• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Beeching

Status
Not open for further replies.

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Further to that I'm not sure anyone in decision making positions ever actually considered Option A to be a viable choice. Indeed I've often seen it as being a bit of classic 'Yes Minister' work in that a report is produced with two unacceptable extreme options (Option A: Cut everything and Option H: Spend billions on improving) in order to make the 'correct' options look better. Of course the uproar was such that the entire report ended up being shelved.

Yes indeed, we should be grateful that ther ehave been no similar proposals since then (apart from the occasional lunatic idea to convert all railway line sinto roads to ehlp traffic congestion).

It's more the fact that the premise behind the report was to look atw ays to make the railways pay their way. I think it's more widely accepted now that railways ar enever going to be profitable in the traditional sense, and that it is both economically and socially desirable to keep them, even if that requires subsidies.

The arguments today are more about how to best organise and fund the railways than making the whole network profitable.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Markdvdman

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2011
Messages
492
Location
Merthyr Tydfil / Gorslas
Yes indeed, we should be grateful that ther ehave been no similar proposals since then (apart from the occasional lunatic idea to convert all railway line sinto roads to ehlp traffic congestion).

It's more the fact that the premise behind the report was to look atw ays to make the railways pay their way. I think it's more widely accepted now that railways ar enever going to be profitable in the traditional sense, and that it is both economically and socially desirable to keep them, even if that requires subsidies.

The arguments today are more about how to best organise and fund the railways than making the whole network profitable.

Railways would only pay if they were brought back into public ownership. With better working practices it is the only way it could be done. however, subsidy is necessary I think as the rural lines will never cut it in comparison to heavily used lines.

I bet a lot is lost on Valleys Lines due to them not bothering checking after Pontypridd etc (not always the case but more often than not!).

It is indeed the case that closures are a bad idea and there is a case for more lines to EASE the traffic congestion!

Time will tell let us hope a future government can see it, and fund correctly with the right balance and have the audacity to bring back British Rail!!!
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Railways would only pay if they were brought back into public ownership. With better working practices it is the only way it could be done. however, subsidy is necessary I think as the rural lines will never cut it in comparison to heavily used lines.

I bet a lot is lost on Valleys Lines due to them not bothering checking after Pontypridd etc (not always the case but more often than not!).

It is indeed the case that closures are a bad idea and there is a case for more lines to EASE the traffic congestion!

Time will tell let us hope a future government can see it, and fund correctly with the right balance and have the audacity to bring back British Rail!!!

The railways will never pay if the definition of that is the whole network operating at a profit. Even during the golden age of late Victorian and Edwardian times, before the advent of lorries, buses and cars profits were extremely small. This had to be addressed by the Grouping of 1923, which sought to streamline the system and help profitability.

I believe that the costs of the system could be reduced by bringing the network under the control of one organisation, thereby reducing the number of costly interfaces between companies, the need for lawyers and contracts. Ideally, we could reintroduce national pay scales which might help to prevent the anger when one TOC offers higher pay rises than its sister company!
 

Markdvdman

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2011
Messages
492
Location
Merthyr Tydfil / Gorslas
The railways will never pay if the definition of that is the whole network operating at a profit. Even during the golden age of late Victorian and Edwardian times, before the advent of lorries, buses and cars profits were extremely small. This had to be addressed by the Grouping of 1923, which sought to streamline the system and help profitability.

I believe that the costs of the system could be reduced by bringing the network under the control of one organisation, thereby reducing the number of costly interfaces between companies, the need for lawyers and contracts. Ideally, we could reintroduce national pay scales which might help to prevent the anger when one TOC offers higher pay rises than its sister company!

That is exactly what I mean. Bring the rails back into public ownership, and use modern day methodology, and they may have a chance of not needing susbsidy. It will not happen but it is the only way it could possibly happen!
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I think they will still need subsidy, but much less of it! I don't think it necesarily has to be public ownership, though that would be my preference. We could have a national operator, perhaps with some Open Access and community rail operations.
 

