run out of other peoples money.

He ran things like a young person manages his/her finances - as if you might die tomorrow so enjoy life, spend freely, borrow loads and to hell with the consequences.

Giving the banks a free reign to do what they liked, as well as being quite happy to have irresponsible lending (Because while people can borrow to get a new house, new car and a few holidays a year, they're happy) was the reason we got hit so hard by the 'worldwide' recession that hit some people worse than others.

While I blame Labour, I accept the Tories might have done the same. I also accept that it was mostly us, the people, who were to blame for not considering that lying on a mortgage application form (for self certified mortgages), getting loads of credit cards and a few loans (and store cards etc) might give us financial problems when interest rates go up, or you run out of new cards to get and do 0% balance transfers.

It's funny that we have some industries spending a fortune to protect people who can't look after themselves, but when it came to something as important as financial stability everyone was allowed to do what they liked.

But, the fact is Labour gets the blame because it was in power at the time - not the Tories. If they'd been in power, they'd have rightly got the blame too - like they did in the 80s for similar reasons (thus giving Labour a good example of boom and bust).

 

[Flamingo]

The fate that the Lib Dems are doomed to at the next election, however, is practical annihilation.

Floating voters who agree with the current governments policies will vote Conservative because, like it or lump it, they are viewed as conservative policies, and the conservatives will trumpet any success as theirs.

Any voters who disagree with the governments policies will vote Labour, as the Lib Dems can't present themselves as a protest vote, and will be tarred with any failures.

The combination of the two will result in a Lib Dem wipeout, IMHO.

Personally, I voted Lib Dem for the past three elections - but they won't get my vote for a long time now.

 

[AlanFry1]

I do have to laugh when I hear Unions saying "We want nationalisation". I have to say that I think railway staff in general, and certain grades in particular have done much better out of privatisation than they would have ever done out of a public-owned company. The current public sector pay freeze is just one example.

Most people were not keen on a privatisation and still are not, while unions are getting high wages as a "bribe" for not no striking over nationalisation
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

At what cost? QUOTE]

depends on how much the mess is and what improvment we need for the railway, but I do notm think it will be cheap to fix

 

[CosherB]

Really, so the railway wouldn't have survived without privatisation as well now. hmmm.

Ha! Are you serious?

Since privatisation we have new trains, lines closed by BR being re-opened, junctions they took out put back in, lines singled now being re-doubled (or even 4-tracked in the Trent Vally). We have brighter stations, a better safety record, and far better attitudes to the customers from most railway staff, and far more rail freight. And all of this is still growing, even in times of recession! We have a vibrant and much improved railway! And all this while trebling rail ridership!

BR was in a death spiral headed for extinction. I dread to think what today's railway would be like if privatisation hadn't happened. It's entirely possible everything except some major routes would have gone by now.

 

[AlanFry1]

A very good post.

I believe that there would be far fewer trains and stations under state control, as was the case in the dying years of the clapped out BR.

Under state control, especially under current economic uncertainty, the Government would not risk spending a penny on a new railway station.

Salaries for drivers, guards and other railway staff would be far more of a strain on the government's purse were Unions able to point to European salaries and ask "If them, why not us?" At what cost to income tax would higher salaries be?

Or if I was runing the government, and say this to BR, "here is a huge amount of money, as long as you provide a decent service, a decent uk built fleet and decent jobs, do what you want"

Then government is still running the railways, but the system is messed up
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Would it have been cheaper to build new trains and stations (as well as modernising the network) if it was still fully under Government control?

Or would prices have risen, with staff being paid increasingly more money (great for the staff, obviously) and no need to worry because jobs would have been pretty secure?

It would be a better network if BR was around and there was a lot of investment
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I think hs2 should be shelved for now as £32 billion is a hell of a lot of money for one project just so you can get to birmingham half an hour quicker.
If the government had that sort of money to spend on rail they should upgrade what we already have but in this economic climate they certainly haven't got that amount to spare on anything with the national debt as bad as it is and the cost of big projects like this always escalate.

What would spend the £32 billion on if you had your way?

 

[Zoe]

decent uk built fleet

You can't say that. It has to go to tender throughout the EU.

 

[AlanFry1]

If the railways were still nationalised you would be seeing 20-30% cuts to services, a pay freeze and negative pension changes, like folk in the NHS and teaching are experiencing.
The privatised railway (eg Network Rail's £25Bn credit card, all the new rolling stock etc) is not on George Osborne's Treasury books and therefore not visible to the sovereign ratings agencies.
And all the railways in Europe are having to follow the same model, though they are years behind us and have all the pain to come.
Nationalisation would be a death warrant in today's world.

If there was Nationalisation, it would be though a Netowkr Rail style company, but the government wwould still have to invest hugely into the railway

 

[Zoe]

If there was Nationalisation, it would be though a Netowkr Rail style company

Then it wouldn't be full nationalization as it would still officially be in the private sector.

 

[AlanFry1]

You can't say that. It has to go to tender throughout the EU.

I know that, hense why t can be done without breaking EU rules, like France and Germany, I do not what company makes them, as long as they are uk built
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Then it wouldn't be full nationalization as it would still officially be in the private sector.

