Jeremy Corbyn pledges rail renationalisation

[hassaanhc]

They also complain that British Rail wouldn't operate old trains such as Pacers or 313s but they forget both these were introduced by British Rail and that British Rail operated even older stock at the time of privatisation.

Of course it is everyone's favourite TfL that have operated the oldest stock in the country since 2005 (when the Class 411's were withdrawn). First the 1960-1962 A Stock, then the 1969 batch of C Stock, and now the 72ts and 73ts are looking very likely to reach 50 years old and beyond (with the 72ts having £70m spent on it to make it last until then). But still it is the private TOCs that get the flack for using old "clapped out" stock, made worse by TfL giving the impression that the age of the Class 317 units is what is causing the issues on the new LO, yet keeping very quiet about how old the 72ts and 73ts are :roll:.

 

[Railsigns]

And replace it with insane amounts of public sector bureaucracy and red tape. All public sector contracts have to be put out to tender and have at least three separate bids from companies, you cannot just give the contract to a local firm. Public sector running of the railways won't be the shining beam of light of efficiency you believe it will.

And yet, despite all that "public sector bureaucracy and red tape", British Rail ran on a fraction of the public subsidies thrown at the privatised railway. It was one of the most efficient railways in the world. Your "public sector bureaucracy and red tape" is no more real than the "private sector innovation" we keep hearing about, although nobody can point to a credible example of what that means in practice on the railway.

Your determination to let passengers and taxpayers be ripped off indefinitely is as bewildering as it is repugnant.

 

[muz379]

Ask yourself this question,,,Who sets out to create a higher profile for himself on the both the trades union and the political stage...Mick Cash or Mick Whelan? There you will find the answer to the question. Mick Cash WANTS his profile to be as well known as possible, so I am obliging him in that respect.

I will add that I am also aware of Manuel Cortes, the General Secretary of TSSA who you chose to ignore, so I will mention his name to address the balance.

Do not make assumptions about my knowledge of any matter before making sure that you are fully aware of the matter.

Mick Cash really does not do anything to make his profile as well known as posible . You rarely actually hear from him in the news , i cant remember the last time I saw him quoted or interviewed by a mainstream news source . Must be some sort of right wing news that you read which is obsessed with him . You should probably be more concerned with Aslef anyway because they are the ones affiliated to the Labour party , and if DOO comes widespread then the majority of RMT members wont have any power to bring trains to a halt anymore anyway

I wonder how the ROSCOs would be dealt with. I would assume if these were nationalised then it would have to be some kind of buyout, but then you have the insane situation of the state buying older stock that it once built and owned itself (which to be fair isn't much more mad than the current situation where that rolling stock is being paid for despite having been built and paid for previously).

This is the point I am most interested in TBH . The ROSCOs and their ability to charge TOC's for already built and paid for rolling stock have always been a big bug bear IMO . and I personally think massive improvements could made just by renationalising them and having the rolling stock owned by the state .

 

[Railsigns]

Firstly if nationalised where would the money come from for electrification, new stock, new lines etc ? Not from the government because that would increase the national debt. If the national debt is significantly increased the Pound would loose [sic] value and then all that shiny new rolling stock from Seimens [sic], Alstom etc would go up in price to the point it would be unaffordable.

Excuse me? Where do you think the money that pays for rail investment comes from today? I'll give you a clue... it's not the private sector.

And since you mention the national debt, perhaps a reminder is due that it's the privatised railway that's added more than £35 billion to the national debt (that's £35 billion more than BR ever did). You seem to be unaware of this.

 

[tbtc]

I suggest the public sector that invented PFI is not going to go back to making outright purchases of expensive capital equipment

Agreed.

Part of the problem with this argument (every time there's a thread about it...) is that it's easy to criticise the current muddle of public/private as the worst of every world, without there being agreement on what "nationalisation" is.

Is it nationalisation of the platform coffee shops? Nationalisation of the cleaners? Nationalisation of the security guards? Nationalisation of the pension scheme? Nationalisation of the train manufacturers? Nationalisation of the "refreshment trolley"? Nationalisation of all ticketing? A nationalised WH Smith? Where do you draw the line? Are "concessions" (Merseyrail/ LOROL) acceptable? Or "closely managed franchises" like Scotrail?

Or is it okay to subcontract bits of a "nationalised" railway, in the way that the (nationalised) Network Rail use private contractors to provide specific jobs at a competitive tender?

Would Balfour Beatty/ Carillion etc be able to tender for jobs or would you keep everything in house? Same goes for Bombardier / Siemens? Is it okay for these private companies to make a profit from the "industry", but not Stagecoach/ First etc? Easy to criticise the status quo... much harder to agree on a palatable alternative.

