Labour Drops Rail Renationalisation Policy then reinstates it.

[HSTEd]

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.

If heavy handed regulation is necessary it probably shouldn't be in the private sector!

The heavier the regulation has to be the higher the costs associated with the constant tug-of-war between business and the regulator gets.

As an example, the energy system has been run by the "free market" for the last 30+ years and it's turned into an utter disaster as a result of endless short termism. Shareholder value was maximised by running the system into the ground and abandoning any semblence of resilience and fuel hedging. Now all society will pay the penalty whilst the benefits accrued to a small portion through shareholder value. Ultimately the shareholders don't really care if some people freeze to death if their dividends and stock value growth is maintained.

[And that's before we consider trying to purchase generating plant with short term private loans which led inevitably to the current problem]

And throughout numerous short-term jobs in manufacturing and the like, I've seen rampant short termism.

 

[Broucek]

Ultimately the shareholders don't really care if some people freeze to death if their dividends and stock value growth is maintained.

That's another juvenile comment

I'm a shareholder. So are you, probably, if you have a private sector DC pension. Do YOU want people to freeze?

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's another juvenile comment

I'm a shareholder. So are you, probably, if you have a private sector DC pension. Do YOU want people to freeze?

If I am a shareholder in a business I want that business to make a profit, as that is the point of my investment!

 

[HSTEd]

I'm a shareholder. So are you, probably, if you have a private sector DC pension. Do YOU want people to freeze?

My only interest in my pension is that it is managed to maximise the value I obtain.

Essentially all the shares I own are indirectly owned through various exchange traded funds or my pension - which I know nothing about.
And literally my only interaction with ETFs is deciding whether I want to sell or not based on whether the line has gone up or down.

You might care how companies owned through about three intermediate steps deal with customers, but I have no information about that and really I have more important things to do than worry about it - even if I could actually untangle that.
And I think the vast majority of shares are owned in such a fashion - by disinterested people who care whether the line went up or down and not much else.

EDIT:

And that's before we get into the realities of energy policy in the current energy system.
Are shareholders going to accept lower value now to hedge against gas prices - at the risk that they will be outcompeted in the mean time by people who didn't? You end up stuck in a prisoner's dillema that always ends the same way - go for the cheap option now.

Generating plant lasts decades, shareholder horizons are nothing like that and almost inherently can't be.

 

[DarloRich]

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

Where does the power sit within the current structure? Who owns the infrastructure? What is the benefit of changing the former TOC's into BR mkii? How is that better than what seems to be an LO style concession system proposed for future train operations?

 

[Phil56]

BT was fine.

That'd debatable. I remember having to wait months for a phone line and then being given a just a choice of colours as to which bakalite phone I had to rent off them!

Moving homes was another nightmare. BT couldn't synchronise changing the phone number with the date you moved, so for a period of time, you received phone calls to the previous owner and your phone calls went to you buyer, then at a random/arbitrary future date, BT changed the numbers. So basically, anyone with sense just accepted they had a different number and told everyone the new one as it was too complicated to try to change it. (Basically, BT didn't want the hassle of changing numbers, so made it difficult!).

The big issue with privatisation of phones (and landline internet) is that there's only one available landline, owned and controlled by BT (or Openreach), so we don't have true privatisation/choice, which is of course the same fundamental flaw with power, water and even railways.

 

[JamesT]

Have you any evidence for that very large if?

The most often cited international comparison of healthcare systems is the one done by the Commonwealth Fund. https://www.commonwealthfund.org/pu...2021/aug/mirror-mirror-2021-reflecting-poorly is their most recent report as far as I can tell.
Although the UK ranks fairly well on many measures such as access to care, Health Care Outcomes (i.e. how good is the actual treatment) comes 9th out of the 11 surveyed.

 

[GS250]

Politically homeless again

Yep...this is exactly what I'd suspect would happen under Starmer. At least with Corbyn, Smith and Kinnock, there was a genuine alternative even if it got rejected time after time.

