Rail renationalisation- do you support it?

[najaB]

Perhaps you haven't noticed that there's a fundamental difference in the way that roads and railways operate. Roads are essentially a free for all...

You say that like it is a good thing! Fortunately, smart roads and self-driving cars will soon bring a semblance of order.



Sent from my Nexus 4 using Tapatalk

 

[Harbornite]

I think this article is relevant enough to be shared in this thread. After all, it does concern nationalisation...

Jeremy Corbyn had a seat on a train journey he suggested was so “ram-packed” he had to sit on floor, according to CCTV footage seen by The Telegraph.

The Labour leader walked past rows of empty seats before sitting on the ground between carriages for a video in which he attacked the state of Britain’s railways, footage shows.

Minutes after filming the video, during when he called for renationalisation of the railways, he took up a seat for the remaining journey of his London to Newcastle trip.

The footage emerged after Mr Corbyn was praised for sticking to his principles after it was reported he rejected an offer of a first class ticket and instead sat on the floor.

Mr Corbyn was travelling to Gateshead for a debate against his readership rival Owen Smith.

In a video published on the Guardian’s website, Mr Corbyn said: “This is a problem that many passengers face every day on the trains, commuters and long-distance travellers.

“Today this train is completely ram-packed. The staff on the train are absolutely brilliant, working really hard to help everybody.

“The reality is there are not enough trains, we need more of them and they’re also incredibly expensive. Isn’t that a good case for public ownership?”


A report of the incident said Mr Corbyn was “famed for standing up for his principles”, adding that he was joined by other seatless commuters on the trip. Mr Corbyn was said to have turned down the offer of a first class ticket.

He is quoted as saying: “Is it fair that I should upgrade my ticket whilst others who might not be able to afford such a luxury should have to sit on the floor? It’s their money I would be spending after all.”

The footage was posted on the day the government announced that regulated rail fares will rise by 1.9 per cent in January – a higher than expected increase.

Mr Corbyn has made renationalisation of the railways one of his key pledges in both his previous leadership race last year and the one running this summer.


One of his 10 campaign pledges this summer includes the line: “We will bring our railways into public ownership and build democratic social control over our energy.”

Mr Corbyn also recently backed the train worker strikes that have caused delays this summer, saying he “absolutely” supported the decision by RMT union to take industrial action.

Chris Bryant, the Labour MP who served in Mr Corbyn’s shadow cabinet, said: “The biggest sin in politics is hypocrisy. I think a lot of people will feel led up the garden path by this.

“This makes Corbyn seem like a charlatan, pretending to be one thing when he is really quite another. I think voters are sick of that already.

“Apart from anything else, people who do have to sit on the floor regularly will be furious with him.”

Neil Coyle, the Labour MP for Bermondsey and Old Southwark, said: "Labour members wanted an end to spin.

"But it was spin that Jeremy didn't have a seat on the train, spin that Labour did well in May, when we got a century low vote share in Wales and came third behind the Tories in Scotland, and spin he made over a 123 speeches in the EU referendum campaign when he made 10."

A spokesman for Mr Corbyn has been contacted for a comment.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/201...yn-had-a-seat-during-train-journey-he-claime/

 

[backontrack]

Public ownership would be good, but the most important thing we need is investment. We need money going out of bankers' bonuses and into our railways.

 

[Harbornite]

Public ownership would be good, but the most important thing we need is investment. We need money going out of bankers' bonuses and into our railways.

Indeed. Fortunately, quite a few of the train orders made since privatization have been paid for with private capital. The vehement nationalisation supporter cannot argue that the railway has received quite a bit of investment since privatisation. Yes there have been failures like the wcml modernisation, but BR cancelled its fair share of projects (APT, Intercity 250 etc) and ordered sub-par crap like Pacers.

 

[backontrack]

The vehement nationalisation supporter cannot argue that the railway has received quite a bit of investment since privatisation.

But nowhere near enough. In fact, while we're at it, neither have the RSPB. Or English Heritage. Or libraries.

 

[Harbornite]

But nowhere near enough. In fact, while we're at it, neither have the RSPB. Or English Heritage. Or libraries.

