Labour Drops Rail Renationalisation Policy then reinstates it.

[43066]

And because they think whatever negative experience of the railway they have just had would go away of the railway is nationalised (so along with perceived high fares, this could be a delay, a cancellation, perceived old rolling stock or not enough carriages)

They’ll be on a jam packed service that was an hour late due to a signalling failure, and they’ll demand nationalisation.

Indeed. Being dissatisfied with what there is now is at the root of a lot of it. That and high fares, which are a result of a political decision to place more of the cost onto fare payers, completely independent of ownership structure.

Largely because any questioning of it is towards a US style system which is the worst of both worlds - expensive AND ineffective.

That isn’t true at all. It’s just the false binary defenders of the NHS use to shut down any questioning of the current system. It completely ignores the reality that many other countries do things better without adopting a US model.

If it’s really so wonderful, why has no other major western power adopted a similar model of centralised healthcare provision?

 

[Falcon1200]

Whether one agrees with nationalisation, privatisation, or whatever, the fact is that when Starmer stood for Labour party leader, just over two years ago, he sent a leaflet to every party member with '10 pledges' accompanied by the statement 'Here is where I stand'. And here's number 5:

https://www.clpd.org.uk/resource/keir-starmer-10-pledges/

So was he just lying in order to try to hoover up some votes from those members who had supported Corbyn? He needs to set out what has changed since then so that he apparently no longer believes that 'public services should be in public hands', else the presumption would be that he never believed this stuff in the first place, which isn't exactly 'honest'.

What is it about rail that makes it uniquely a 'public service', whereas other, competing modes of transport are not ? If Labour policy is, or rather was, to nationalise the railways, should that not also apply to bus and coach, taxi, ferry and air services, all of which fulfil vital transport roles to varying degrees ?

It has massive support from part of the population who are on the left of politics and also affluent as they are the ones who have the money to spend on rail journeys and think that nationalisation will reduce prices.

Also bear in mind that to have had personal adult experience of the fully nationalised railway, ie BR, you have to be over 40 years old, so there are huge numbers who have only ever known privatisation, with all its problems; But then BR was far from perfect !

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

For me id like to see the end of individual franchises, and a situation where I as a driver can drive a XC or a GWR train out of Plymouth as they would both just be UK rail or intercity or whatever. I just don't see the need for the current fragmentation which doesn't look likely to get any better under GBR.

BR was split in much the same way at the end, with the individual sectors being essentially independent operations.
So in Plymouth you had Intercity and RR Wales & West (or whatever it was called).

I remember being in Folkestone in late BR days, waiting for the sole XC train (Liverpool-Folkestone and return) to turn up.
On enquiring when it would arrive the booking office said "Don't know mate, it's run by a different company..."

And before that there was the perennial "This train has been delayed on the Western Region" announcement at New St.

 

[yorksrob]

BR was split in much the same way at the end, with the individual sectors being essentially independent operations.
So in Plymouth you had Intercity and RR Wales & West (or whatever it was called).

I remember being in Folkestone in late BR days, waiting for the sole XC train (Liverpool-Folkestone and return) to turn up.
On enquiring when it would arrive the booking office said "Don't know mate, it's run by a different company..."

But if it didn't turn up, you'd have had to argue the toss/plead with a guard/pay again to be able to just hop on the next NSE train to Charing Cross and complete your journey that way

 

[DelayRepay]

What is it about rail that makes it uniquely a 'public service', whereas other, competing modes of transport are not ? If Labour policy is, or rather was, to nationalise the railways, should that not also apply to bus and coach, taxi, ferry and air services, all of which fulfil vital transport roles to varying degrees ?

I think there's an argument that bus services should be subject to greater government control (I'm not sure about full nationalisation for buses or railways) - they face similar issues and there is scope for greater integration between bus and rail services.

Also bear in mind that to have had personal adult experience of the fully nationalised railway, ie BR, you have to be over 40 years old, so there are huge numbers who have only ever known privatisation, with all its problems; But then BR was far from perfect !

I only remember BR as a child - but I seem to recall they were often the butt of tabloid jokes. I don't think they were particularly highly regarded, were they?