The other problem with the nationalisation argument is that a lot of enthusiasts have this quaint idea that a nationalised British Rail would be handed a bucket of cash every five/ ten years and left to get on with it.

Just take a look at any branch of Government - rail would be under the microscope significantly more than it currently is - given that they'd be dealing with supine Civil Servants (who'd be easier to bully than the likes of Brian Souter).

A "nationalised" railway would be a fragmented railway, like BR was - you'd still have the division of operations that you currently have - the fact that you had Open Access passenger operators and Open Access freight means that you'd still need all of the "delay attribution" stuff.

Look at how divided the "nationalised" NHS is - all of the different "sub employers" within it - all the layers of management - all the duplication - and how politicians like to use it as a "football". Look at the mess of our "nationalised" education (e.g. George Osbourne can click his fingers and remove free meals from Infants). Look at the fragmentation between different bits of the police etc.

Also, to echo what deltic says, a modern BR would be having it's "carefully managed" purse strings controlled so that they'd end up buying things on PFI (like many schools/ hospitals). Or does anyone think BR would get a blank cheque to spend however they want? That's not how modern Governments work (of either colour).

The NHS don’t simply build hospitals overnight with their own money – they end up leasing them from private companies after years of discussions/ planning/ negotiations (and generally see cut backs so that the final version doesn’t have so many beds, or ends up with costs cut to the bare minimum). Do you think a nationalised railway would fare better from 21st century Governments?

Remember the days in the 1980s when BR didn't have the money to buy the DMUs that they wanted so had to convert thirty five 155s into seventy 153s? That's the kind of penny pinching short-termism that we'd probably see a lot more of (if the way education funding is anything to go by - e.g. you can have a new building if you build it on the playing fields).

And, as The Planner says, things would still be as complicated to build as they are – all of the planning processes and appeals would be with us regardless of nationalisation. The fact that BR could stick up a simple new platform with sticky-backed-plastic in the 1980s without having to worry about cost/benefit ratios is irrelevant.

Also funny how people remember the bits of investment under BR and forget that they generally paid for this by singling other lines/ buying lower numbers of DMUs to replace the higher number of DMUs they were withdrawing/ penny pinching.

I’m not particularly pro/anti nationalisation/ privatisation – I just get frustrated when people seize upon anything as a panacea – especially when there are a lot of down sides that people generally ignore. As I’ve said on a previous “nationalisation” thread, the status quo is a bit like parliamentary democracy – it’s possibly the “least bad” option to go for – there’s certainly a lot of negatives to any change.

Because there is a huge amount of rolling stock that was built and paid for prior to privatisation that we have had to now pay for twice, three times over and even more because they are now owned by the ROSCOs

Well, we did sell them to the ROSCOs; I don’t remember them picking up millions of pounds of carriages for nothing. I’m not defending the profits/inertia associated with ROSCOs, but the “we paid twice” argument ignores the fact that we did get a few quid when we sold the stock.

A better analogy is of buying your house outright then mortgaging it or selling it to a private landlord (so that you end up paying rent on something that you previously owned).

It also means that sometimes ToC's are actually better off NOT using all their available stock because the leasing costs are too great (I am looking specifically at the XC HST situation where I believe the case is that they try not to use them because they only pay the leasing costs when they are used).

We have accountants in charge of schools, accountants in charge of hospitals and accountants in charge of the police… do you think a nationalised railway would just operate regardless of costs? BR used to have sidings full of carriages “spare” – they didn’t just run the longest trains possible at all times.

 

[NSEFAN]

And yet, despite all that "public sector bureaucracy and red tape", British Rail ran on a fraction of the public subsidies thrown at the privatised railway. It was one of the most efficient railways in the world.

It was only efficient because it had to be. Wealthier people and organisations are more likely to make less efficient decisions because they can afford to do so, hence it's not worth penny pinching. Then there's also the issue of more people mysteriously turning up for their share of the money when there's more of it!

But if the government's control over the GB railway network became more transparent in the form of a return of something like BR, I can easily see us going back to the days of BR's poor funding levels. Transport budgets are more likely to be cut because they don't have the "think of the children" emotive politics which exists with health and education services. Perhaps the choice is to be an expensive, good service or cheap, poor service? NR's debt and high subsidy isn't necessarily a bad thing provided there is lots of long-term infrastructure coming out of it.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Mick Cash really does not do anything to make his profile as well known as posible . You rarely actually hear from him in the news , i cant remember the last time I saw him quoted or interviewed by a mainstream news source . Must be some sort of right wing news that you read which is obsessed with him . You should probably be more concerned with Aslef anyway because they are the ones affiliated to the Labour party , and if DOO comes widespread then the majority of RMT members wont have any power to bring trains to a halt anymore anyway .

