The 'N' word - Nationalise

[Zoe]

To be fair, I don't think you need to come up with any alternatives to realise the current system isn't really working.

The fact is though that none of the major parties want to change the system established by the Railways Act 1993 so that would suggest that the system is considered to be working well by quite a few people.

 

[WelshBluebird]

The fact is though that none of the major parties want to change the system established by the Railways Act 1993 so that would suggest that the system is considered to be working well by quite a few people.

At one point nobody wanted to change the system we had where wives were essentially slaves to their husbands (and rape within a marriage was not counted as rape). That doesn't mean that reality was right, or that it worked.
Not wanting change does not mean the current system works.

Also, especially with the major parties, the people who dictate policies in them only seem to care for themselves. Or care for their friends in big business.

Now, I am not suggest we have a revolution. Or that we scrap the railways act. But changes are necessary. In terms of society - how is it right that people who are seriously disabled or seriously ill are being told the are fit to work when they can barely take care of themselves? While at the same time those who cheat the system are getting thousands? In terms of the railways - how is it right that someone can be passed from piller to post with each ToC saying "its the others fault"? Or that a certain ToC can get away with calling a branch of its operations another ToC just to get more money? etc etc. Some things have to change.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

The fact is though that none of the major parties want to change the system established by the Railways Act 1993 so that would suggest that the system is considered to be working well by quite a few people.

'They' may well think it's working well, but in whose interest? Shareholders or taxpayers or customers/passengers or the country as a whole? The priority for all private companies is firstly their shareholders...and they certainly aren't the ordinary people of this country.

 

[Zoe]

At one point nobody wanted to change the system we had where wives were essentially slaves to their husbands (and rape within a marriage was not counted as rape). That doesn't mean that reality was right, or that it worked.

It took a lot of campaigning to change things like this.

Not wanting change does not mean the current system works.

The politicians must at least think it works or they would be wanting to change it.

 

[WelshBluebird]

It took a lot of campaigning to change things like this.

Agreed.
But for a long time, no one (well, very few people) cared. It was just how things were. That doesn't mean it is right, or worked.

The politicians must at least think it works or they would be wanting to change it.

As Arglwydd Golau's post above says, works for who? In who's best interest? And don't forget - politicians are often wrong. Or often work in the best interest of themselves or their friends in big business.

 

[Zoe]

Agreed.
But for a long time, no one (well, very few people) cared. It was just how things were. That doesn't mean it is right, or worked.

Indeed not but how are you going to convince the people in power that it doesn't work when they seem to think it does?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

'They' may well think it's working well, but in whose interest? Shareholders or taxpayers or customers/passengers or the country as a whole? The priority for all private companies is firstly their shareholders...and they certainly aren't the ordinary people of this country.

This is indeed the root of the issue but it's going to take a major shift in the politics of this country for this to change.

 

[PinzaC55]

"The politicians must at least think it works or they would be wanting to change it. "

They don't care whether it works or what the public thinks of it.

Tony Benn once said "All this government (Tory at the time) or ANY government wants is that you toddle along to the polling booth every 5 years and put an "X" next to a name.They don't even credit you with the intelligence to sign your own name".

 

[Railsigns]

The fact is though that none of the major parties want to change the system established by the Railways Act 1993 so that would suggest that the system is considered to be working well by quite a few people.

I don't think you should infer that. It just isn't high on the political agenda at the moment and as long as none of the major parties is promising to reverse the shambles of rail privatisation, then it can't be an issue on which elections are won or lost.

 

[Zoe]

I don't think you should infer that. It just isn't high on the political agenda at the moment and as long as none of the major parties is promising to reverse the shambles of rail privatisation, then it can't be an issue on which elections are won or lost.

Sorry, what I was saying is that none of the major parties want to reverse privatization and all seem to want to keep the current system, I wasn't referring to the opinion of the general public.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Indeed not but how are you going to convince the people in power that it doesn't work when they seem to think it does?

I have no idea.
Sadly, those in power don't really care what we think, or what the reality of their policies is. As long as they stay in power - then they are happy (look how much the lib dems have given up in their ideology just to stay in power with the Tories).
And of course, it isn't like those in power would be able to see the problem anyway. I can't see Cameron being in a position where he has to ring two different ToC's constantly and just get passed from one to the other. I can't see him being falsely accused of travelling on an invalid ticket. I can't see him turning up at station on a delayed service to be told by the station staff that they can't do anything because it isn't their ToC's fault. Etc etc.

 

[Railsigns]

Sorry, what I was saying is that none of the major parties want to reverse privatization and all seem to want to keep the current system, I wasn't referring to the opinion of the general public.

I understood what you were saying. My point is that the stated policies of the major parties doesn't necessarily reflect the private views of their members. The major parties limit what they put into their manifestos to what they think is enough to get them elected. If they promise more than they can deliver once in power, they very quickly lose credibility and trust.