Markdvdman

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2011
Messages
492
Location
Merthyr Tydfil / Gorslas
I think they will still need subsidy, but much less of it! I don't think it necesarily has to be public ownership, though that would be my preference. We could have a national operator, perhaps with some Open Access and community rail operations.

If it was run properly it may not need subsidising but to get to that stage it would mean years and off one operator.

I suppose you mean like National Express with the coaches?

They have cut coach services like the 508 5:20am from Cross Hands to London Victoria which did cripple me!

It is understandable but the journey was overpriced for legs in between. They need to sort their act out too!

It would be much nicer if it was brought back into public ownership, but maybe Network Rail should run it all at least one company in control? Therefore we can eventually get it into the position of no accountability to shareholders and maybe fares can come down for a change?

Pipedream maybe and of course complete speculation :D
 

yorksrob

Veteran Member
Joined
6 Aug 2009
Messages
44,251
Location
Yorks
Ah, I don;t see it as the COnservatives closing all the branch lines.History shows that Labour continued to close them, and I have no doubt that if the Labour Party had been in power they would also have wante dot make the railways pay. It may not have been Marples or Beeching under Labour, but the results would have been very similar at the very least.

Indeed - I see it very much as an "Establishment" viewpoint for which Beeching Marples were the flagbearers, i.e. just choping away at the network to get to some sort of mythical railway which would pay its way, rather than looking at other factors.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Coincidentally, the thread about the Netherlands in International Transport is showing the sort of thing I had in mind - I had no idea that it was so widespread as to include France and Germany, although I expect there will be sublte differences!

Why can we not try something like that here?
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
That is exactly what I mean. Bring the rails back into public ownership, and use modern day methodology, and they may have a chance of not needing susbsidy. It will not happen but it is the only way it could possibly happen!
This is never going to hapen for the following reasons :-
1) Investment - HM Treasury would never be able to afford the investment that the Railways would need on an ongoing basis. This was precisely the issue under BR and the principal reason why the Railways were privatised in 1994. They were not renationalised as promised by Labour for the same reason. There is insufficient money available from taxation for the Government to fund everything. When it comes to the inevitable trade-off between hospitals, education, old age pensioners, et al, the Railways will always lose out.

2) Taxation - The privatised Railway sectors provide a steady stream of Corporation tax which the former Government used. Nationalisation would remove this at a stroke.

3) Trade Unions - The various Trade Union practices and ultimately the disputes did great damage to the Railways. Despite the rose tinted spectacles that some on here wear, traffic was lost during the Miners and the Steelworkers strikes to the road haulage industry, these drivers being TGWU workers effectively strike-breaking - so much for trade union solidarity. Once traffic is lost it rarely comes back, especially when Companies were being pushed to sign long term contracts with the road hauliers.

The Trades Unions in one way or another caused many of the underlying problems which led to Privatisation in any case, with restrictive working practices, and a willingness to go on strike for Political rather than their members benefit.

Renationalisation would once again herald a lot of problems as Ts & Cs were brought back into line, as Trade Unions would see this as another way of making a Political fight with the present Government.

4) Politics - The Railways have been a Political football since the 1960s. They were also used as a means of Government managing the economy, thus when money was tight, the nationalised Industries were given the regular" cost reduction/reduced investment" treatment, which made it hugely difficult for long term investment programmes to deliver what they had originally promised.


If you do not believe what I have written, ask yourself why Labour went on a 13 year PPP/PFI spending spree on hospitals and schools, rather than uisng money from taxes.
 

Markdvdman

Member
Joined
14 Aug 2011
Messages
492
Location
Merthyr Tydfil / Gorslas
This is never going to hapen for the following reasons :-
1) Investment - HM Treasury would never be able to afford the investment that the Railways would need on an ongoing basis. This was precisely the issue under BR and the principal reason why the Railways were privatised in 1994. They were not renationalised as promised by Labour for the same reason. There is insufficient money available from taxation for the Government to fund everything. When it comes to the inevitable trade-off between hospitals, education, old age pensioners, et al, the Railways will always lose out.