I suggest you read what I actually wrote in my posting and not what you wished that I had said....

I said "on the Trades Union and the Political stage". It is you have brought the media into the equation...not I. I am far too old and wise to fall into that particular trap.

 

[Barn]

Excellent post tbtc. Have the nationalisation enthusiasts even considered that a government-operated railway means that the government runs it whether or not you support that government?

Do the unions really want a railway directly in the hands of a Conservative run HM Treasury? Really?!

 

[365fenman]

A better analogy is of buying your house outright then mortgaging it or selling it to a private landlord (so that you end up paying rent on something that you previously owned).

No it isn't. Rolling stock has an average life of around 40 years. Housing on the other hand, potentially forever. Rolling stock declines in value over time (as well as in terms of usefulness, efficiency etc). Housing doesn't. Its usefulness in 40 years' time is the same as today (and its value probably a lot more).

Of course it is everyone's favourite TfL that have operated the oldest stock in the country since 2005 (when the Class 411's were withdrawn). First the 1960-1962 A Stock, then the 1969 batch of C Stock, and now the 72ts and 73ts are looking very likely to reach 50 years old and beyond (with the 72ts having £70m spent on it to make it last until then). But still it is the private TOCs that get the flack for using old "clapped out" stock, made worse by TfL giving the impression that the age of the Class 317 units is what is causing the issues on the new LO, yet keeping very quiet about how old the 72ts and 73ts are :roll:.

Why should old stock automatically be a problem. The old tube stock still works well so why not keep it running?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But if the government's control over the GB railway network became more transparent in the form of a return of something like BR, I can easily see us going back to the days of BR's poor funding levels. Transport budgets are more likely to be cut because they don't have the "think of the children" emotive politics which exists with health and education services.

A good point, very well made.

 

[muz379]

I suggest you read what I actually wrote in my posting and not what you wished that I had said....

I said "on the Trades Union and the Political stage". It is you have brought the media into the equation...not I. I am far too old and wise to fall into that particular trap.

And how else is one supposed to find out about what is going on on the political stage other than looking at the mainstream news sources in this country ?


Dont be so arrogant , you are never too old or too wise to make a mistake

Agreed.


The other problem with the nationalisation argument is that a lot of enthusiasts have this quaint idea that a nationalised British Rail would be handed a bucket of cash every five/ ten years and left to get on with it.

Just take a look at any branch of Government - rail would be under the microscope significantly more than it currently is - given that they'd be dealing with supine Civil Servants (who'd be easier to bully than the likes of Brian Souter).

Completely agree that funding would be more at the whim of the government of the day ,

At least currently the DFT can say what they want to have happen and how much they are prepared to pay and then the Private sector has to come up with a solution to make it possible .

I think if corbyn did become PM and remains committed to nationalizing it I would rather he kept the current system of franchising and created a public sector body which could bid against the private sector . Then we would really see if the Public sector could be more efficient . And if the experiment in nationalizing it did not work we could always go back to what we have now .

This is more tongue in cheek but I must admit that I am a bit biased as well being a railway employee , I dont want my pension and salary and terms and conditions to become anymore politically divisive than they currently are . Look at what the current government are doing to the Pay and T's&C's of Junior Dr's .

Well, we did sell them to the ROSCOs; I don’t remember them picking up millions of pounds of carriages for nothing. I’m not defending the profits/inertia associated with ROSCOs, but the “we paid twice” argument ignores the fact that we did get a few quid when we sold the stock.
.

It is true we got money for them at the time . But we also have not seen the investment it was promised this system would bring about either in my view .But thinking about it that is probably the governments fault (not just the current one ) more so than anything else

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

And how else is one supposed to find out about what is going on on the political stage other than looking at the mainstream news sources in this country ?

Dont be so arrogant , you are never too old or too wise to make a mistake

It was YOU and NOT I who made the mistake of pretending to claim that I made a posting that made reference to "the media" in my posting.

The Trades Union movement have a very good news dissemination, so I really was most surprised to read that you only look to mainstream news sources than those of the Trades Union movement on matters that refer to "the Trades Union and the Political stage" which were the referred-to items in my posting. I note your posting above again makes no mention of the Trades Union movement part of my posting.

