Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[The Ham]

But every time rail claims the national spend is "only" £4.2 billion (or whatever), it forgets that bus, air and ferry transport is "free" because they cost the government "nothing".
Maybe not quite, but those modes broadly cover their costs (with some profit for the owners/operators.
Why shouldn't rail be expected to do the same?

Scotland spends £200 million a year in ferry services.

England spends over £2 billion on buses (about half on concessionary travel), which covers the circa 40% which isn't covered by ticket sales.

As such they are hardly free as you suggested.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Indeed.

How is it "cost effective" to have multiple TOCs who occasionally operate over the same routes and duplicate services, each with their own management structure, training programs, etc, etc, and all of them with their own shareholders with their hands out?

. . . and this is another reason why many people believe it is not necessary for the subsidy to be so high.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

If that's your opinion, vote for a party or form your own that includes the policy of scrapping central government funding for the railways altogether.

You've clearly run out of rational arguments!

 

[Gareth Marston]

You've clearly run out of rational arguments!

That is the core underpinning philosophy of the Taxpayers Alliance

 

[Esker-pades]

You've clearly run out of rational arguments!

How so? All (certainly mainstream) political parties currently (to varying degrees) support a railway subsidy. You clearly don't agree with that. Therefore, find a minor party, lobby a major one or form you own!

 

[coppercapped]

. . . and this is another reason why many people believe it is not necessary for the subsidy to be so high.

The trouble with 'belief'[1] is that it is not based on facts.

The ORR and the DfT publish reams of data on railway finances and performance each year. From the Rail Finance Statistical Release 2016-17

For the seventh year in a row, train operating companies (TOCs) paid more (£763m) to government in premium payments than they received in subsidies. In real terms, this was down 8.5% compared with the £833m recorded in 2015-16.

So, to which subsidy concerning the TOCs are you referring?

[1] belief Noun (1) an acceptance that something exists or is true, especially one without proof:

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Yes, and car users continue to be heavily subsided with the cost in real terms of motoring continuing to decline.

I challenge you to present credible and authenticated figures to support that assertion. All the reliable figures show that the total amount paid in by motorists merely because they are motorists is vastly more than the total spent on roads. Dishonest people who hate motor cars occasionally invent figures purporting to be the cost of congestion and air pollution, and bandy these around as though they were a legitimate argument, but these invented figures have always been debunked whenever subjected to a proper test.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

The trouble with 'belief'[1] is that it is not based on facts.

Obviously. I do hope you realise that also applies to those who "believe" the railways should receive unlimited support from tax-payers.

 

[Esker-pades]

And how is air pollution not a problem?
And how is congestion not a problem?

 

[Railwaysceptic]

How so? All (certainly mainstream) political parties currently (to varying degrees) support a railway subsidy. You clearly don't agree with that. Therefore, find a minor party, lobby a major one or form you own!

Because instead of arguing politely and sensibly, you've resorted to being rude!

Incidentally, you're on very shaky ground with your belief that the current consensus among the major political parties will continue indefinitely. All it will take is one iconoclastic politician to stir up the electorate about railway subsidies, and there will be a mood change in British politics.

 

[Esker-pades]

Because instead of arguing politely and sensibly, you've resorted to being rude!

Incidentally, you're on very shaky ground with your belief that the current consensus among the major political parties will continue indefinitely. All it will take is one iconoclastic politician to stir up the electorate about railway subsidies, and there will be a mood change in British politics.

Please explain how I have been rude.

 

[nottsnurse]

All it will take is one iconoclastic politician to stir up the electorate about railway subsidies, and there will be a mood change in British politics.

Do you honestly believe the stuff you post are are you purely on the wind-up?

Even arguably the most iconoclastic politician in modern times (Thatcher), who had a documented hatred of the railways, didn't believe they should have been privatised.

 

[The Ham]

You don't know if there is congestion where he lives. All you know is there is no railway.

He - and millions of other non-railway users - may have heard all the usual platitudes put out by railway supporters, and may have rejected them. So democracy raises its irritating head. He and others who don't use the railway are not second class citizens. They have the same rights as anyone else . . . and there are far more of them than there are railway enthusiasts.