Yes, but it would be "nationlization" in all but name and still funded massively by HM Government

 

[PR1Berske]

I know that, hense why t can be done without breaking EU rules, like France and Germany, I do not what company makes them, as long as they are uk built
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Yes, but it would be "nationlization" in all but name and still funded massively by HM Government

So in other words, Alan, you want something that can never happen.

 

[AlanFry1]

So in other words, Alan, you want something that can never happen.

But it needs to happen, sooner rather than later

 

[ainsworth74]

But it needs to happen, sooner rather than later

I don't think you quite understand what "it can never happen" means...

 

[AlanFry1]

I don't think you quite understand what "it can never happen" means...

With this government, you are right (sadly)

 

[ainsworth74]

With this government, you are right (sadly)

With any government me thinks. Remember Labour had 13 years to do something about it and they didn't, in fact you could suggest that they made the situation worse in some ways.

 

[AlanFry1]

With any government me thinks. Remember Labour had 13 years to do something about it and they didn't, in fact you could suggest that they made the situation worse in some ways.

Both Labour and the Tories are responsible for the mess that is the British Rail network

 

[ainsworth74]

Both Labour and the Tories are responsible for the mess that is the British Rail network

Well, finally something we agree on hock:hock:

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Both Labour and the Tories are responsible for the mess that is the British Rail network

Didn't I say that a few pages ago lol

 

[Wolfie]

The fate that the Lib Dems are doomed to at the next election, however, is practical annihilation.

Floating voters who agree with the current governments policies will vote Conservative because, like it or lump it, they are viewed as conservative policies, and the conservatives will trumpet any success as theirs.

Any voters who disagree with the governments policies will vote Labour, as the Lib Dems can't present themselves as a protest vote, and will be tarred with any failures.

The combination of the two will result in a Lib Dem wipeout, IMHO.

Personally, I voted Lib Dem for the past three elections - but they won't get my vote for a long time now.

Not to mention the out and out lies over English student tuition fees.

Clegg sold all his principles at the hint of a bit of power and the net result will kill his party for a generation or more.....

 

[AlanFry1]

Not to mention the out and out lies over English student tuition fees.

Clegg sold all his principles at the hint of a bit of power and the net result will kill his party for a generation or more.....

The Lib Dems have reach the end of the line...

 

[Ferret]

It's the tuition fees that will kill them. Core Lib Dem voters were students. They'll vote for anyone but the Lib Dems now.

 

[AlanFry1]

It's the tuition fees that will kill them. Core Lib Dem voters were students. They'll vote for anyone but the Lib Dems now.

don't forget the NHS reforms (sorry, off topic)

 

[ainsworth74]

It's the tuition fees that will kill them. Core Lib Dem voters were students. They'll vote for anyone but the Lib Dems now.

Which is a shame because it will ignore the nuances in our political system namely that you don't vote for an overall party or political leader but a local representative (that stands for one of the main parties). I would, if an election was held tomorrow, vote for the Lib Dems because my MP (who is Lib Dem) has done a reasonable job for my constituency, he's voted the way I would like him too on all the major votes (he rebelled for example over tuition fees and voted against) and in the letters/emails I've exchanged with him our views are in fairly close alignment certainly closer than that with the Labour candidate.

It's one of the things that annoys me is that a lot of people don't seem to realise that they are not voting for a party or for Cameron/Milliband/Clegg but for someone to represent their constituency at a national level.

 

[AlanFry1]

Which is a shame because it will ignore the nuances in our political system namely that you don't vote for an overall party or political leader but a local representative (that stands for one of the main parties). I would, if an election was held tomorrow, vote for the Lib Dems because my MP (who is Lib Dem) has done a reasonable job for my constituency, he's voted the way I would like him too on all the major votes (he rebelled for example over tuition fees and voted against) and in the letters/emails I've exchanged with him our views are in fairly close alignment certainly closer than that with the Labour candidate.

It's one of the things that annoys me is that a lot of people don't seem to realise that they are not voting for a party or for Cameron/Milliband/Clegg but for someone to represent their constituency at a national level.

If I was that Lib Dem MP, I would have left the party by now (and set of a new party with other Anti Tory Lib Dems)

 

[Oswyntail]

....Clegg sold all his principles at the hint of a bit of power and the net result will kill his party for a generation or more.....

I wonder! All parties have to compromise when they take over as a government, when they actually have to do things in the real world. The Lib Dems on the street have found this harder to cope with because they had been out of government so long they had built up the image of being the acceptable "protest vote". But, with a bit of careful work, they can still portray themselves as a "moderating influence", "voice of reason" etc. The trouble is not Clegg, but (as with all main parties) the grass-roots activists (a minuscule bunch of unelected zealots whatever the party) who have no sense of the real real world and think their pet policies are sacrosanct.

 

[HSTEd]

I wonder! All parties have to compromise when they take over as a government, when they actually have to do things in the real world. The Lib Dems on the street have found this harder to cope with because they had been out of government so long they had built up the image of being the acceptable "protest vote". But, with a bit of careful work, they can still portray themselves as a "moderating influence", "voice of reason" etc. The trouble is not Clegg, but (as with all main parties) the grass-roots activists (a minuscule bunch of unelected zealots whatever the party) who have no sense of the real real world and think their pet policies are sacrosanct.