 

[thenorthern]

I don't see why threads like these go on for so long, the simple answer to the question of re-nationalisation of the railways is plain, simple and clear.

The re-nationalisation of the Great Britain railway services not going to happen ever

We can argue about the benefits, downsides, speculation and theories about re-nationalisation but with a Conservative Government in Westminster and a Labour Party who who was in power for 13 years and in that time re-let ever franchise bar 2 its safe to say rail re-nationalisation is not going to happen.

I will be honest it really annoys me when Labour Politicians discuss re-nationalising the railways as its an pledge that they will probably never do even if they win power and it diverts the DfT's attention away from improving our railway network.

 

[class26]

Excuse me? Where do you think the money that pays for rail investment comes from today? I'll give you a clue... it's not the private sector.

And since you mention the national debt, perhaps a reminder is due that it's the privatised railway that's added more than £35 billion to the national debt (that's £35 billion more than BR ever did). You seem to be unaware of this.

Not so. I think you will find the financing for the IEP project is through the banks NOT from the government. Similarly the finance for the West countries AT 300 trains is in such a way, not a penny directly from the government. Ultimately the government MAY be backer of last resort but that is not the same as directly financing. Accountants out there might disagree but that is my understanding.
There is alot of private money going in to the railways and to suggest not is simply untrue

 

[yorksrob]

I don't see wh. Threads like these go on for so long, the simple answer to the question of re-nationalisation of the railways is plain, simple and clear.

The re-nationalisation of the Great Britain railway services not going to happen ever

We can argue about the benefits, downsides, speculation and theories about re-nationalisation but with a Conservative Government in Westminster and a Labour Party who who was in power for 13 years and in that time re-let ever franchise bar 2 its safe to say rail re-nationalisation is not going to happen.

I will be honest it really annoys me when Labour Politicians discuss re-nationalising the railways as its an pledge that they will probably never do even if they win power and it diverts the DfT's attention away from improving our railway network.

What's interesting is why railway nationalisation seems to resonate with a reasonable proportion of the public when arguably there are many other
priorities for intervention and regulation. I strongly suspect that this has a lot to do with the highly unpopular and poorly thought out nature of the original privatisation. At one stage it wasn't even guaranteed that we would still be able to buy through tickets at all stations.

Also, people continuing to repeat the sort of disinformation about BR which was used to justify the original sell off will get the backs up of those who knew they were being peddled an untruth in the first place, whether people believe it's better to rock the boat or not.

Thirdly, I fear that normal passengers may feel that the gauntlet of trying to find affordable tickets has just got too tricky, and this is damaging trust.

The message to buy early is a relatively simple one, but when people rock up in good time ready to buy their usual ticket, only to find that none of them have been released, people will smell a rat. A case of yield management becoming too clever for its own good perhaps.

 

[LateThanNever]

Agreed.

Part of the problem with this argument (every time there's a thread about it...) is that it's easy to criticise the current muddle of public/private as the worst of every world, without there being agreement on what "nationalisation" is.



We have accountants in charge of schools, accountants in charge of hospitals and accountants in charge of the police… do you think a nationalised railway would just operate regardless of costs? BR used to have sidings full of carriages “spare” – they didn’t just run the longest trains possible at all times.

We do indeed.
But you need to look at the whole package.
Corbyn is on record as saying he'd 'gradually' renationalise railways.
And, especially important, he also proposes People's Quantitaive Easing and a National Investment Bank, which would mean the end of PFI and, until inflation restarts, would present the opportunity for new infrastructure or/and new training at virtually nil cost. He is the first person in any party to get that running the country's budget is quite unlike running a household budget. How many households print their own money?
Britain prints its own money and was thus able to throw £375bn at the banks interest free. Corbyn proposes initially about £50bn for the country not the banks, on a similar basis. What is not to like?

 

[Barn]

Britain prints its own money and was thus able to throw £375bn at the banks interest free. Corbyn proposes initially about £50bn for the country not the banks, on a similar basis. What is not to like?

Quantitative easing in a recession and quantitative easing in a period of growth (even modest growth) are two very different things. The risk of inflation is too great.

You may say that it is low enough not to worry about it rising, and indeed perhaps it should be a bit higher. But if it became uncontrolled, interest rates would have to rise and a hangover of the credit crunch is that there are many households and businesses who are doing OK at the moment with a 0.5% base rate but who would be in real trouble if they had to service their existing debt at much higher rates.

 

[Wolfie]

Agreed.

Part of the problem with this argument (every time there's a thread about it...) is that it's easy to criticise the current muddle of public/private as the worst of every world, without there being agreement on what "nationalisation" is.