I actually think renationalising the railways is a vote winner for many. Even if things may/may not improve.

However, Calmac Ferries are fully nationalised I believe....and whilst I've never had a problem with their service, those who use them frequently do nothing but complain and suggest the service appears to be ran for the convenience of the employees.

 

[JamesT]

That'd debatable. I remember having to wait months for a phone line and then being given a just a choice of colours as to which bakalite phone I had to rent off them!

Moving homes was another nightmare. BT couldn't synchronise changing the phone number with the date you moved, so for a period of time, you received phone calls to the previous owner and your phone calls went to you buyer, then at a random/arbitrary future date, BT changed the numbers. So basically, anyone with sense just accepted they had a different number and told everyone the new one as it was too complicated to try to change it. (Basically, BT didn't want the hassle of changing numbers, so made it difficult!).

The big issue with privatisation of phones (and landline internet) is that there's only one available landline, owned and controlled by BT (or Openreach), so we don't have true privatisation/choice, which is of course the same fundamental flaw with power, water and even railways.

There's been local loop unbundling in the UK for about 2 decades now, there's quite a few companies that have taken over control of the landlines from BT. In most areas you have a choice of Virgin as a completely separate connection and increasingly in many areas providers are running their own fibre into premises (e.g. Hyperoptic).
Many ISPs are just reselling the basic Openreach connection and running the billing on top, but others are providing quite different services. I think broadband is a market where competition is working relatively well, with Ofcom preventing BT abusing their position too much.

 

[sor]

That's another juvenile comment

I'm a shareholder. So are you, probably, if you have a private sector DC pension. Do YOU want people to freeze?

Aside from the issues of having to rely on glorified gambling for a retirement, it shouldn't be at the expense of everything else. Some people do take "fiduciary duty" to an extreme, it doesn't literally mean "do everything you can to make maximum short term profit" as is often suggested and practiced in the modern age

"what about your pension" is such a thought terminating cliche. What about my pension indeed, don't know about you but I'd rather have a more compassionate and thoughtful society than literally a few extra pennies in the pot. I'd say the same about the actual shares that I own directly

The big issue with privatisation of phones (and landline internet) is that there's only one available landline, owned and controlled by BT (or Openreach), so we don't have true privatisation/choice, which is of course the same fundamental flaw with power, water and even railways.

Not really true for most people. Openreach are often the only owner of the physical network, with Virgin also being available in some areas, though the alt-nets seem to think they can beat them at their own game (by pretending they're better than Openreach, though they often rent access to Openreach's ducts and poles). It has long been the case that if you are with Sky or TalkTalk or certain other providers then your phone line is not provided using BT or Openreach owned equipment. The line is connected to a device within BT's exchange but owned by your chosen provider and it's up to them to manage it. Virgin is entirely separate in every way, even the ducting

I'd say the ISP sector is fairly competitive, though the physical networks are not. It's a bit like Royal Mail in that they're forced to do all the unprofitable or barely profitable areas and must deliver to every address in the country, while the so called "competition" cherry pick where and to whom they'll deliver, shifting the rest of it onto RM at a regulated price.

 

[Mat17]

Beeching could only have happened under nationalisation. Sure routes did close under the pre-grouping and Big Four days, but nothing on the scale of what was to come.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Beeching could only have happened under nationalisation. Sure routes did close under the pre-grouping and Big Four days, but nothing on the scale of what was to come.

Interestingly Germany is still haemorrhaging branch lines on the quiet - as their funding model is more like rural bus services, the Land just declines to pay and the line closes, but unlike a bus hard to reinstate in better times.

 

[Falcon1200]

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

Not so sure about that; Are the vital ferries to the Isle of Wight, Isle of Man, Orkney Islands, not to mention Northern Ireland, nationalised ?

Domestic air travel is to be discouraged entirely.

