Labour Drops Rail Renationalisation Policy then reinstates it.

[LNW-GW Joint]

In speeches and interviews today, the Labour leadership (Kier Starmer and Rachel Reeves) have rowed back on the 2015/17 manifesto promises to renationalise the railways (and other national utilities such as energy and water).
The "failed" manifestos have been formally dropped.
The aim is to target economic growth alongside new fiscal rules, within which large-scale nationalisations are incompatible (ie we can't afford it).

This seems like a return to the 1997 pragmatic approach which said that rail renationalisation (immediately after privatisation) was "not a priority".
Labour then lived within the structure established by the Tories, modified to give the DfT/SRA more control over rail policy (and with NR eventually returning to the public sector).

Of course, the Conservatives are intent on restructuring the rail industry with its GBR plans, with pretty much total control over rail.
It will be 2 years or more before this is enacted, by which time we on the verge of a general election.
So we are bound to have a major change before Labour are in any position to direct policy (if indeed they win the next election).
I suspect Labour will simply take a wait-and-see approach and then live with whatever industry structure the Tories leave behind

It's also wrong to think, as the media seem to, that rail is current fully privatised, with some earthquake required to return it to public ownership.
We all know NR is in public hands, and the private TOCs are on short-term micro-managed management contracts until GBR is established.

MSN

Pressed on whether he still intended to take railways back into public ownership, Sir Keir said: “I think what some of our mayors and metro mayors are doing with public transport is the right way forward – absolutely focused on keeping the price down and making sure there’s control over where things go.
“I absolutely understand the frustrations of everybody trying to use the rail service”.
Ms Reeves earlier said commitments by Labour to nationalise rail, energy or water were part of a manifesto in 2019 that “secured our worst results since 1935” and had been “scrapped”.
She told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme: “Within our fiscal rules, to be spending billions of pounds on nationalising things, that just doesn’t stack up against our fiscal rules.”

 

[pdeaves]

The cynic in me says that Labour won't do 'renationalisation' because that's what the Conservatives are doing and thus they need to do 'the opposite'. The non-cynic in me says it's more pragmatic to develop the industry (and any other industry) in a way that suits the country as a whole without being dictated by a specific ideology.

 

[43066]

The cynic in me says that Labour won't do 'renationalisation' because that's what the Conservatives are doing and thus they need to do 'the opposite'.

The Conservatives aren’t doing renationalisation either!

 

[pdeaves]

The Conservatives aren’t doing renationalisation either!

Yes-'n'-no...

 

[davetheguard]

The Conservatives aren’t doing renationalisation either!

Yes-'n'-no...

But mainly "yes".

Track, stations, & signalling owned by the state.

Timetables, investment decisions, policy, and a large chunk of fares set by civil servants at the DfT.

That just leaves the private sector operating a management contract as laid down by the DfT; all fares collected also going to the DfT.

But all the trains are still owned by private sector companies......

 

[Islineclear3_1]

Like the NHS, the railways need to move away from Whitehall control

Let them (the railways) manage their own finances and operating decisions

 

[HSTEd]

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.....

 

[Bletchleyite]

Politically homeless again

 

[contrex]

The Guardian reports

Reeves suggests Labour would not renationalise rail, water or energy
In his Q&A Keir Starmer said that he agreed with what Rachel Reeves, the shadow chancellor, said in an interview this morning about nationalisation. (See 11.05am.) That is not the most helpful answer because what Reeves said has been subject to some clarification.

On the Today programme Reeves was asked if Labour was now ruling out nationalisation of water, energy companies and rail companies if it won the election. She replied:

I’ve set out fiscal rules that say all day to day spending will be funded by day to day tax revenues ...
Within our fiscal rules, to be spending billions of pounds on nationalising things that just doesn’t stack up against our fiscal rules.

And when it was put to her that nationalisation was a commitment, she replied:

They were a commitment in a manifesto that secured our worst results since 1935 ... We have scrapped the 2019 manifesto. That is not the starting point. We’re setting out distinct policies under Kier Starmer.