Fair enough, in particular regarding the RSBP, but the government would not be able to guarantee constant funding to all these if they were govt owned.

The RSPB do a good job, I don't volunteer but I am a member. There are still a number of challenges ahead with some species and you've got the likes of the Maltese who enjoy shooting birds, but the government and EU are trying to help.

 

[backontrack]

Fair enough, in particular regarding the RSBP, but the government would not be able to guarantee constant funding to all these if they were govt owned.

The RSPB do a good job, I don't volunteer but I am a member. There are still a number of challenges ahead with some species and you've got the likes of the Maltese who enjoy shooting birds, but the government and EU are trying to help.

Oh no, I wasn't suggesting nationalising these things.

I'm also a member, and I'm quite worried for many of our seabirds.

Kittiwakes, arctic terns, puffins (which are a red-list species), and other seabirds depend on sandeels, which in turn like particular kinds of plankton. These kinds of plankton like to live in cool water.

Global warming means that the seas get warmer, right? Well, the warmth means that the plankton move deeper in the ocean. So the sandeels, they move deeper.

This is OK for birds like guillemots and razorbills and gannets (who dive and swim for their food), but the surface feeders like the kittiwakes and puffins can't reach the sandeels. So they're doing really badly right now - they used to be doing much better.

So the RSPB is trying to monitor when the plankton is coming in and what type it is. However, it's not quite enough, and many people think that overfishing of sandeels is also to blame. I agree. We should do everything we can to save these birds, and to do that we have to cool the Earth, move to renewables, and fish within reason. Or else 'gone fishing' will become 'fish gone'.

Back to rail renationalisation. VTEC have another fare hike on the way, but would nationalisation mean actual reductions or just a fare freeze?

 

[JohnB57]

But nowhere near enough. In fact, while we're at it, neither have the RSPB. Or English Heritage. Or libraries.

When were libraries privatised?

 

[matt_world2004]

I don't know where you live but the libraries around here have been franchised out to carillion(sp?)

 

[JohnB57]

I don't know where you live but the libraries around here have been franchised out to carillion(sp?)

Hi Matt. I wasn't aware of what you mention.

I live in Holmfirth in West Yorkshire. We're going through a process here of replacing some full time library staff with volunteers and as a couple of my family members work for the libraries, it's quite topical.

I think having briefly read up on it, the Carillion situation is non-profit so maybe not your conventional privatisation, it seems a strange business model for them.

 

[najaB]

I think having briefly read up on it, the Carillion situation is non-profit so maybe not your conventional privatisation, it seems a strange business model for them.

I suspect they can use any 'losses' to offset profit elsewhere. So it makes sense in that regard at least.

 

[JohnB57]

I suspect they can use any 'losses' to offset profit elsewhere. So it makes sense in that regard at least.

Hmmm. The councils are still responsible for maintaining the buildings of course so Carrillion's building businesses will doubtless be involved...

 

[Domeyhead]

Can somebody please summarise what aspect of the current railway is not "nationalised?" The TOCs putting their liveries on the sides of trains is about as privatised as Biffa putting their names on bin lorries. It's a misconception that only manages to fool people like Corbyn's acolytes (and Caroline Lucas of course). The TOCs control none of the important stuff and the franchise system actively ensures they never ever innovate anything and instead follow central instruction to the letter. In many ways the railways have never been so "nationalised" ie managed by central government as they are now. Think back to the BR regions - managers had relative autonomy over stock, trains, movements, timetables - all of which are now micromanaged by DfT. The whole nationalisation debate is a politiciised concoction of nothing. When I hear Corbyn and that idiot Green woman blathering about it I wonder who is briefing them. Do I want NHS funding diverted to buy rolling stock? Do I want " The Peoples Signalling Executive?" Anyone would think the ROSCOs specifiy and plan their own rolling stock procurement for Gods sake.

 

[Muttley]

Can somebody please summarise what aspect of the current railway is not "nationalised?"

The profit.

 

[JohnB57]

The profit.

Glib answer.