I have private healthcare, a benefit provided by my company which results in my tax increasing. I would suggest that the opposite should be true in that I would be significantly less reliant on the NHS.

Yet to ensure that the system is fair (so that there's no loop holes in companies paying for benefits to reduce people's tax unfairly) I'm happy with the current system (please note this before reading the next section of this post).

I would suggest the above is more of a problem than those who feel that their tax shouldn't be funding something that they don't use.

 

[quantinghome]

Please note that much of the railway would not need a subsidy if it were run cost-effectively.

Subsidised passenger railways are the norm all over the world (Japan is a possible exception but that's the subject of some debate). If it were possible to run passenger railways without subsidy, someone, somewhere in the world would be doing so as a private enterprise. Take the USA, which has a huge freight network all privately owned, but next to no passenger services (and those which do exist are subsidised).

I agree the railway could be run more efficiently (IMO as a completely integrated organisation), but even that would not remove the requirement for subsidy. The long drawn out process from Beeching to Serpell of evaluating a profitable core passenger network in the UK eventually came to the conclusion that if it did exist it would be (a) much, much smaller than now and (b) not that profitable.

 

[doa46231]

I challenge you to present credible and authenticated figures to support that assertion. All the reliable figures show that the total amount paid in by motorists merely because they are motorists is vastly more than the total spent on roads. Dishonest people who hate motor cars occasionally invent figures purporting to be the cost of congestion and air pollution, and bandy these around as though they were a legitimate argument, but these invented figures have always been debunked whenever subjected to a proper test.

The estimated cost of congestion for the next 16 years is £300billion.
The annual cost of congestion on major roads in the UK is £9billion.
These are hardly low sums.

Why should somebody be dishonest to dislike cars?

There are other costs involved that motoring delivers:-
Costs to the NHS in repairing the broken bodies caused by road transport.
Costs to the emergency services in clearing up the mess caused by crashes.
Costs in court times blocked by motoring offence cases.
The costs in land taken up by roads, car parks garages etc. etc.
Costs using up scarce resources making and repairing road vehicles.
Costs in scrapping them when they finally collapse!

And perhaps the most important cost of all, the dreadful atmosphere that major roads cause, in noise, fumes and anger.
It is perhaps not coincidental that most car lovers, and I'm one of them, don't want to live near or on a major road.
Many car lovers, and I suspect 'Railwaysceptic' is one of them, believe cars to be some sort of religious totem that must be worshipped!
This distorts their thinking about road transport in general and become blind to the horrendous problems it is increasingly causing.

 

[coppercapped]

Obviously. I do hope you realise that also applies to those who "believe" the railways should receive unlimited support from tax-payers.

Absolutely.

I am totally against 'belief' being a valid reason for action or inaction in most, if not all, areas of life. Over the years too many injustices and wars have resulted from dearly held 'beliefs'.

'Belief' as a reason for doing something is arguably, only justified, if no data yet exists in the area concerned. Christopher Columbus had a major success, even if his 'belief' was that he was somewhere else entirely...! Developments of a new product can also be the result of a 'belief' that there is a market for it - but the confirming data comes later!

There is plenty of knowledge about running railways over the past couple of hundred years - so making decisions purely on the basis of a 'belief' should never be the case any more.

 

[nottsnurse]

I have private healthcare, a benefit provided by my company which results in my tax increasing. I would suggest that the opposite should be true in that I would be significantly less reliant on the NHS.

Sadly this is not the case. The vast majority of private healthcare staff continue to work in the NHS and have their training paid for by the NHS. Without said training staff would not be able to work in healthcare, private or otherwise. As such, private healthcare users are as reliant on the NHS as everyone else.

There is also the not so small matter of who picks up the pieces when things go wrong at a private healthcare provider. The Critical Care Unit I work on sees an average of one emergency admission per week from private hospitals. Lest we forget that currently there is no emergency provision within the private healthcare system.

Private healthcare is not equipped to deal with emergencies. When things go wrong not only are private patients more at risk, but the higher costs of emergency care are passed onto the NHS.