Is it nationalisation of the platform coffee shops? Nationalisation of the cleaners? Nationalisation of the security guards? Nationalisation of the pension scheme? Nationalisation of the train manufacturers? Nationalisation of the "refreshment trolley"? Nationalisation of all ticketing? A nationalised WH Smith? Where do you draw the line? Are "concessions" (Merseyrail/ LOROL) acceptable? Or "closely managed franchises" like Scotrail?

Or is it okay to subcontract bits of a "nationalised" railway, in the way that the (nationalised) Network Rail use private contractors to provide specific jobs at a competitive tender?

Would Balfour Beatty/ Carillion etc be able to tender for jobs or would you keep everything in house? Same goes for Bombardier / Siemens? Is it okay for these private companies to make a profit from the "industry", but not Stagecoach/ First etc? Easy to criticise the status quo... much harder to agree on a palatable alternative.

The other problem with the nationalisation argument is that a lot of enthusiasts have this quaint idea that a nationalised British Rail would be handed a bucket of cash every five/ ten years and left to get on with it.

Just take a look at any branch of Government - rail would be under the microscope significantly more than it currently is - given that they'd be dealing with supine Civil Servants (who'd be easier to bully than the likes of Brian Souter).

A "nationalised" railway would be a fragmented railway, like BR was - you'd still have the division of operations that you currently have - the fact that you had Open Access passenger operators and Open Access freight means that you'd still need all of the "delay attribution" stuff.

Look at how divided the "nationalised" NHS is - all of the different "sub employers" within it - all the layers of management - all the duplication - and how politicians like to use it as a "football". Look at the mess of our "nationalised" education (e.g. George Osbourne can click his fingers and remove free meals from Infants). Look at the fragmentation between different bits of the police etc.

Also, to echo what deltic says, a modern BR would be having it's "carefully managed" purse strings controlled so that they'd end up buying things on PFI (like many schools/ hospitals). Or does anyone think BR would get a blank cheque to spend however they want? That's not how modern Governments work (of either colour).

The NHS don’t simply build hospitals overnight with their own money – they end up leasing them from private companies after years of discussions/ planning/ negotiations (and generally see cut backs so that the final version doesn’t have so many beds, or ends up with costs cut to the bare minimum). Do you think a nationalised railway would fare better from 21st century Governments?

Remember the days in the 1980s when BR didn't have the money to buy the DMUs that they wanted so had to convert thirty five 155s into seventy 153s? That's the kind of penny pinching short-termism that we'd probably see a lot more of (if the way education funding is anything to go by - e.g. you can have a new building if you build it on the playing fields).

And, as The Planner says, things would still be as complicated to build as they are – all of the planning processes and appeals would be with us regardless of nationalisation. The fact that BR could stick up a simple new platform with sticky-backed-plastic in the 1980s without having to worry about cost/benefit ratios is irrelevant.

Also funny how people remember the bits of investment under BR and forget that they generally paid for this by singling other lines/ buying lower numbers of DMUs to replace the higher number of DMUs they were withdrawing/ penny pinching.

I’m not particularly pro/anti nationalisation/ privatisation – I just get frustrated when people seize upon anything as a panacea – especially when there are a lot of down sides that people generally ignore. As I’ve said on a previous “nationalisation” thread, the status quo is a bit like parliamentary democracy – it’s possibly the “least bad” option to go for – there’s certainly a lot of negatives to any change.


Well, we did sell them to the ROSCOs; I don’t remember them picking up millions of pounds of carriages for nothing. I’m not defending the profits/inertia associated with ROSCOs, but the “we paid twice” argument ignores the fact that we did get a few quid when we sold the stock.

A better analogy is of buying your house outright then mortgaging it or selling it to a private landlord (so that you end up paying rent on something that you previously owned).


We have accountants in charge of schools, accountants in charge of hospitals and accountants in charge of the police… do you think a nationalised railway would just operate regardless of costs? BR used to have sidings full of carriages “spare” – they didn’t just run the longest trains possible at all times.

As a Whitehall insider (one of those - hopefully not TOO supine - civil servants) I have to say that this is one of the, if not the, best, most realistic and sensible posts I have seen on this forum.

Taxed into bankruptcy.

That'll be legal?

No it certain wouldn't (breach of property rights under European Convention of Human Rights)! - try looking at many rulings from the Europen Court for Human Rights and, given that the current owners are major financial bodies who certainly have deep enough pockets to legally challenge all the way, to even try it would result in the UK suffering massive economic damage.