But subsequently, as Sienna Rodgers from the House magazine reports, Labour said Reeves was not categorically ruling out rail nationalisation in her answer. (But the Labour clarification also does not make rail nationalisation sound particularly probable either, which is also what Reeves was implying.)

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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.....

I don't think that necessarily follows.
Separation of infrastructure from operation, allowing competition in the latter, was about the only stipulation by the EU rules (which we helped write).
Most states now have a public infrastructure company and are part-way to allowing competition between TOCs (public and private).
It looks like we will still have the level playing field for TOCs under GBR, particularly so freight can stay private.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Price of everything and value of nothing. Our critical national infrastructure needs to be publically owned and operated. Even more importantly power generation and distribution and water supply.

 

[HSTEd]

I don't think that necessarily follows.
Separation of infrastructure from operation, allowing competition in the latter, was about the only stipulation by the EU rules (which we helped write).
Most states now have a public infrastructure company and are part-way to allowing competition between TOCs (public and private).
It looks like we will still have the level playing field for TOCs under GBR, particularly so freight can stay private.

The fourth rail package requires open tendering for all public rail services supported in any way by the state.
That de-facto means the model has to be the one that prevailed in the UK before coronavirus.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The fourth rail package requires open tendering for all public rail services supported in any way by the state.
That de-facto means the model has to be the one that prevailed in the UK before coronavirus.

I must admit some of the neoliberal stuff coming out of the EU of late rather risks turning me Leaver... crucial strategic infrastructure decisions should be devolved as they are within the UK. Obviously if tendering is chosen it should be open to all EU companies.

 

[43066]

But mainly "yes".

I’d say mainly, “no”. It’ll be largely continuing as now (from what little we actually know about it at this stage, and of course it may change).

Track, stations, & signalling owned by the state.

As now.

Timetables, investment decisions, policy, and a large chunk of fares set by civil servants at the DfT.

As now.

That just leaves the private sector operating a management contract as laid down by the DfT; all fares collected also going to the DfT.

Also employing people and taking various other decisions re ticketing etc. Including “revenue sharing”, freedom to introduce their own ticketing arrangements etc. What’s envisaged isn’t so very different to what’s there now.

But all the trains are still owned by private sector companies......

As now.

Price of everything and value of nothing. Our critical national infrastructure needs to be publically owned and operated. Even more importantly power generation and distribution and water supply.

God, no thanks! Enormous state run bureaucracies have a pretty terrible track record of achieving anything. British Leyland, NHS? The railway needs less political interference not more.

To quote a certain notorious Russian leader:

“Whoever does not miss the Soviet Union has no heart. Whoever wants it back has no brain.”

Substitute “British Rail” for Soviet Union, and that seems 100% right to me! The only people I’ve ever encountered who seriously want nationalisation of the railways are the more eccentric senior members of the railway unions (a small minority in my experience), and people on here.

 

[Bletchleyite]

British Rail was superbly efficient. If it received today's level of funding it would have been one of the best in the world.

The CEGB again was innovative and efficient.

The NHS has faults but achieves a lot with very low funding.

BT was fine.

British Leyland was awful, but that is one of how many? And car manufacture isn't basic infrastructure

And which bus operations are respected? Other than Hornby's lot, that'd be Lothian, Reading, Blackpool...seeing a theme yet?

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

The fourth rail package requires open tendering for all public rail services supported in any way by the state.
That de-facto means the model has to be the one that prevailed in the UK before coronavirus.

Yes that's true, although I think the practical implementation of the 4th railway package was overtaken by the referendum (ie we were never going to implement it).

 

[contrex]

British Leyland was awful, but that is one of how many? And car manufacture isn't basic infrastructure.

BriLeyMoCo was a Government bail-out of a clapped-out private enterprise.

 

[CdBrux]

The fourth rail package requires open tendering for all public rail services supported in any way by the state.
That de-facto means the model has to be the one that prevailed in the UK before coronavirus.

A concession model would not be compatible with this then?

 

[JonathanH]

The only people I’ve ever encountered who seriously want nationalisation of the railways are the more eccentric senior members of the railway unions (a small minority in my experience), and people on here.