 

[The Ham]

Sadly this is not the case. The vast majority of private healthcare staff continue to work in the NHS and have their training paid for by the NHS. Without said training staff would not be able to work in healthcare, private or otherwise. As such, private healthcare users are as reliant on the NHS as everyone else.

There is also the not so small matter of who picks up the pieces when things go wrong at a private healthcare provider. The Critical Care Unit I work on sees an average of one emergency admission per week from private hospitals. Lest we forget that currently there is no emergency provision within the private healthcare system.

Private healthcare is not equipped to deal with emergencies. When things go wrong not only are private patients more at risk, but the higher costs of emergency care are passed onto the NHS.

Although there's much I would question (does the number of emergency cases cost more than the total number of private procedures carried out? If there wasn't private healthcare would those staff still be required, which would likely be an additional cost to the NHS if they were? Does the NHS not benefit from those staff's abilities during the hours that they are working for them?) the point still stands that because the private healthcare is a benefit it results in more tax being paid.

 

[nottsnurse]

...does the number of emergency cases cost more than the total number of private procedures carried out?...

This is immaterial.

When procedures are carried out by the NHS they generally occur in facilities equipped to cope with complications, and are often dealt with before they become (vastly more expensive to deal with) emergencies. On the other hand, when procedures are carried out in private facilities they rarely have the ability to deal with complications, resulting in a reliance upon calling 999, shifting the burden of a problem caused by private healthcare (and the costs of dealing with it) onto the publically-funded NHS.

...If there wasn't private healthcare would those staff still be required...

Yes. At present there are approximately 90,000 vacancies across the NHS, about 40,000 in nursing roles alone.

...which would likely be an additional cost to the NHS if they were...

But it'd likely be a net saving, taking into account less need to use Agency, Locum, Bank and OT staff to cover vacant shifts.

...Does the NHS not benefit from those staff's abilities during the hours that they are working for them?...

I would argue it's the other way round. Very few specialist staff work predominately in private healthcare, with a bit of NHS on the side. In my experience for the vast majority the NHS is their steady paycheck and main workplace with private healthcare being a bit on the side.

Not only is this because private healthcare can be a fickle industry, with workload coming and going but, as already mentioned, staff need to stay competent in their various roles and it's the NHS who largely funds such training. Few private healthcare providers give anything other than very basic training, with most competencies 'read across' from their NHS posts.

To add to this the vast majority of cutting edge technologies are tested within the NHS and for good reason. As an organisation there is far more institutional knowledge available to assist with introducing such procedures and more importantly, the NHS is self-insuring. Few private healthcare providers on the UK are willing to contemplate introducing new technologies before the NHS has ironed out any issues.

...the point still stands that because the private healthcare is a benefit it results in more tax being paid.

As it should.

Private healthcare is not compulsory, it is a service like many others consumers can purchase. Should I get a tax break because I eat healthy and exercise regularly and so am, in theory, less of a 'burden' on the NHS? Of course not.

Paying for the NHS also isn't just for the 'now', it's for the future. What if a few months from now you lose your job and potentially access to private healthcare? Should you receive a lower level of NHS care because you previous took a tax break based on being "less of a burden" at the time?

 

[The Ham]

Private healthcare is not compulsory, it is a service like many others consumers can purchase. Should I get a tax break because I eat healthy and exercise regularly and so am, in theory, less of a 'burden' on the NHS? Of course not.

Paying for the NHS also isn't just for the 'now', it's for the future. What if a few months from now you lose your job and potentially access to private healthcare? Should you receive a lower level of NHS care because you previous took a tax break based on being "less of a burden" at the time?

I'm not saying that I should get a tax break, I was saying that those who benefit from private medical cover provided at a perk often pay more in tax than those who don't. This is probably a bigger issue than those who don't want their taxes to pay for railways.

On a personal level, I have no problem with paying this extra tax (circa £50 a year) as I still feel (even though I don't use a lot of public services) that we get good value from the amount of tax that we pay as a country.

 

[yorksrob]

From here:
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown

£829 billion total governments spend, of which £30 billion (3.6% of the total) is on all transport. Of which £4.2 billion (including building HS2) is rail (0.5%).

That would work out at £125 a year for someone on £25,000 a year if it was a personal budget.