Agree, partly, but as mentioned there are Scottish Islands where air transport is the only realistic option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Not so sure about that; Are the vital ferries to the Isle of Wight, Isle of Man, Orkney Islands, not to mention Northern Ireland, nationalised ?

If ever there was an argument for nationalisation of ferries it's Wightlink...

By the way, the Isle of Man Steam Packet Co is nationalised - owned by the Manx Government - though it was not always so.

Agree, partly, but as mentioned there are Scottish Islands where air transport is the only realistic option.

True, but such routes are so few in number and scope that contracted operation probably brings economies of scale in a way nationalising only those routes would not.

 

[Cdd89]

In terms of the premise of the thread, I’m always amazed that nationalisation (or otherwise) is high up on anyone’s agenda of things to care about. It always seems to get far more airtime than it deserves, and seems ideological [I would say the same about privatisation, if nationalisation were the status quo].

In this sense I think Labour are right to drop the focus on it, even if it might be marginally better.

I would much rather focus on increasing the level of subsidy received by the railway.

 

[Wynd]

Is anyone else thinking that Labour are seeking to emulate 1997?

 

[Mikey C]

In terms of the premise of the thread, I’m always amazed that nationalisation (or otherwise) is high up on anyone’s agenda of things to care about. It always seems to get far more airtime than it deserves, and seems ideological [I would say the same about privatisation, if nationalisation were the status quo].

In this sense I think Labour are right to drop the focus on it, even if it might be marginally better.

I would much rather focus on increasing the level of subsidy received by the railway.

No chance of that

Massive public debt, record taxation, a struggling NHS, a failing Social Care system, demand for more defence spending to counter Putin, leaking school buildings...any money will go elsewhere

 

[WelshBluebird]

In terms of the premise of the thread, I’m always amazed that nationalisation (or otherwise) is high up on anyone’s agenda of things to care about. It always seems to get far more airtime than it deserves, and seems ideological [I would say the same about privatisation, if nationalisation were the status quo].

In this sense I think Labour are right to drop the focus on it, even if it might be marginally better.

I would much rather focus on increasing the level of subsidy received by the railway.

I think there's two things to think about there.

Yes it is often ideological. Though not always, some of the discussions about it can be heavily involved in detail like removing inefficiencies that having multiple competing rail companies introduces (the whole insanity of delay attribution for example), or improving the customer experience by having a single joined up entity rather than several competing ones (so you don't just get fobbed off by staff saying "it wasn't our service so tough" etc etc. But also actually having a striking ideological difference in the various options you can vote for isn't always a bad thing. It certainly is a counter to the "they are all the same" arguments you sometimes see from people who don't vote (or at best loathe it).

Also, at least until COVID, rail nationalisation was generally a popular policy across the board for the eltoroate. So supporting that did make sense. I'd be interested to see if that is still true mind you!

 

[GS250]

Is anyone else thinking that Labour are seeking to emulate 1997?

Absolutely, policy wise....yes.

However Starmer is no Tony Blair and Labour are still struggling to shrug off the image that they have a cultural problem with the majority demographic.

 

[Broucek]

Massive public debt, record taxation, a struggling NHS, a failing Social Care system, demand for more defence spending to counter Putin, leaking school buildings...any money will go elsewhere

This. I use the railway and value it. But the majority of people don't use it and usage is heavily weighted towards big city commuting and social groups A/B. Usage is likely to remain below pre-COVID because a non-trivial number of office jobs can now be done mostly from home and there are now far fewer F2F business meetings.

Sad, but I doubt rail would be in most voters' top 5 priorities. (Aha! I hear. But what about the environment? Well, I suspect that's not in the top 5 for most voters either*)

* I make no comment on whether or not it should be

 

[HSTEd]

Is anyone else thinking that Labour are seeking to emulate 1997?

Yes, they are attempting to re-reun the 1997 Election.

Even the "one off" windfall tax is just a rip off of the policy from 1997.