 

[Zoe]

I understood what you were saying. My point is that the stated policies of the major parties doesn't necessarily reflect the private views of their members.

No but it's clear that the Labour party is not as socialist as it used to be and they had the opportunity to not renew certain franchises. There are certainly those within the Labour party that would want nationalization but it seemed Brown did not as he overruled the motion in 2004.

 

[Railsigns]

No but it's clear that the Labour party is not as socialist as it used to be and they had the opportunity to not renew certain franchises. There are certainly those within the Labour party that would want nationalization but it seemed Brown did not as he overruled the motion in 2004.

I agree with you.

 

[Zoe]

So maybe it's about time the Labour party elects a leader that moves the party back in a more socialist direction.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

Few of the posters on here seem to understand the nature of modern markets, financing or world trade.
Nationalisation was possible after WW2 as nations practised protectionism, until the 1980s "big bang" which liberalised world trade, including transport.
Since then every government has been forced to privatise its assets at a pace which satisfies the markets which are dominated by the US and the far east.
They don't see running trains as a core government task, any more than airlines or buses (or postal services, energy and the rest).
The UK was fairly quick to adopt this approach in many sectors, hoping to steal a march on competitors, but the others are having to do the same.
Even the "statist" countries like France and Germany are having to operate their transport systems at arms length as commercial concerns - or they won't get the capital they need to develop.
Germany would dearly like to privatise DB but can't find a formula which is acceptable to the laender.
Ask somebody in DB Schenker or Arriva or Abellio if they feel like state employees - my guess is they don't.

It is simply not politically realistic to think the carpet can be rolled back to a lazy nationalised system.
No government can contemplate increasing the size of the public sector in the current climate.
A political party might vote for it, but they would not get it past the Treasury or the banks.
(You might have noticed recently that businesses are allowed to fail, but not the banks).
Gordon Brown and Andrew Adonis weren't much interested in renationalization.

Also remember that every £100Bn the Bank of England throws into "quantitative easing" (ie printing money) takes us that much further away from being able to afford public services.
Hence the future is with McNulty-type reforms rather than renationalisation.

Rant over!

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

A political party might vote for it, but they would not get it past the Treasury or the banks.

Exactly - that shows who really is in control! We might vote for various political parties and their policies but in the end it is the international financiers who have the control....witness the events in Greece.

 

[PR1Berske]

It's interesting that threads like these always ends up with lefties and socialists ranting about everything BUT nationalisation.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

It's interesting that threads like these always ends up with lefties and socialists ranting about everything BUT nationalisation.

Isn't it? Well, I will therefore add that even if Nationalisation of the railways was proposed in a manifesto it wouldn't get past the shadowy figures in the International world of Finance, so it would be a non-starter (under the current system). This thread is just a bit of harmless speculation about something that we all care about...

 

[MattRobinson]

As I said back in post #44, we seem to be looking just at passenger services, but I think there's a lot of room to improve freight workings- more so than passenger trains.

 

[Zoe]

Isn't it? Well, I will therefore add that even if Nationalisation of the railways was proposed in a manifesto it wouldn't get past the shadowy figures in the International world of Finance, so it would be a non-starter (under the current system). This thread is just a bit of harmless speculation about something that we all care about...

If a genuine socialist party was to win an election though would there really be much the world of finance could do about it? I know this is very unlikely though.

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

If a genuine socialist party was to win an election though would there really be much the world of finance could do about it? I know this is very unlikely though.

It might be a nice thought but I think that they have ways and means..hey ho!

 

[table38]

I'm also left wondering if re-nationalisation would get past EU competition Law.

Some of the problems the Post Office have now were caused by EU Directives "aimed to improve the quality of European postal services. Key to this was opening up the postal sector to competition"

 

[PinzaC55]

I'm also left wondering if re-nationalisation would get past EU competition Law.

Some of the problems the Post Office have now were caused by EU Directives "aimed to improve the quality of European postal services. Key to this was opening up the postal sector to competition"

What remit does the EU have to decide that the postal sector should be opened up to competition?

 

[jon0844]

I presume it's to allow a foreign operator, or indeed our own Royal Mail, venturing out to offer its own services and deliveries in other EU member states?

That's the whole point of the EU and free trade.

 

[table38]

What remit does the EU have to decide that the postal sector should be opened up to competition?

It's hard to say, and probably a question for another thread.

Suffice to say I think we gave our rights away when we voted for the "Common Market" back in 1975

(Well, when I say "we", I was far too young to vote in 1975 of course)

 

[PinzaC55]

It's hard to say, and probably a question for another thread.

Suffice to say I think we gave our rights away when we voted for the "Common Market" back in 1975

(Well, when I say "we", I was far too young to vote in 1975 of course)

I agree. I couldn't care less what the Royal Mail is doing in other countries. It is what is here that concerns me.

