Labour Drops Rail Renationalisation Policy then reinstates it.

[Andyh82]

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

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.

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

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:
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'.

Covid happened and consumed £300 billion or some similar astronomical figure, money that could have been used to bring rail and the utilities into public ownership.
You can't simply borrow what renationalisation would cost and add to that bill.
We are also heading into a period of high inflation and higher interest rates, with a negative balance of payments - the warning bells are ringing.

On the other hand, France has just taken control of EDF (the minority government stake is now a majority) to protect French consumers from rising energy prices.
(EDF is a major player in the UK too, and will build our next nuclear reactor).

 

[mmh]

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

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?

 

[Dryce]

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?

'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.

 

[MikeWM]

Covid happened and consumed £300 billion or some similar astronomical figure, money that could have been used to bring rail and the utilities into public ownership.
You can't simply borrow what renationalisation would cost and add to that bill.

A previous Labour government nationalised an awful lot of things immediately following World War 2, which also cost an astronomical amount of money (though that achieved something considerably more useful).

His 'support' clearly doesn't go very far if it falls at the first hurdle like this.

 

[Fyldeboy]

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?

One can not critisize the NHS for fear of sounding ungrateful for the last 2 years - but. I have recently been an inpatient for a good length of time (and caught covid whilst recovering! in there). I saw an organisation that has put a lot of checks in place to protect patients (aka red tape) but there is nobody effectively auditing the checks (maybe because of quantity). What I saw was disorganisation and an organisation that is too big to be effectively managed. That is what I fear should we get BR II.

 

[HSTEd]

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 nationalised electricity boards also built a one of the best and most reliable electricity systems in the world.
Unfortunately that system has now been driven into the ground over the last 30 years and is coming to pieces at the seams.

Also as to claims that nationalised utilities have terrible customer service and were slow to respond to requests for service alterations, it's still like that now!

I was waiting months to have my electricity and gas meters moved by a few feet, and months more than that to get a lead replacement water supply installed.

EDIT:

Some people might fantasise that the apparent improvements in the standard of living in the post-Thatcher era have been brought about by the "efficiency" of privatisation, but overwhelmingly tehy are the result of the march of technology, or they are the result of eating the accumulated seedcorn of generations.

We now live in the world the meerkat has wrought - an energy system that is falling apart and is essentially unable to provide reasonably priced energy, a technologically stagnant railway that consumes huge subsidise every year, a telecoms system that can best be described as an utter mess, and airports that fall over at the slightest hiccough, the list goes on. And a collosal and ever increasing budget deficit, largely directed towards subsidising the living standards of the people who voted for this madness in the first place!

What wonders Maggie-worship has brought us.

 

[gazzaa2]

What's the point in nationalising anything when Tory governments will just underfund them and run them into the ground, like they have everything else. Look at the health service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

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.

I think it is an abject waste of money that they are.

 

[mmh]

What's the point in nationalising anything when Tory governments will just underfund them and run them into the ground, like they have everything else. Look at the health service.

As I said not long before in this thread, the health service is not underfunded when compared with comparable countries. Health spending has increased under the Tories. It increases under every Government, because no politician in Government is ever brave enough to question this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said not long before in this thread, the health service is not underfunded when compared with comparable countries. Health spending has increased under the Tories. It increases under every Government, because no politician in Government is ever brave enough to question this.

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

Free at the point of use is the sacred cow. Most people who oppose it are those of means.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Prevention is always cheaper than cure and as someone who has or has had relatives in just about every branch of the NHS, the salami slicing of the NHS, which has been going on since the 1960’s, is now coming home to roost.

Moving back to Labour, they don’t need to do much to bring rail back to being in public ownership - the Conservatives are (presumably unwittingly) putting forward proposals for law that could mean an incoming Labour Government could dictate that GBR could operate it’s own services, all without the need for any more primary legislation. Sir Humphrey is alive and well!

 

[Starmill]

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?

Which countries are you saying we should look to spend less per person but achieve better health outcomes? There are not very many to choose from.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Also worthy of note that much of the NHS is private and was never nationalised, i.e. GPs and dentists.