 

[Deepgreen]

What is it about rail that makes it uniquely a 'public service', whereas other, competing modes of transport are not ? If Labour policy is, or rather was, to nationalise the railways, should that not also apply to bus and coach, taxi, ferry and air services, all of which fulfil vital transport roles to varying degrees ?



Also bear in mind that to have had personal adult experience of the fully nationalised railway, ie BR, you have to be over 40 years old, so there are huge numbers who have only ever known privatisation, with all its problems; But then BR was far from perfect !

Possibly that its infrastructure is so specialised compared with, say, road, which is open to all to use. The UK network size also lends itself to being run as a cohesive whole rather than split into artificial local contracts. There is a historical element as well in that rail provided the only practical transport mode means for so long for so many. There is of course a pragmatic financial element to the policy in that full renationalisation would be costly at a time when the economy is so stretched. I would like to see a full and well-constructed nationalisation enacted to rid us of the huge waste of money entailed in the arcane contractual management layers and the simple nonsense of a public subsidy being required to pay dividends for shareholders (a faux 'profit'). A national rolling stock deployment strategy that works efficiently would also be welcome to avoid the mess of train specification diversity that has led to such a mish-mash of designs. The topic is so vast, of course, that these are only a few of the long list of issues.

 

[yorksrob]

What is it about rail that makes it uniquely a 'public service', whereas other, competing modes of transport are not ? If Labour policy is, or rather was, to nationalise the railways, should that not also apply to bus and coach, taxi, ferry and air services, all of which fulfil vital transport roles to varying degrees ?



Also bear in mind that to have had personal adult experience of the fully nationalised railway, ie BR, you have to be over 40 years old, so there are huge numbers who have only ever known privatisation, with all its problems; But then BR was far from perfect !

Buses are arguably also a public service, and de-regulation hasn't exactly improved the service in many areas.

The irony of all of this is that the railway is now more straightjacketed by government than it has ever been, yet we still seem to be stuck with the most costly, wasteful money-go-round aspects of the original privatisation fiasco, i.e train leading costs, station calling charges etc.

 

[Falcon1200]

Buses are arguably also a public service, and de-regulation hasn't exactly improved the service in many areas.

I agree, and in some places, such as here in Scotland, ferries and even planes provide essential transport just as much as, if not more than, rail or road (although Government involvement in ferries here has not exactly been a rip-roaring success.....)

 

[Mat17]

I think you're stuffed both ways.

Privatisation leads to shareholders creaming off profits and price rises.

Nationalisation leads to governments sending in the auditors and cutting back to the bone. Politicians aren't fit to order a sandwich from Gregg's, why anyone would think they're fit to run anything more complex than that always baffles me.

Neither system works, I guess it comes down to which you think is the least worst.

 

[Falcon1200]

Neither system works, I guess it comes down to which you think is the least worst.

In theory it should be privatisation, as if a business does not provide the service the customer is prepared to pay for it will not make a profit and will not pay dividends, and may not survive at all; But the rail industry is not quite as simple as that of course..... Personally I felt that the Railtrack privatisation model could have worked, as giving staff free and discounted shares meant that we all had a direct stake in the success or otherwise of the company, which was certainly not the case with BR; But as we know, Railtrack lost it's focus with inevitable, and tragic, results, although towards the end this did seem to have been recognised and addressed (too late for some, unfortunately).

 

[DelayRepay]

In theory it should be privatisation, as if a business does not provide the service the customer is prepared to pay for it will not make a profit and will not pay dividends, and may not survive at all; But the rail industry is not quite as simple as that of course.....

Yeah - the problem is that some services, e.g. evenings and branch lines don't make a profit, but provide a valuable service to the public. If left to market forces, we'd only have the Intercity network, London commuter lines and some lines into other big cities. A bit like the bus sector where in most cases evening and rural services are only possible with council subsidies.

But if you treat the government as the customer, the companies running these services have no incentive to try to make them more attractive through reducing prices, marketing promotions, re-timing the services to provide better connections, improving the quality of rolling stock etc....