I think people were expecting Confidence and Supply rather than a full blown coalition.

Additionally as to the "pet policies".... they don't appear to have got any of them through, they've dumped every single significant one. (Debatable if the pupil premium was ever actually significant)

 

[yorksrob]

Ha! Are you serious?

Since privatisation we have new trains, lines closed by BR being re-opened, junctions they took out put back in, lines singled now being re-doubled (or even 4-tracked in the Trent Vally). We have brighter stations, a better safety record, and far better attitudes to the customers from most railway staff, and far more rail freight. And all of this is still growing, even in times of recession! We have a vibrant and much improved railway! And all this while trebling rail ridership!

BR was in a death spiral headed for extinction. I dread to think what today's railway would be like if privatisation hadn't happened. It's entirely possible everything except some major routes would have gone by now.

I'm sorry, but you seem to be living in some sort of a fantasy world.

You talk about "all the new trains" in spite of the fact that most of our old trains were infact relatively new trains at the time of privatisation. Why not compare the average age of rolling stock now with the average age at privatisation. You will find that yes - the average age now is a bit younger, but nowhere near as much as you think.

You talk about "lines closed by BR being re-opened" in spite of the fact that BR itself re-opened far more lines in the run up to privatisation than has happenned since (someone listed these in a post on here a short while back which I shall attempt to dig out when I have the time).

You talk of a better safety record, which frankly has more to do with rolling stock improvements over time than a change in management (and as Wolmar writes about, the disruption in lines of communication caused by fragmentation may well have exacerbated some recent accidents).

Lastly, you suggest that with a growing railway (and make no mistake, the railway would have certainly been growing in passenger use throughout the late nineties and most of the noughties whatever the ownership) the Government would have found it politically possible to implement Serpell, even though this was found not to be possible at the very nadir of passenger usage in the early 1980's.

This would have been IMO highly unlikely.

 

[AlanFry1]

I think people were expecting Confidence and Supply rather than a full blown coalition.

Additionally as to the "pet policies".... they don't appear to have got any of them through, they've dumped every single significant one. (Debatable if the pupil premium was ever actually significant)

As a party, the Lib Dems will be soon gone...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sorry, but you seem to be living in some sort of a fantasy world.

You talk about "all the new trains" in spite of the fact that most of our old trains were infact relatively new trains at the time of privatisation. Why not compare the average age of rolling stock now with the average age at privatisation. You will find that yes - the average age now is a bit younger, but nowhere near as much as you think.

You talk about "lines closed by BR being re-opened" in spite of the fact that BR itself re-opened far more lines in the run up to privatisation than has happenned since (someone listed these in a post on here a short while back which I shall attempt to dig out when I have the time).

You talk of a better safety record, which frankly has more to do with rolling stock improvements over time than a change in management (and as Wolmar writes about, the disruption in lines of communication caused by fragmentation may well have exacerbated some recent accidents).

Lastly, you suggest that with a growing railway (and make no mistake, the railway would have certainly been growing in passenger use throughout the late nineties and most of the noughties whatever the ownership) the Government would have found it politically possible to implement Serpell, even though this was found not to be possible at the very nadir of passenger usage in the early 1980's.

This would have been IMO highly unlikely.

The railways would have been better if we did not break up BR

 

[jon0844]

BR was already split up into different divisions, and I have a feeling we'd have seen investment in the south east, but huge cuts elsewhere.

And you have to admit that a private operator is quite keen to show a good image, so it's important to have clean trains, stations and information. I am pretty sure that under public ownership, people would be up in arms at the thought of tax payers money being 'wasted' on doing up stations or repainting trains (beyond the bare minimum painting to rust proof etc).

Now, besides wondering what it might have been like for BR to remain, I think we'd also need to fantasise about not having joined the EU, so we could have guaranteed we'd still have the UK manufacturing trains.

I can't imagine how things would have been perfect as BR. Different, yes. Perfect, no.

 

[AlanFry1]

BR was already split up into different divisions, and I have a feeling we'd have seen investment in the south east, but huge cuts elsewhere.

And you have to admit that a private operator is quite keen to show a good image, so it's important to have clean trains, stations and information. I am pretty sure that under public ownership, people would be up in arms at the thought of tax payers money being 'wasted' on doing up stations or repainting trains (beyond the bare minimum painting to rust proof etc).

Now, besides wondering what it might have been like for BR to remain, I think we'd also need to fantasise about not having joined the EU, so we could have guaranteed we'd still have the UK manufacturing trains.

I can't imagine how things would have been perfect as BR. Different, yes. Perfect, no.

Well Taxpayer money is wasted on many things (you know what i mean), but a lot of people used the railways, they can raise all the money they can from fares and the losses (due the huge amount of investment needed) will be covered by the taxpayer

Remember if we did not have so mny operators, we would not need to keep repainting trains every time a new TOC comes along

If all our fellow EU members have state owned railways, then so can we!

It is about time our railways were thought of less a business, but a public service