I think overall I favour a more German like structure of a mandatory state insurance scheme with clearly defined benefits and hospitals etc run separately but not for profit.

However, bar "de minimis" stuff like prescription charges (a GP fee may be fairer), it needs to be free at the point of use.

 

[Starmill]

Also worthy of note that much of the NHS is private and was never nationalised, i.e. GPs and dentists.

I think overall I favour a more German like structure of a mandatory state insurance scheme with clearly defined benefits and hospitals etc run separately but not for profit.

However, bar "de minimis" stuff like prescription charges (a GP fee may be fairer), it needs to be free at the point of use.

I've often wondered if some sort of system whereby one pays £5 for a GP consultation but all fees are waived for a year from the first appointment you attend... if you attend the subsequent appointment. If you miss the appointment, you pay the £5 fee. Prescription charges would be abolished, and everyone who currently qualifies for a free prescription in England will not be required to pay the first £5 for an appointment they attended (but wouldn't be exempt from the £5 fee for a missed appointment).

But also, I'm willing to accept that I'm not an expert here!

 

[Bletchleyite]

£5 for a course of treatment paid at the first GP or A&E consultation is probably fairer. I have to pay a tenner or thereabouts monthly to cover pills and inhalers, which I don't overly mind as I can afford it but it seems a bit incongruous when I could have a major multi-hour operation or months of counselling or physio costing tens of thousands for nothing at all.

I would agree with some sort of penalty for missed appointments if you don't notify them.

 

[Starmill]

£5 for a course of treatment paid at the first GP or A&E consultation is probably fairer. I have to pay a tenner or thereabouts monthly to cover pills and inhalers, which I don't overly mind as I can afford it but it seems a bit incongruous when I could have a major multi-hour operation or months of counselling or physio costing tens of thousands for nothing at all.

I would agree with some sort of penalty for missed appointments if you don't notify them.

It is a little bit incongruous. An annual certificate for as many prescriptions as are necessary in England is now £108.10, which if you need one a month is £8.76 a time, so I guess that's what you were getting at with a tenner or thereabouts!

 

[XAM2175]

... I saw an organisation that has put a lot of checks in place to protect patients (aka red tape) but there is nobody effectively auditing the checks (maybe because of quantity). ...

To a certain extent it appears we already have this with Network Rail - witness all the RAIB reports that read along the lines of "in response to prior serious incidents x, y, and z, Network Rail added three more planning steps, two new review steps, and a total of 16 new forms to the process. These steps did not, however, prevent the occurrence of the incident under investigation..."

 

[HullRailMan]

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.

Exactly this….it’s not about who owns the system, but how it is run.

 

[irish_rail]

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

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.

 

[HullRailMan]

As I said not long before in this thread, the health service is not underfunded when compared with comparable countries. Health spending has increased under the Tories. It increases under every Government, because no politician in Government is ever brave enough to question this.

A truely brave politician should be questioning what the NHS does and how sustainable the current model is. It was never designed to deliver the breadth and complexity of modern treatments to a population as old and fundamentally unhealthy as we have today. We could keep throwing money at all parts of the NHS and achieve moderate/inconsistent results, or accept that the NHS will focus on certain areas only, but deliver them well. Problem is that, in our dumbed down world, any questioning of the scope of the NHS is just labelled as wanting to abolish/privatise it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A truely brave politician should be questioning what the NHS does and how sustainable the current model is. It was never designed to deliver the breadth and complexity of modern treatments to a population as old and fundamentally unhealthy as we have today. We could keep throwing money at all parts of the NHS and achieve moderate/inconsistent results, or accept that the NHS will focus on certain areas only, but deliver them well.

Or we pay more tax. Without that third option it's best left alone.

The idea of healthcare related survivability depending on means is not where we should go. If you want that (let me guess, you are young and healthy?) go move to the US.

 

[coppercapped]

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).

A minor clarification...