2) Taxation - The privatised Railway sectors provide a steady stream of Corporation tax which the former Government used. Nationalisation would remove this at a stroke.

3) Trade Unions - The various Trade Union practices and ultimately the disputes did great damage to the Railways. Despite the rose tinted spectacles that some on here wear, traffic was lost during the Miners and the Steelworkers strikes to the road haulage industry, these drivers being TGWU workers effectively strike-breaking - so much for trade union solidarity. Once traffic is lost it rarely comes back, especially when Companies were being pushed to sign long term contracts with the road hauliers.

The Trades Unions in one way or another caused many of the underlying problems which led to Privatisation in any case, with restrictive working practices, and a willingness to go on strike for Political rather than their members benefit.

Renationalisation would once again herald a lot of problems as Ts & Cs were brought back into line, as Trade Unions would see this as another way of making a Political fight with the present Government.

4) Politics - The Railways have been a Political football since the 1960s. They were also used as a means of Government managing the economy, thus when money was tight, the nationalised Industries were given the regular" cost reduction/reduced investment" treatment, which made it hugely difficult for long term investment programmes to deliver what they had originally promised.


If you do not believe what I have written, ask yourself why Labour went on a 13 year PPP/PFI spending spree on hospitals and schools, rather than uisng money from taxes.

I do not disbelieve you. However, modern practices like we use in work is use as little staff as possible, and make sure they are good and do not get rid of your best staff if things do not work out!

The staff on stations when things go wrong for example are pathetic. No managers EVER explain what is going wrong! ACCOUNTABILITY is missing.

I am not saying it can ever work, but using BETTER management and accountability can make things work!

I do agree though that subsidy is necessary I suspect due to the social aspect and necessity for the public.

Maybe I am barking up the wrong tree but do you feel things can improve immensely? Under one company you have a chance, under many you have NONE.

Unions? Hmm that does need looking at and the problem at the moment is the public are not getting pay rises but rail staff are in some areas.

That is why it would be better under one company. It is unfair to compare the past, as modern ways of working are far, far better IF applied properly with good staff!!!
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Hmm, I'd say the railways have been a political football since the Transport Act, 1947. Every government since nationalisation has tried to reshape the railways in whatever image they like, and they have had the power to do so. Political parties are always looking to the next election, forgetting that railways have long lead-times for pretty much anything, and it takes almost as long for an improvement to bed in. When they demand quick results, they get false blips.

My opinion is that, if they really wanted to privatise the railways, they should have repealed the Transport Act, 1947. I'm not sure if that would have been possible, but that would have recreated the Big Four overnight. It would also have cut political control and allowed a much more long-term management structure to form. However, Monopolies and Mergers should have prevented bus companies from coming in, creating stand-alone companies that would stand or fall by their own performance. Still, that was too sensible for the Major Government.
 

kennethw

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2009
Messages
196
In fact, the railway network began to shrink in the 30's, particularly narrow guage lines such as the Lynton & Barnstaple, Leek & Manifold, Glyn Valley were early victims, being unable to compete with bus and lorry, while others such as the Corris and Welshpool & Llanfair continued as freight only.

Outbreak of war stopped further retraction, the railways were in fact nationalised in all but name, this being official in 1948. Postwar attitude was different. The public looked to the freedom of the open road, new (now regarded as classic) sports cars, the new London - Birmingham motorway. In contrast, the railways were seen as slow and dirty - this epitaph was applied to the Somerset and Dorset -S&D. Grimy steam locomotives hauling grimy coaches crewed by grimy men puffing slowly around hill and dale, always late, was the public perception.

Road public transport took a battering as well. By the early 60's only Blackpool had a street tramway, the trolleybus would be extinct on British roads by the early 70's. London busmen went on strike for 6 weeks in 1958, when London started to replace its trolleybuses, there were enough surplus RT buses from reduced demand for the first two stages of trolleybus replacement.