 

[matacaster]

A major issue with both public and private ownership is short-termism. Politicians and directors both tend to have very short shelf lives in their jobs. Politicians rarely remain to see through a job as they get sacked, move portfolio or lose at an election. Directors tend to make big decisions around a year after being in charge and get out before the consequences become apparent. There are good directors and good politicians, but sadly many tend to be more interested, like most of us, in how well they are remunerated, career progression etc and actually doing a good job is of lower importance. The balance between having a sound and personal experience of the industry in which directors work eg 'he's a graduate and was a director of a major manufacturer so must be good at running a railway' appears to have gone a little the wrong way.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What is it about rail that makes it uniquely a 'public service', whereas other, competing modes of transport are not ? If Labour policy is, or rather was, to nationalise the railways, should that not also apply to bus and coach, taxi, ferry and air services, all of which fulfil vital transport roles to varying degrees ?

Domestic air travel is to be discouraged entirely.

I would certainly be in favour of "nationalisation" of bus travel - not to one big company, but more locally, i.e. the City Regions owning and operating their own fleet, though I'd have to think more about the best model for regional services.

Domestic ferry travel is mostly nationalised (i.e. CalMac).

Doesn't leave a lot. Road coaches are somewhat "de minimis" when you consider the size of their offering.

 

[sor]

'British Leyland was awful'

It was the only one of the above that actually had to compete properly with commercial competition.

The thing with 'basic infrastructure' is that you end up with an incumbent and no proper side by side comparison with what might or should be. British Leyland was exposed because it had to compete directly with large companies in the same sector.

As for 'BT was fine' - then the GPO was an example of an organisation that thought their delivery of technology with antiquated mechanical exchanges was a customer privilege. Classic monopoly position.

One pattern I do note though was that GPO, NCB, BR, and others had strong internal engineering departments. The likes of the CEGB and NCB also managed key suppliers to ensure that they had more than one source of critical plant and technology.

The GPO started and BT finished (with contractors) the development of a British designed and made digital switching system. They didn't really do this any later than their global peers - Canada's Nortel launched their product in the late 70s, the literal R&D behemoth of AT&T launched theirs in the early 80s as did Ericsson (whose product BT then bought as the second supplier to avoid a monopoly).

I'm not sure that continued nationalisation would have changed that path much, but there is the oft-quoted example of where privatised BT wanted to roll out fibre to everyone in the 90s but Thatcher said no, having given out cable TV franchises and was obsessed with the idea of having competition for the most expensive and difficult part of the system - the local network

In the modern age you can still make an argument that only BT really has the resources to pull off the big jobs, the so called "alt nets" have had issues where they've been issued government contracts (notably in Devon and Somerset) and it's unlikely any other company would commit to new undersea cables to wire up the Isles of Scilly or the various Scottish islands, as BT did

 

[Cloud Strife]

Domestic air travel is to be discouraged entirely.

Maybe not entirely. There are examples in Scotland where air travel is all but essential, for instance, people coming from Orkney or Shetland who need to get to hospitals without a huge journey.

Domestic ferry travel is mostly nationalised (i.e. CalMac).

CalMac isn't nationalised as such, it's just that David MacBrayne Ltd (who provide the service and who are state-owned) are just too difficult to dislodge for various reasons. I was once in a meeting with a very very senior person at a shipping company about this topic, and he asked me straight about whether I thought there was any chance of them winning the Caledonian MacBrayne network tender. I explained how the company is intertwined with local economies, and how the staff were loyal to CalMac (i.e. David MacBrayne Ltd) due to the very specific way that the company is managed. I told him straight that there was no way he could expect to make a profit without local communities fully on board, and that they would have to spend a lot of money winning the hearts and minds of locals.

 

[HSTEd]

The GPO started and BT finished (with contractors) the development of a British designed and made digital switching system. They didn't really do this any later than their global peers - Canada's Nortel launched their product in the late 70s, the literal R&D behemoth of AT&T launched theirs in the early 80s as did Ericsson (whose product BT then bought as the second supplier to avoid a monopoly).

Indeed I believe they were the first large telephone system to entirely dispose of electromechanical trunk exchanges.

BT/GPO largely skipped over the start of the electronically controlled electromechanical era but were ahead of the curve on fully digital systems.

I very much doubt eliminating privatisation changes that, although I think the fibre rollout might actually go forward.