The EU has always favoured competition between suppliers but in the case of rail transport the operating administrations were national vertically integrated organisations and it was difficult or impossible for private or regional enterprises to run their own trains on the national networks. EU Directive 91/440 was issued to make it a legal requirement that independent companies could apply for non-discriminatory access to the track in a EU member state.

To enable this the requirement was that separate accounts should be produced for the infrastructure and for train operation. There was no requirement that ownership of the two parts should be separate.

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.

This certainly seems to be the case with the information to hand.

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

Or we pay more tax. Without that third option it's best left alone.

The idea of healthcare related survivability depending on means is not where we should go. If you want that (let me guess, you are young and healthy?) go move to the US.

What relevance does your last paragraph have to the contents of the post you replied to?

The US system is always brought up as an 'awful warning' to anybody who questions the suitability and performance of the NHS in is present form. This is lazy thinking and smacks of 'Project Fear'.

There are many examples of different forms of organisation and funding models in the continental european countries which arguably produce better outcomes and better customer service than the NHS. These serve the whole population, and are not selective.

And if one looks at the number of scandals involving the NHS where people died over the past few years I suggest that the time for a fundamental re-examination of the aims, structure and financing of healthcare in the UK is long overdue.

The reason the NHS exists is to keep the population healthy - it should not continue unchanged simply because it is the NHS.

 

[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.

And turning this around, when someone's train to work is screwed up by a points failure, it's never "****ing Network rail" it's always the private operator that gets the blame!

 

[ohgoditsjames]

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

 

[Bantamzen]

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

You do sometimes have to wonder about this. Perhaps the thought of actually having to make decisions instead of just heckling is a little too much for Starmer & Co (as you might be able to tell, I'm not his biggest fan). If they really dropping any thoughts of moving towards nationalisation simply because the Tories are edging in that direction, then frankly that is a huge U-turn for no other reason than trying to score points. You would hope that there is more to it than that, but honestly I just don't know. Either way they are scoring no more points from me on this matter, and they didn't exactly have that many to start with.

 

[Ken H]

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

Free at the point of use is the sacred cow. Most people who oppose it are those of means.

Most european countries have very different system. In Germany you buy mandatory insurance from a regulated mutual. The state pays for the unwaged. When you need care you pick a provider and your insurance pays. It works.

 

[Andypandy1968]

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?

More spent on healthcare in this country than all others in Europe with the worst outcomes. But you can't criticise the religious cult that the NHS has become

 

[Ken H]

You do sometimes have to wonder about this. Perhaps the thought of actually having to make decisions instead of just heckling is a little too much for Starmer & Co (as you might be able to tell, I'm not his biggest fan). If they really dropping any thoughts of moving towards nationalisation simply because the Tories are edging in that direction, then frankly that is a huge U-turn for no other reason than trying to score points. You would hope that there is more to it than that, but honestly I just don't know. Either way they are scoring no more points from me on this matter, and they didn't exactly have that many to start with.

I am not sure that many care about the railways. Apart from the south east most never use the railway. Any railway spend must compete against schools and hospitals.
Sounds simplistic but that is how many think outside the railukforum bubble.

 

[HullRailMan]

Or we pay more tax. Without that third option it's best left alone.

The idea of healthcare related survivability depending on means is not where we should go. If you want that (let me guess, you are young and healthy?) go move to the US.

Well, I’m a cancer survivor, with ongoing issues, in my 40’s, so your guess was completely wrong. You also totally proved my point by defaulting to the position that questioning the scope of the NHS means I want a US-style system. I’ve had tens of thousands of pounds worth of treatment from the NHS, some of it world class, some of it adequate, some of it appalling, but it doesn’t mean I hold the NHS up as some sort of sacred cow thats beyond questioning.

on the tax issue, how much would you be willing to pay? As I said in my original post, why just keep the existing structure and throw more money at it in the hope that it will somehow deliver? Should the NHS fund dentistry? Should medication be ‘free’? Should prevention/public health all be given to local authorities? Should the NHS only focus on emergency care and elective surgery? What about eye care and glasses? Cosmetic surgery? IVF? These are all legitimate questions and by asking them it doesn’t mean that, despite your charming suggestion, I have to leave the country.