"The power to tax is the power to destroy". - John Marshall (American, 1755-1835)

The quote predates many of the legal measures taken by nations and/or groups of nations (eg the EU) to prevent exactly such abuses.

 

[Dave1987]

We do indeed.
But you need to look at the whole package.
Corbyn is on record as saying he'd 'gradually' renationalise railways.
And, especially important, he also proposes People's Quantitaive Easing and a National Investment Bank, which would mean the end of PFI and, until inflation restarts, would present the opportunity for new infrastructure or/and new training at virtually nil cost. He is the first person in any party to get that running the country's budget is quite unlike running a household budget. How many households print their own money?
Britain prints its own money and was thus able to throw £375bn at the banks interest free. Corbyn proposes initially about £50bn for the country not the banks, on a similar basis. What is not to like?

Because by doing so you are just devaluing your currency, the pound will take a nose dive if you do that. Considering we import vast amounts that will make everyone's lives more expensive. Its not about "throwing money at the banks", the banks buy government debt in the shape of bonds. It depends what your countries credit rating is as to what percentage yield they demand in return for buying up those bonds. It not just about printing money and giving it to the people. Inflation is at record low levels at the moment because the markets have confidence in the British economy and confidence that we will be able to pay our debts off. If the markets believe we can't then things could get very nasty very quickly in this country. Just look at Greece.........

 

[LateThanNever]

Quantitative easing in a recession and quantitative easing in a period of growth (even modest growth) are two very different things. The risk of inflation is too great.

You may say that it is low enough not to worry about it rising, and indeed perhaps it should be a bit higher. But if it became uncontrolled, interest rates would have to rise and a hangover of the credit crunch is that there are many households and businesses who are doing OK at the moment with a 0.5% base rate but who would be in real trouble if they had to service their existing debt at much higher rates.

Quite, which is why pension bonds would be offered in the National Investment Bank for when inflation started and quantitive easing stopped. So the inflation risk is covered. And anyway at the moment a little bit of inflation would be rather nice to have. The railways seem to have it - but nobody else!
And with a National Infrastructure Bank permanently funded there is much less risk of stop go, which has been endemic in the current system.
I can see nothing not to like!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Because by doing so you are just devaluing your currency, the pound will take a nose dive if you do that. Considering we import vast amounts that will make everyone's lives more expensive. Its not about "throwing money at the banks", the banks buy government debt in the shape of bonds. It depends what your countries credit rating is as to what percentage yield they demand in return for buying up those bonds. It not just about printing money and giving it to the people. Inflation is at record low levels at the moment because the markets have confidence in the British economy and confidence that we will be able to pay our debts off. If the markets believe we can't then things could get very nasty very quickly in this country. Just look at Greece.........

Did the pound take a nose dive when we printed money for the banks?
If the pound does nose dive we'll find exporting much easier.
Greece doesn't print its own money or have its own Central Bank. We do.
Britain has never defaulted on payments (except in the thirties when everyone did). So Britain is always a safe haven. Debt is of little consequence as George Osborne is proving - borrowing increased in August by £1.4bn. Does anyone know? does anyone even care? Did the pound nose dive? Actually it is currently going up!
In the end the markets are not a force of nature but are designed. (How else is Osborne offering the Chinese guarantees for Hinkley Point?). Corbyn just wants to design them a little differently to Osborne.

 

[Holly]

Taxed into bankruptcy.
"The power to tax is the power to destroy". - John Marshall (American, 1755-1835)

That'll be legal?

...
No it certain wouldn't (breach of property rights under European Convention of Human Rights)! - try looking at many rulings from the Europen Court for Human Rights and, given that the current owners are major financial bodies who certainly have deep enough pockets to legally challenge all the way, to even try it would result in the UK suffering massive economic damage. .

Too late by the time a lawsuit is heard.

And in any case don't forget that the present Tory administration has announced plans to withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) during the current parliament.

 

[NSEFAN]

And in any case don't forget that the present Tory administration has announced plans to withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) during the current parliament.

But remember that Britain will probably be entering into the TTIP agreement, meaning that if the UK government takes the actions you're describing (in order to drive away multinationals like the rolling stock builders) they would open themselves up to legal repercussions via this route instead.

 

[thenorthern]

Thirdly, I fear that normal passengers may feel that the gauntlet of trying to find affordable tickets has just got too tricky, and this is damaging trust.

The message to buy early is a relatively simple one, but when people rock up in good time ready to buy their usual ticket, only to find that none of them have been released, people will smell a rat. A case of yield management becoming too clever for its own good perhaps.