EDIT:

Starmer is apparently now all about the "regulation" train - that it can achieve anything. Apparently "regulation" is the new version of the word "Betelgeuse"

 

[brad465]

What I think is going on is Labour are trying to appeal to target voters in key constituencies and hoping they don't lose too many of their base in the process. While nationalisation of key sectors like rail and utilities has majority support nationally according to various opinion polls, in a FPTP voting system that is no good if one's target voters are not so supportive. This is an example of where a PR voting system is key to making parties adopt policies with more popular support overall.

That said, I do wonder if they're going too far and maybe should focus more on trying to adopt some more policies like nationalising key sectors and try and sell the benefits of them better, rather than just assume target voters can't be convinced to change their mind on specific policy beliefs. For example, I think nationalising water is very easy to sell, when compared to the current model of geographical monopolies and companies that pay out to shareholders more than fixing leaks and treating sewage.

 

[Cloud Strife]

For example, I think nationalising water is very easy to sell, when compared to the current model of geographical monopolies and companies that pay out to shareholders more than fixing leaks and treating sewage.

Yes, it's enough to point out that it works well in Scotland and that they have fixed charges.

 

[Kite159]

.

The way things are going, Labour are adamant on making sure they aren't elected!

It's far easier to sit on the sidelines making comments about how they will do things differently without actually saying what they will actually do.

, I think nationalising water is very easy to sell, when compared to the current model of geographical monopolies and companies that pay out to shareholders more than fixing leaks and treating sewage.

Agreed about water being nationalised, afterall unlike telephone/energy you can't switch water company. You are stuck with "XYZ" Water as they make large profits instead of investing into fixing leaks & larger sewage treatment plants to take into account more housing

 

[HSTEd]

A cynic might suggest that a party run overwhelmingly by lawyers is never going to get rid of a system of 'regulation' that requires huge numbers of legal experts. So many lawyers employed to arbitrate and draw up the enormously complex web of arcane contracts requires for it.

 

[Broucek]

I'm interested at just how cynical many people on here are about the private sector. I've consulted to both and the private sector has some HUGE strengths around customer and innovation

A cynic might suggest that a party run overwhelmingly by lawyers is never going to get rid of a system of 'regulation' that requires huge numbers of legal experts. So many lawyers employed to arbitrate and draw up the enormously complex web of arcane contracts requires for it.

I'm not sure that this is literally "jobs for the boys" so much as a world view that sees laws and regulations as an effective way of getting organisations to do the right thing. Laws and regulations can up to a point but only up to a point

 

[najaB]

hmmm - not sure about that. There was a long wait to get a phone line installed (as in several weeks)

That was largely due to the technology at the time. Adding a new line meant that an engineer had to go to the exchange and physically wire a new connection on the main distribution frame, it could sometimes take a while to find an engineer with the right skills. These days, in comparison, you can activate a line with a couple of keystrokes.

 

[Yew]

now. What would be different with BR mkii? Putting aside the ROSCO what more should be within the control of the government?

why should it be in the hands of foreign governments and large outsourcing companies?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2022 ==

This is a commonly held myth, unfortunately. There is very little variation in healthcare spending between the G7 countries, with the exception of the USA which is, predictably, the outlier with a far higher spend than the rest.

If our healthcare is poorer than the other countries, it cannot be explained by spending and must surely be down to the system we have, or the implementation of that system. Much of the public and the politicians find that unpalatable to accept, but what other reason could there be?

Have you any evidence for that very large if?

 

[HSTEd]

That was largely due to the technology at the time. Adding a new line meant that an engineer had to go to the exchange and physically wire a new connection on the main distribution frame, it could sometimes take a while to find an engineer with the right skills. These days, in comparison, you can activate a line with a couple of keystrokes.

And if you want any physical changes your utility connections it still takes months!

 

[yorksrob]

I'm interested at just how cynical many people on here are about the private sector. I've consulted to both and the private sector has some HUGE strengths around customer and innovation


I'm not sure that this is literally "jobs for the boys" so much as a world view that sees laws and regulations as an effective way of getting organisations to do the right thing. Laws and regulations can up to a point but only up to a point

It would be nice to see some innovation in pricing of fares. The TOC's seem to be overly reliant on advanced purchase ticketing for me to regard them as innovative.

 

[Mikey C]

For example, I think nationalising water is very easy to sell, when compared to the current model of geographical monopolies and companies that pay out to shareholders more than fixing leaks and treating sewage.