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.

The reality is that spending on railways is not progressive and of little consequence to the part of society that Labour really ought to represent. Spending on buses and local transport may be of more consequence but we never hear much about bus nationalisation.

 

[HSTEd]

A concession model would not be compatible with this then?

If the concessions were open tendered then it would be.

But if you don't want any of that you are out of luck.

 

[mrcheek]

think that nationalisation will reduce prices.

This is literally the only reason most people claim to support nationalisation.
They seem to think government ownership would equal automatic fare reductions.

If they knew the truth, support for nationalisation would plummet

 

[Mikey C]

Do people in London moan about the London Overground, the DLR, Crossrail or the buses being operated by private operators? No, because the public see them as being run by TfL, just like the Underground. The public see them as public transport, the services are controlled by TfL and TfL are accountable for them.

 

[irish_rail]

Oh dear what an own goal. I was genuinely optimistic about a Labour government until recently but I am increasingly starting to feel Labour are beginning to appeal to absolutely nobody. Lib dems need to make a big push now to be the anti right wing choice for voters.

 

[yorksrob]

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.

The reality is that spending on railways is not progressive and of little consequence to the part of society that Labour really ought to represent. Spending on buses and local transport may be of more consequence but we never hear much about bus nationalisation.

Not true in the North of England certainly. Railways are used by a pretty broad cross section of the population around here.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

Oh dear what an own goal. I was genuinely optimistic about a Labour government until recently but I am increasingly starting to feel Labour are beginning to appeal to absolutely nobody. Lib dems need to make a big push now to be the anti right wing choice for voters.

This is the danger for Labour they are trying to make themselves electable not differentiate themselves from the Tories and as a result they won't secure an outright majority as things stand today. The reality is the Tories are imploding but that won't be enough to allow the LibDems in either. The next govt will be some form of coalition between whom depends on the outcome. I suspect any sort of pact between the parties would skew the vote anyhow so none will readily ever publically agree to that.

In terms of our industry the LO concession model has always got my vote as one the most reliable and trustworthy services that i use around London. As to its economic cost compared to former franchise models im not clear but I would certainly have given all the inner suburban services to them sometime ago but politics is getting in the way of the delivering the right outcome for the citizens of this country.

 

[liam456]

I think a return to BR might be good, but not just for the sake of nationalisation. More because I think the less the DfT has to do with the day-to-day running of the railway system, the better.

If new BR just gets a pot of money with which to do whatever, and is left along by Whitehall, great. I wonder how you make such a system publicly accountable though. How did BR respond to local "political" demand? (outside of PTE areas)

 

[MikeWM]

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/

5. Common ownership

Public services should be in public hands, not making profits for shareholders. Support common ownership of rail, mail, energy and water; end outsourcing in our NHS, local government and justice system.

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'.

 

[Nicholas Lewis]

I think a return to BR might be good, but not just for the sake of nationalisation. More because I think the less the DfT has to do with the day-to-day running of the railway system, the better.

If new BR just gets a pot of money with which to do whatever, and is left along by Whitehall, great. I wonder how you make such a system publicly accountable though. How did BR respond to local "political" demand? (outside of PTE areas)

it didn't largely which was a good thing. Of course now the demands are different which is why the BR model would no longer work

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Not true in the North of England certainly. Railways are used by a pretty broad cross section of the population around here.

As is the case I the Midlands, and most major cities. Places which should be Labours back yard!

 

[DarloRich]

Politically homeless again

Oh dear what an own goal. I was genuinely optimistic about a Labour government until recently but I am increasingly starting to feel Labour are beginning to appeal to absolutely nobody.

but what is the benefit of further nationalisation of the Railways? We are, to a grater or lesser extent, already nationalised. DfT & the Treasury call the shots now. What would be different with BR mkii? Putting aside the ROSCO what more should be within the control of the government?

The bigger issue is the dropping of the proposed renationalisation of the utilities.

BT was fine.

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

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 Jul 2022 ==

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.

bur it wont reduce costs, especially ticketing costs.