The railway network was still shrinking. For example, the Isle of Wight lost lines to Freshwater, Bembridge and Ventnor West in the early 50's, Newport - Merstone - Sandown mid 50's

The railways responded by the 1955 Modernisation plan, part of which wasted money on unreliable diesels - two of these ended up in Barry scrapyard alongside the steam locos they were supposed to replace. When the Treasury saw the sums involved, it panicked - the taxpayer would never stand for this. The railways responded by asking to be put on a commercial basis, so in 1962 out went the British Transport Commission and its obligation to be a common carrier and in came the British Railways Board, and Beeching was brought in - an accountant with ICI, to carry out a survey of the profitability of the system. Lines and stations were graded, so there could be a point at which a line could be drawn, everything below that was unprofitable and earmarked for closure. When the Beeching report came out, most went straight to the dreaded Appendix 2 listing lines and stations recommended for closure.

One wonders what the preservation movement would be today if history took a different course, as it was this mass slaughter of lines and steam locomotives which catalysed it. Formerly, the railways scrapped their own locomotives, they only turned to outside agents during the final years of steam being overwhelmed by the sheer volume of engines to be scrapped. If there was no Barry, would there only be 2 Bullied Pacifics preserved - Winston Churchill and Clan line?

Again a trickle of closures continued post Beeching. In the West country, Okehampton - Bere Alston went 1968, Ilfracombe 1970, was Bridport around 1976? and freight only to Meeth 1982.

The 1970's were bad for the new look British Rail despite hiring Sir Jimmy Saville to remind us that this was the age of the train. British Rail was standard fare for comedians regarding unpunctualty and unreliability. I am reminded of Old Timer's post, that it made news when ASLEF refused to move coal by rail while the miners were on strike, and it was found that it was cheaper to use road lorries, this traffic was lost to the railways forever.

As for the Somerset & Dorset, proposals for a new diversion and terminus at the Bath end of the line were proposed, but again defeated by cost. The desire was to haul the Pines express by diesel, the S&D infrastructure was not up the the heavier demands of diesel traction, so the Pines was diverted off the S&D, went diesel and the S&D remained a steam branch until closure
 
Last edited:

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
The Modernisation Plan involved a typical call for quick results, and I believe it was accelerated in 1958. What I'm sure most people agree on is that they should have waited until the Pilot Scheme diesels were fully tested and reported on before deciding on off-the-drawing-board orders, and then given classes a proper evaluation period in service. What's more, decent traffic analysis beforehand would have allowed for the changes from wagonload to trainload. However, politicians wanted quick results, so they planned for the 60s rather than the 70s, made mistakes and that was it.
 

wheel

Member
Joined
2 Aug 2011
Messages
5
I'm not as knowledgeable as some but..

The desire was to haul the Pines express by diesel, the S&D infrastructure was not up the the heavier demands of diesel traction, so the Pines was diverted off the S&D, went diesel and the S&D remained a steam branch until closure

I'm not sure the above is correct. As I understood it when the Western region took control of the S & D North of Templecombe they diverted the Pines onto different routes i.e. away from S & D Metals.

I wander what the axle load of a 9F compares to something like a class 31 and what diesels had the line survived would have been permitted over the S & D.

I think for me with regard to Beeching the following mistakes were made.

Beeching assumed that if he shut the branch then people would simply drive to the nearest station and then get the train. Whereby in fact they simply stayed in their car and drove the whole way to their destination.

I also think that BR were to quick to rip up the track and infrastructure and sell of the land. Whereby if it had been mothballed for a period time or at least the track bed retained it might not be so costly now to reinstate some previously closed lines. But I guess that was the point of what Beeching was asked to do to identify ways in which costs could be saved and spending money maintaining track or track bed even if it carried no service wouldnt have realised all the cost saving he was trying to get.

I dont think the railways helped themselves, whilst I realise that sometimes the only way to get anything done was to go on strike, I really think that it proved to people they could manage without the railway and once traffic was lost to the road for whatever reason either through increasing car ownership or people / freight being forced onto the road through strike action the traffic never returned.
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Kennethw, that's a pretty good analysis but there are some errors in it. Mrs Thatcher did not come to power until 1979, therefore it's wrong to call the 1970's her era! Also, I believe that Beeching was appointed by the government, rather then the BRB.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
And as PFI illustrates, all parties believing that something is a magical solution to all our problems doesn't necessarily make it so:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574059
Sadly much of this is to do with the fact that Labour signed off a whole host of PFI heads of agreement deals immediately before, and in the wake of, the Election as part of their scorched earth policy.