One thing to remember is that under British Rail there were no Internet ticket sales and all sales including advanced tickets happened via the Telephone, at the station or at a travel agent where the people selling you the tickets were experienced in finding cheap tickets.

Fast forward to today most advanced ticket sales happen on the Internet mostly by the person traveling who in most cases is not experienced in buying tickets and thus complain that cheaper fares were easier to find under British Rail.

The other day I was talking to a bloke who said under British Rail it was better because he was able to get a £12 advanced single from Liverpool to London and today he can't. What he didn't mention was that at the time he had a railcard and that with inflation that £12 today would now be £20.

 

[LateThanNever]

But remember that Britain will probably be entering into the TTIP agreement, meaning that if the UK government takes the actions you're describing (in order to drive away multinationals like the rolling stock builders) they would open themselves up to legal repercussions via this route instead.

That's a disastrous thought. There is vitually no UKMEP in favour. I think other country's MEPs are gradually seeeing enough light to oppose it. And even the Americans are much less keen than they were..

 

[Barn]

Sorry to make it personal, but if there was a way to achieve free infrastructure cash with no negative consequences, it wouldn't be Corbyn or his mates that came up with it. He's not intellectually capable of it. He's lived a political life as a backbench rebel, never having to compromise, to adapt to problematic real life situations or even to care whether his ideas made any sense.

Either he or the country (I dearly hope the former) will have a rude awakening. As with all things, if it looks too good to be true...

 

[Dave1987]

Did the pound take a nose dive when we printed money for the banks?
If the pound does nose dive we'll find exporting much easier.
Greece doesn't print its own money or have its own Central Bank. We do.
Britain has never defaulted on payments (except in the thirties when everyone did). So Britain is always a safe haven. Debt is of little consequence as George Osborne is proving - borrowing increased in August by £1.4bn. Does anyone know? does anyone even care? Did the pound nose dive? Actually it is currently going up!
In the end the markets are not a force of nature but are designed. (How else is Osborne offering the Chinese guarantees for Hinkley Point?). Corbyn just wants to design them a little differently to Osborne.

You are totally missing the point! We didn't "print money for the banks". The banks bought government debt through bonds, i.e it has to be paid back, so the currency isn't devalued. What you are talking about and Corbyn proposing is to just print money and hand it out which does devalue the currency. If it was as simple as just printing money and giving it out to people every single government would be doing that. There are several countries who have done that through history including German in WW2 and all it does is devalue the currency and cause hyperinflation. Britain is safe haven at the moment because the markets believe we can pay back our debts. Doing what you are proposing would be suicidal for the British economy. And if Corbyn does start printing money and devaluing sterling how are people supposed to afford imported goods? Considering how much we import, and that isn't going to change over night, it would virtually crash the economy to drastically devalue sterling by just starting to print money overnight.

 

[misterredmist]

--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Did the pound take a nose dive when we printed money for the banks?
If the pound does nose dive we'll find exporting much easier.
Greece doesn't print its own money or have its own Central Bank. We do.
Britain has never defaulted on payments (except in the thirties when everyone did). So Britain is always a safe haven. Debt is of little consequence as George Osborne is proving - borrowing increased in August by £1.4bn. Does anyone know? does anyone even care? Did the pound nose dive? Actually it is currently going up!
In the end the markets are not a force of nature but are designed. (How else is Osborne offering the Chinese guarantees for Hinkley Point?). Corbyn just wants to design them a little differently to Osborne.

Firstly, there will be default eventually on the National Debt if we don't stop it rising by £5K per second !

Secondly, market forces are in many cases unpredictable, and if anybody has control at any point Nations far richer than ours have more control than we ever will

 

[LateThanNever]

You are totally missing the point! We didn't "print money for the banks". The banks bought government debt through bonds, i.e it has to be paid back, so the currency isn't devalued. What you are talking about and Corbyn proposing is to just print money and hand it out which does devalue the currency. If it was as simple as just printing money and giving it out to people every single government would be doing that. There are several countries who have done that through history including German in WW2 and all it does is devalue the currency and cause hyperinflation. Britain is safe haven at the moment because the markets believe we can pay back our debts. Doing what you are proposing would be suicidal for the British economy. And if Corbyn does start printing money and devaluing sterling how are people supposed to afford imported goods? Considering how much we import, and that isn't going to change over night, it would virtually crash the economy to drastically devalue sterling by just starting to print money overnight.