On the other hand, the water network needs lots of investment. State owned, that would have to come out of the exchequer and go on the National Debt

Having them as private companies, BUT better regulating them avoids this

 

[HSTEd]

On the other hand, the water network needs lots of investment. State owned, that would have to come out of the exchequer and go on the National Debt

Having them as private companies, BUT better regulating them avoids this

That just turns private water companies into enormous PFIs.

Society ends up paying either way, and thanks to expensive private sector capital it ends up paying far more.

The only purpose for doing this is making a number on a spreadsheet appear smaller than it otherwise would - it serves no other purpose.

[Sure society picks up the costs of modernisation of the water system, but it then acquires the huge income stream from water bills at the same time]

I'm interested at just how cynical many people on here are about the private sector. I've consulted to both and the private sector has some HUGE strengths around customer and innovation

Innovation for the purposes of extracting more value for the shareholders.

They don't care if the service works or not or if the poor can afford energy or not.
The only thing that matters is whether or not they have maximised shareholder value.

Maximising shareholder value is a fundamentally different objective than maximising value for the public as a whole - and regulation ends up in a never ending war with the priavte sector to force them to do things the private sector doesn't want to do. You end up spending huge effort on regulatory wack-a-mole and society ends up at war with itself with huge numbers of staff trying to subvert the other.
It's just a huge waste of effort and resources.

If you are going to have a free market you should have a free market. If you aren't you shouldn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

On the other hand, the water network needs lots of investment. State owned, that would have to come out of the exchequer and go on the National Debt

Having them as private companies, BUT better regulating them avoids this

National debt is fine if you are taking it out for infrastructure or unforeseen global events. It isn't a dodgy credit card, it is things people want to invest in e.g. National Savings.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Jul 2022 ==

CalMac isn't nationalised as such, it's just that David MacBrayne Ltd (who provide the service and who are state-owned) are just too difficult to dislodge for various reasons. I was once in a meeting with a very very senior person at a shipping company about this topic, and he asked me straight about whether I thought there was any chance of them winning the Caledonian MacBrayne network tender. I explained how the company is intertwined with local economies, and how the staff were loyal to CalMac (i.e. David MacBrayne Ltd) due to the very specific way that the company is managed. I told him straight that there was no way he could expect to make a profit without local communities fully on board, and that they would have to spend a lot of money winning the hearts and minds of locals.

This depends how you define nationalised. I would say it is because of the company's ownership, same as Network Rail etc. What you say is heading into the common German view that DB AG is privatised despite it being wholly owned by the state - they saw taking it out of the civil service as privatisation. That is an entirely different argument.

 

[Broucek]

Innovation for the purposes of extracting more value for the shareholders.

They don't care if the service works or not or if the poor can afford energy or not.
The only thing that matters is whether or not they have maximised shareholder value.

Maximising shareholder value is a fundamentally different objective than maximising value for the public as a whole - and regulation ends up in a never ending war with the priavte sector to force them to do things the private sector doesn't want to do. You end up spending huge effort on regulatory wack-a-mole and society ends up at war with itself with huge numbers of staff trying to subvert the other.
It's just a huge waste of effort and resources.

If you are going to have a free market you should have a free market. If you aren't you shouldn't.

You speak as if more value to shareholders was a bad thing...

There are certain parts of the private sector where reasonably heavy-handed regulation/supervision is needed and there is a legitimate debate as to whether certain industries would be better off in public ownership (someone mentioned water above). But in most areas, the private sector doesn't need that much supervision as customers, employees and, yes, shareholders will all be positive influences. They idea that "They don't care if the service works or not" is juvenile and implies a level of short-termism that simply doesn't reflect the reality.

 

[sor]

You speak as if more value to shareholders was a bad thing...

There are certain parts of the private sector where reasonably heavy-handed regulation/supervision is needed and there is a legitimate debate as to whether certain industries would be better off in public ownership (someone mentioned water above). But in most areas, the private sector doesn't need that much supervision as customers, employees and, yes, shareholders will all be positive influences. They idea that "They don't care if the service works or not" is juvenile and implies a level of short-termism that simply doesn't reflect the reality.

You seem to be forgetting that we aren't all railway staff on here, we actually do work in the private sector and have our own first hand experiences