The impact of this was that it would have cost enormous sums of money for these deals to have been cancelled. The cynical benefit for Labour of course is that it allows Labour to dispense the usual Labour-in-Opposition lies and disingenuity, viz.

Kerry McCarthy, Labour's shadow treasury minister, said clear guidelines were in place to ensure it was only used if it was deemed value for money compared with public sector routes.

"The Tory-led government has continued to use the PFI scheme, the Treasury has reportedly signed off on more than 60 projects so far totalling close to £7bn," she said.

"This suggests that they believe it can be a value for money means of generating investment in our public services."

Source : The dear old BBC which points out that PFI appeared under John Major but then naturally enough fails to follow on with the fact that the details were considerably changed (including taking them off the books) by Labour post 1997, thus revealing its own cynical bias.
 

kennethw

Member
Joined
27 Mar 2009
Messages
196
ok lets amend my previous post by saying that the 1970's were bad for the railways - one paper commented upon the steady drip, drip of opinion like a leaky tap that railways were bad, and when Mrs T was elected, things got worse, I remember Flook, a cartoon strip in the Daily Mail, which was satirical. Flook goes back to the reign of Queen Victoria (who bears a striking resemblance to Mrs. T), and is presented with a model of her new railway carriage. One of her court remind her that this is the age....of the train.

Queen Vic. dislikes her new gift, and like a petulant child jumps onto it, smashing it while uttering " don't you know that I HATE TRAINS!"

As for the comments re diesel traction, Stephen Austin in his book on the Pines express states in print that the increased power of diesel traction exerts a correspondingly greater force on the track, do it every hour on a line like the S&D and the whole railway will break up and slide down the hillside. Certainly, Gerry Feinnes while GM at Liverpool St, overseeing the Shenfield electrification said that the infrastructure had to be upgraded to withstand the heavier demands of electric traction, and it was he who reversed the Beeching proposals that Plymouth - Penzance and Exeter - Salisbury were to go as well
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
Yes, during the 1970's and early 1980's the railways were still in decline, lines were still being closed (Watercress, Alston & Bridport) and others were under constant threat of closure.

Strangely enough, though, despite Mrs Thatcher personal dislike of trains as a means of transport, it was during her premiership that BR turned the corner and rail usage started going up.
 

OuterDistant

Member
Joined
25 Oct 2010
Messages
604
Location
TOPS Area 43
Anyone else done that thing where you're playing Transport Tycoon (or OpenTTD!) and having started with a few branch lines, you've now got a main line between two big towns, and the smaller trains start getting in the way? So you withdraw the services and tear up the track to concentrate on your main line. Makes me feel like Beeching, anyway!
 

LE Greys

Established Member
Joined
6 Mar 2010
Messages
5,389
Location
Hitchin
Some people might suggest that the 70s were the payoff from Beeching, since many of his other proposals - Intercity, Railfreight and so on - were beginning to bear fruit. Personally, I reckon it was more about rationalisation and the National Traction Plan standardising everything producing reduced costs. Rationalisation went a bit too far in some places where it cut capacity or reduced lines to single-track, making it costly to reverse the process. However, cutting out run-round loops and additional lines connected with steam-age infrastructure made a lot of sense. The National Traction Plan got rid of the worst locomotives, and finally Intercity allowed consolidation of the most profitable (or least loss-making) services to provide a steady income source. It also led to the HST, and that definitely allowed the railways to turn the corner.

The 70s finally stopped the rot, but the railways are still recovering.
 

Batman

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2011
Messages
497
Location
North Birmingham
Yes, during the 1970's and early 1980's the railways were still in decline, lines were still being closed (Watercress, Alston & Bridport) and others were under constant threat of closure.