To put that in perspective the average spend per year or person on chocolate is about half that.

Or to put it another way, rail spend is the following percentages of the following budgets:
5% education
9% defence
2.5% of public pensions
8% of interest repayments

Thanks, thats very illuminating, particularly as the spend on rail doesn't appear overly large even as a proportion of transport spend.

 

[yorksrob]

But every time rail claims the national spend is "only" £4.2 billion (or whatever), it forgets that bus, air and ferry transport is "free" because they cost the government "nothing".
Maybe not quite, but those modes broadly cover their costs (with some profit for the owners/operators.
Why shouldn't rail be expected to do the same?

But why shouldn't rail be subsidised like whatever it is Government spends the other £25 billion of transport funding on. Particularly as bus, air and ferry transport aren't really viable alternatives for a lot of rail journeys.

 

[158756]

From here:
https://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/breakdown

£829 billion total governments spend, of which £30 billion (3.6% of the total) is on all transport. Of which £4.2 billion (including building HS2) is rail (0.5%).

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw02IXIMsn5EcgcwlXGPsRhJ

This official source places 2016-17 transport spending at £28.5bn, and railways at £15.5bn, with railway spending up by over two thirds in five years.

 

[The Ham]

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&sou...FjAAegQIABAB&usg=AOvVaw02IXIMsn5EcgcwlXGPsRhJ

This official source places 2016-17 transport spending at £28.5bn, and railways at £15.5bn, with railway spending up by over two thirds in five years.

Those figures have to be read in the light of those figures including all expenditure by all public organisations. As such it includes all money paid out by the likes of TfL, but doesn't take into account any income. As such it is very much a gross amount.

Effectively it would be the amount that the government would need to fund if the likes of TfL had free travel for all existing users.

This then means that the figures are only part of the picture.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

Do you honestly believe the stuff you post are are you purely on the wind-up?

Even arguably the most iconoclastic politician in modern times (Thatcher), who had a documented hatred of the railways, didn't believe they should have been privatised.

We're not discussing nationalisation or privatisation. We discussing whether or not subsidies to the railway should be so high. Incidentally, although Thatcher disliked railways, she didn't whip up feeling against them.

 

[Gareth Marston]

We're not discussing nationalisation or privatisation. We discussing whether or not subsidies to the railway should be so high. Incidentally, although Thatcher disliked railways, she didn't whip up feeling against them.

admit it your the teaboy at the Taxpayers Alliance.....

 

[Goldfish62]

Those figures have to be read in the light of those figures including all expenditure by all public organisations. As such it includes all money paid out by the likes of TfL, but doesn't take into account any income. As such it is very much a gross amount.

Effectively it would be the amount that the government would need to fund if the likes of TfL had free travel for all existing users.

This then means that the figures are only part of the picture.

It's actually a set of pretty meaningless spreadsheets. There's no distinguishing between Capital spend (ie investment) and revenue spend (ie subsidy). For example, TfL no longer receives any subsidy from central government so has to operate commercially, but still has access to one-off capital grants for major projects.

While on TfL, it's the only highway authority in the UK which receives no proportion of VED to spend on highway maintenance.

 

[backontrack]

How so? All (certainly mainstream) political parties currently (to varying degrees) support a railway subsidy. You clearly don't agree with that. Therefore, find a minor party, lobby a major one or form you own!

Occam's Razor. I like it.

The point is that opponents of nationalisation tend to oppose it for reasons that are purely ideological, rather than for reasons of pragmatism. They often never consider what would be the best course of action for the country. Of course, there is the other great motivator: ambition.

Nearly all politicians are like that.

 

[Railwaysceptic]

How so? All (certainly mainstream) political parties currently (to varying degrees) support a railway subsidy. You clearly don't agree with that. Therefore, find a minor party, lobby a major one or form you own!

In common with other sensible people, I don't think railways are all-important and when I vote, there are far more important issues to keep in mind.

 

[yorksrob]

In common with other sensible people, I don't think railways are all-important and when I vote, there are far more important issues to keep in mind.

As someone who relies on the railway everyday, it is certainly an issue I consider at elections, although certainly not the only one.