The problem is.... it's not really 1997 any more.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Absolutely, policy wise....yes.

However Starmer is no Tony Blair and Labour are still struggling to shrug off the image that they have a cultural problem with the majority demographic.

Yep, Starmer isn't an election winner. I still maintain they need Andy Burnham. Some don't like him, but if a Scouser can become Manchester Mayor (and a very popular one at that) he can definitely win a GE.

 

[najaB]

Basically, BT didn't want the hassle of changing numbers, so made it difficult!

No, it actually was difficult. In the days of Strowger switches renumbering involved getting an engineer into the exchange physically moving wires from one part of the main distribution frame to another. It's not like today where it can be done with a couple of keystrokes.

 

[Cdd89]

Also, at least until COVID, rail nationalisation was generally a popular policy across the board for the eltoroate. So supporting that did make sense. I'd be interested to see if that is still true mind you!

I suspect the public would support the opposite of the long standing status quo. As mentioned uphread, those not otherwise committed believe a major change will resolve the things they don’t like about the railway.

 

[Ediswan]

No, it actually was difficult. In the days of Strowger switches renumbering involved getting an engineer into the exchange physically moving wires from one part of the main distribution frame to another. It's not like today where it can be done with a couple of keystrokes.

If I recall correctly, if your move was to an area covered by a different exchange, you had to have a new number. Unless you were prepared to pay a small fortune for a dedicated line between the exchanges.

 

[najaB]

If I recall correctly, if your move was to an area covered by a different exchange, you had to have a new number. Unless you were prepared to pay a small fortune for a dedicated line between the exchanges.

Indeed. And there were a lot of small sub-exchanges that might only cover a few hundred houses (anyone old enough to remember 5-digit local dialling?). So a move of just a mile or less could see you on a different exchange.

 

[class ep-09]

Ultimately a cynic might also suggest that nationalisation had to be axed because the current (pre coronavirus) system is the one required to be in the EU Single market.....

Which is not true .
In most EU countries railways are in public ownership .
Single market requires competition but does not ban state owned operators to run trains.

 

[DelayRepay]

If heavy handed regulation is necessary it probably shouldn't be in the private sector!

The heavier the regulation has to be the higher the costs associated with the constant tug-of-war between business and the regulator gets.

I work in Financial Services. UK Financial Services is probably one of the most highly regulated sectors in the world, and with good reason given the harm that past failures have caused to the economy and society. The costs associated with regulation, which the banks fund, are high but factored into the business models.

Would you support nationalising the banks? Because that's what we did with RBS and HBOS/LBG - but the aim was always to get them off the state's books as quickly as possible rather than run them as public services.

 

[Yew]

I work in Financial Services. UK Financial Services is probably one of the most highly regulated sectors in the world, and with good reason given the harm that past failures have caused to the economy and society. The costs associated with regulation, which the banks fund, are high but factored into the business models.

Would you support nationalising the banks? Because that's what we did with RBS and HBOS/LBG - but the aim was always to get them off the state's books as quickly as possible rather than run them as public services.

In general, I don't think that the infrastructure required for banks makes a solid case for Nationalisation. Perhaps in a hypothetical situation where each bank had it's own mint and currency, I'd push for standardisation - but it feels like true competition can be had in a non-ridiculous* way.

* Compared to say, 5 rail companies all maintaining track, rolling stock and stations for a small city.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In general, I don't think that the infrastructure required for banks makes a solid case for Nationalisation. Perhaps in a hypothetical situation where each bank had it's own mint and currency, I'd push for standardisation - but it feels like true competition can be had in a non-ridiculous* way.

* Compared to say, 5 rail companies all maintaining track, rolling stock and stations for a small city.

Banks are all part of a globalised system (as are the global criminal fraternity who often make use of them). Can you imagine the Labour Party attempting to nationalise HSBC, for example? I used to be a customer of the Midland Bank prior to its take-over by HSBC.