Strangely enough, though, despite Mrs Thatcher personal dislike of trains as a means of transport, it was during her premiership that BR turned the corner and rail usage started going up.

The railways got a good deal compared to some of the other nationalised industries under Thatcher.

Yes there were the subsidy cuts but lets not forget the channel tunnel, east coast electrification and the first of the re-oppenings happened under Thatcher.

She always considered BR to be a privatisation too far.

Looking back, I still think it would have been wise for Norman Tebbit, John Redwood and the other Thatcherites to have bitten the bullet and sold off BR in the first wave of privatisations along with BT and British Gas in the 83-87 parliament. And it would have fitted in with Thatcherite ideology if BR had been kept as a single entity and been floated on the stock exchange as BR plc.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Looking back, I still think it would have been wise for Norman Tebbit, John Redwood and the other Thatcherites to have bitten the bullet and sold off BR in the first wave of privatisations along with BT and British Gas in the 83-87 parliament. And it would have fitted in with Thatcherite ideology if BR had been kept as a single entity and been floated on the stock exchange as BR plc.
Would anyone have been interested in buying shares though if it wasn't profitable?
 

Greenback

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
9 Aug 2009
Messages
15,268
Location
Llanelli
I don't think it would have been likely anyway. If Maggie didn't want to privatise it, she wouldn't have allowed it!
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
The way politics was in the mid to late 1990s I think it is likely BR could have been privatized by New Labour even if the Tories hadn't done it.
 

Morgsie

Member
Joined
3 Jun 2011
Messages
387
Location
Stoke-On-Trent
On the privatization (Big mistake, huge) I thought Thatcher was coming round to the idea just before she was ousted.

John Major wanted something similar to the big 4 but it was the Treasury that devised the system which we have today.

Politics Student with an interest in rail policy
 

exile

Established Member
Joined
16 Jul 2011
Messages
1,342
On the privatization (Big mistake, huge) I thought Thatcher was coming round to the idea just before she was ousted.

John Major wanted something similar to the big 4 but it was the Treasury that devised the system which we have today.

Not what I've heard - which is that he fancied a return to the pre-grouping scene with lots of competing operators.

I suspect the Treasury would have liked a monopoly or to have split the loss making routes off from the profitable ones - something like the business sectors in the later BR days (which is why the sectors were set up - it was how it was envisaged privatisation would be done)
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Don't forget the EU directive requiring separate accounts. An easy way to do this is to fully separate operations and infrastructure and this is what was done.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I suspect the Treasury would have liked a monopoly or to have split the loss making routes off from the profitable ones - something like the business sectors in the later BR days (which is why the sectors were set up - it was how it was envisaged privatisation would be done)
From what I have read, John Major did want a return to the big 4 type situation and the Treasury wanted the franchise based system as it would maximize revenue.
 
Last edited:

A0

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,751
The way politics was in the mid to late 1990s I think it is likely BR could have been privatized by New Labour even if the Tories hadn't done it.

Don't bet on it - far too much of the Labour party's funding and influence on its leadership elections is in the hands of the trade union movement. The RMT, ASLEF and TGWU (as was) would have been threatening de-selection and withdrawl of funding for any sponsored MP who considered voting for it.

Just for the record, I have no problem with unions supporting political parties, I have a huge problem with them having a disproportionate say in who is the leader of the party they support. It should only be open to members of the political party in question.
 

Zoe

Established Member
Joined
22 Aug 2008
Messages
5,905
Don't bet on it - far too much of the Labour party's funding and influence on its leadership elections is in the hands of the trade union movement. The RMT, ASLEF and TGWU (as was) would have been threatening de-selection and withdrawl of funding for any sponsored MP who considered voting for it.
I'm not so sure about that these days. Labour went ahead and part privatized Air Traffic Control despite opposition of the unions. The unions don't have as much influence in the Labour party as they used to and it's strange that they even still support Labour when many of their socialist principles have been abandoned.
Tom Harris said:
My view is that if Labour had come into power in 97 and the railways had still been nationalised, then I think we would have privatised them.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top