 

[jon0844]

Really? So the fact that Royal Mail struggles to make money and has to keep increasing the cost of stamps, which in turn has even more people either sending emails instead - or businesses go to other companies like TNT, isn't a problem?

What if Royal Mail becomes far more competitive because of its profits made sending mail abroad (and delivering it) or generally making more profit from parts of the EU where people do still send lots of letters?

 

[Schnellzug]

As I said back in post #44, we seem to be looking just at passenger services, but I think there's a lot of room to improve freight workings- more so than passenger trains.

That's one area where, like in mainland Europe, liberalisation of the market (without Governments insisting that they have to have hands-on control) does seem to have worked. Imagine what the freight sector would have been been like if BR had remained; would it have been anything but a curve on the graph heading relentlessly downwards. (And indeed, what might have happened if EWS had continiued to have a monopoly, or as good as, after privatisation)?

 

[MattRobinson]

Sorry, but have you actually read my post #44? It covers nationalisation of the whole freight transportation network, including lorries. I've reproduced it below:

Hi all,

First post, hopefully of many.

I think the issue here is that we're looking at just the railways.

The Current Situation
When I was at 6th Form college, I worked out that the following train companies/ organisations were needed to get me there if I travelled on a 3 car class 144:

1. Network Rail to own the track
2. Northern Rail to operate the train
3. Porterbrook to own the DMS's
4. West Yorkshire PTE to own the MS's
5. NXEC (later East Coast) to own Wakefield Westgate Station
6. First TPE to own Huddersfield Station

This doesn't include servicing of trains, contractors or the owners of Northern- Serco and Nederlandse Spoorwegen. Fundamentally, Privatised rail systems are wasteful because each company has to own and maintain separate (costly) facilities and duplicate services.

Rail Accidents
One of the best ways to compare nationised and privatised railways is to look at a couple of rail accidents that happened. In 1952, 3 trains collided at Harrow in Britain's worst peacetime rail disaster. Because of the nationised railway system, 4 running lines were fixed and normal running was restored within 21 1/4 hours of the incident taking place.

Conversely, at Great Heck in 2004 where two trains hit a landrover, it took 10 days to restore running because a road crane had to be brought in and a road built for it.

Now, it may be said that this was because we'd got rid of all the rail cranes, and we'd not got emergency crews on standby at depots any more; and that would be correct. However, we have to consider why that is: the main reason is because privatised railway companies pretty much refused to get involved with re-railing exercises and equipment- it was, after all, their job to run the trains rather than putting them back on the track if they were to fall off.

What we should do
The posts above mine have all focussed on nationalising the railways as is, but I think we should increase the scope of the nationalisation to cover all transportation in this country.

First of all, let us consider passenger transport: we need to reduce the fares on the railways, increase the luxury and make trains run on time until we end up with a railway system which is a viable alternative to private cars.

Next, let us consider the rather underdiscussed freight transport: I think that this country (well, actually the whole continent, but we won't get ahead of ourselves here...) requires an integrated freight network. This can only be achieved with a single, nationalised, industry. All freight is to be packed in shipping containers and then driven to its nearest transshipment yard by lorry where it is offloaded and sent by train to the transshipment yard nearest to its destination. From there, it is sent by lorry to its destination. Large factories could have railway lines built to their loading areas, as per many old mills in the heyday of rail.

This has many benefits to the roads: there will be fewer accidents because the roads have fewer lorries on them; there will be less theft of goods in transit as goods that aren't moving will be in secure railway yards rather than in motorway service stations; and it will be more efficient as there would be one train that's the equivalent of many lorry loads.

Any lorries that aren't containerised (such as foreign lorries, say) would have to be put on a train as is at the depot and the driver would travel in a carriage with the train to the depot nearest its destination.

Of course, with fewer lorries, there will be fewer jobs driving lorries; but the people who are displaced from lorry driving will be able to go into train driving, shunting, crane driving (for moving containers around the yards), etc.

Infrastructure
For freight transportation to work in the way I've just described, we would need new lines, widened lines, freight yards, etc. Many lines would be electrified (and hopefully use renewable energy). This, I grant you, would be expensive, but it would increase jobs accross the board, both building and maintenence.

To summarise, I'd like to point to the findings of a Parliamentary Select Committee as far back as 1839 who said that a railway was a 'Natural Monopoly'.

 

[PinzaC55]

Really? So the fact that Royal Mail struggles to make money and has to keep increasing the cost of stamps, which in turn has even more people either sending emails instead - or businesses go to other companies like TNT, isn't a problem?

What if Royal Mail becomes far more competitive because of its profits made sending mail abroad (and delivering it) or generally making more profit from parts of the EU where people do still send lots of letters?

That would be great but I don't think RM should be privatised and if the EU don't agree, stuff them. I would be happier if successive government weren't forcing RM to stop offering services in an attempt to weaken it so that it can be sold off cheaply.
One of the Post Offices the last (Labour) government wanted to close is round the corner to me. It is often so busy the queue is onto the street.