Every single government HAS done it or more or less. The last convert to add to the list headed by Japan, the USA and the UK was the Euro zone who are now quantitive easing to the sum of trillions.
So we did print money for the banks! The banks didn't buy debt they were given it by the government - the Bank of England immediately bought it back which is why the Bank of England governor has said there will be no interest payable. You can't pay interest to yourself.
Corbyn's proposals do not involve printing money, although that is sometimes a shorthand expression for what he proposes, but buying stuff for us by using just 13% of the amount that the banks received. The world didn't fall apart when the banks received 6 or 7 times as much from the UK government. And inflation is still negligable eveywhere. Banks are still receiving money in the Eurozone and Japan. Why on earth do you think the world will fall apart now? And you can't devalue all currencies at once!
The game is up. We thought that the markets were a law of nature. We discovered their faulty. We thought that the banks took deposits which they loan out, when in fact their deposits are nowhere near the amount of their loans - they just create money out of thin air every time they make a loan completely independently of whether they've got any deposits. The banks need government money to invest in for stability. The government has its own central bank and doesn't actually need the rest. Commercial companies need the banks which is why the government ended up putting its own money in them to prevent their collapse.
And WW2 Germany has nothing to do with it - the only time they've used quantitive easing is now, under the Eurozone!
Quantitive Easing was an innovation in 2009 but has only stopped the economy collapsing. It hasn't given the 2% inflation which Osborne has given to the BoE as a target. With Corbyn's system they might manage to meet that target which they've not met for six years so far! How are they going to do it otherwise?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Firstly, there will be default eventually on the National Debt if we don't stop it rising by £5K per second !

Secondly, market forces are in many cases unpredictable, and if anybody has control at any point Nations far richer than ours have more control than we ever will

Sorry it doesn't follow there will be a default - we only paid off second world war debt a few years ago. And in effect we've borrowed more to pay it off! Agreed that market forces are unprdictable but Britain and its government has complete control of the market in Sterling. It is the only issuer!

 

[Wolfie]

Too late by the time a lawsuit is heard.

REALLY? Even so, NOT too late for absolutely massive compensation to be awarded....

And in any case don't forget that the present Tory administration has announced plans to withdraw Britain from the European Convention on Human Rights (1953) during the current parliament.

Yup, the policy which the leftwing of the Tory party adamantly oppose which is why it's all gone very quiet because Cameron can't get it through Parliament....

Telegraph May 15:

A member of the government has threatened to resign over David Cameron’s plan to scrap European human rights laws.

Speaking on condition of anonymity, the Conservative figure said the proposals would undermine vital protections for British citizens who can use the European Court of Human Rights to appeal against injustices they suffer in the UK.

The individual suggested it may be necessary to resign in order to vote against the Tory plan to abolish the Human Rights Act in the House of Commons.

"I will probably oppose it,” the government figure said. “The idea that my constituents should have fewer protections available as a last resort is not something that I can accept.”

The Tory predicted that the government would lose the vote on the plans in the Commons, spelling “the end of the honeymoon period” for Mr Cameron’s new administration.

Michael Gove, the Justice Secretary, will be too much of a “sledge hammer” as a character to pilot the reforms through Parliament in the face of a growing rebellion inside the Tory party , the source added.

The warnings came as a succession of senior Conservatives clashed over the manifesto pledge, revealing deep divisions within the party over Mr Cameron’s promise to scrap the Human Rights Act and sever Britain’s ties to the European Court.

Andrew Mitchell, the former chief whip, and Dominic Grieve, who was Mr Cameron’s Attorney General for four years, warned they were gravely concerned about moves to water down human rights legislation.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...-war-over-plan-to-scrap-Human-Rights-Act.html

 

[yorksrob]

One thing to remember is that under British Rail there were no Internet ticket sales and all sales including advanced tickets happened via the Telephone, at the station or at a travel agent where the people selling you the tickets were experienced in finding cheap tickets.

Fast forward to today most advanced ticket sales happen on the Internet mostly by the person traveling who in most cases is not experienced in buying tickets and thus complain that cheaper fares were easier to find under British Rail.

The other day I was talking to a bloke who said under British Rail it was better because he was able to get a £12 advanced single from Liverpool to London and today he can't. What he didn't mention was that at the time he had a railcard and that with inflation that £12 today would now be £20.

There may well be an element of that, although inflation doesn't happen in a vacuum - in most cases people will have seen their incomes increase monetarily over the last twenty years. Perhaps if the railway bit the bullet and introduced a National Railcard, the private railway might get a bit more kudos.

That said, people aren't hoodwinked when layers of cheap fares disappear that were there the previous year. To be fair, a lot of this is down to current Government policy demanding higher premiums over filling seats.