As somebody up-thread detailed, even a re-nationalised railway would provide massive profits to the hundreds of private companies it would depend upon, the most significant of which - steel, coal, power - were of course previously nationalised industries. Even if a re-nationalised railway generated similar levels of profit, which I doubt, the contribution it made to the private sector's profits would still be vast in comparison. Also, can you imagine the damage and cost of a national strike?

Re-nationalisation is nice to debate and idealise about, but we've moved on.

 

[Railsigns]

Re-nationalisation is nice to debate and idealise about, but we've moved on.

Who are "we"? Undoubtedly, it would be very convenient to those who defend privatisation if its opponents would suddenly drop all their opposition to it and quietly "move on". Well, I'm sorry, but that's never going to happen. I've been strongly opposed to this ill-conceived privatisation since it was first suggested and I'll go on opposing it until it's reversed. I'll take every opportunity to shout as loudly as I can every time another billion pounds of our money is taken from us, the taxpayer, as a result of this deeply flawed privatisation, which, by the way, was a product of ideology.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Glib answer.

As somebody up-thread detailed, even a re-nationalised railway would provide massive profits to the hundreds of private companies it would depend upon, the most significant of which - steel, coal, power - were of course previously nationalised industries. Even if a re-nationalised railway generated similar levels of profit, which I doubt, the contribution it made to the private sector's profits would still be vast in comparison. Also, can you imagine the damage and cost of a national strike?

Re-nationalisation is nice to debate and idealise about, but we've moved on.

I take it that a nationalised rail industry would reintroduce steam traction buying coal from the private sector then?

 

[J-2739]

I've changed my opinion a bit. I'd prefer a Public-Private system similar to Japan, where there are 'big sectors' operating the vast majority, and many private sectors competing with each other. Franchising is not necessary over here.

I do however, think that handing our rail industries over to the free market was not the best idea.

(I'm probably going to get eaten on the head for saying this but...)

 

[Muttley]

Glib answer.

...Even if a re-nationalised railway generated similar levels of profit...

You still don't get it do you John ?
The railway doesn't make a profit. But via a vast paperwork exercise of putting a subsidy in at one end there is an illusion that companies are risk taking go getters that are driving change for the better. AsDomeyhead pointed out in his excellent post, they are nothing of the sort. Why can't we keep the "3%" in the railway, or second best, in the govt coffers ?

 

[JohnB57]

I take it that a nationalised rail industry would reintroduce steam traction buying coal from the private sector then?

Deep thinking Gareth. Coal for electricity generation, but you knew that.

You still don't get it do you John ?
The railway doesn't make a profit. But via a vast paperwork exercise of putting a subsidy in at one end there is an illusion that companies are risk taking go getters that are driving change for the better. AsDomeyhead pointed out in his excellent post, they are nothing of the sort. Why can't we keep the "3%" in the railway, or second best, in the govt coffers ?

I do get it, I just happen to disagree with you, although I think my reference to "profit" should have been in quotes. "Contribution" might have been a better word but even that doesn't really work where massive subsidies are involved.

I think the monolithic structure of a re-nationalised railway would be both culturally out of place in 2016 and would be more costly to run than our current one, however imperfect it might be. That doesn't suit my politics, but re-nationalisation is a cause I can't hand on heart support.

 

[Railsigns]

I think the monolithic structure of a re-nationalised railway would be both culturally out of place in 2016 and would be more costly to run than our current one, however imperfect it might be.

So, the privatised railway takes about five times as much in subsidies as British Rail, charges higher fares and has generated about £40 billion of debt, but you "think" a return to public ownership would make the railways more costly to run? Not only does that part of your argument defy all reasoning but "culturally out of place" is without doubt the weakest argument against nationalisation I've ever seen. I don't think you do "get it".

 

[absolutelymilk]

So, the privatised railway takes about five times as much in subsidies as British Rail

Not sure where you got that from. Subsidy per passenger is slightly lower than during British Rail, and even total subsidy is only about double (in real terms).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impact_of_the_privatisation_of_British_Rail

 

[Andrewlong]

And don't forget the rolling stock and locomotive manufacturers - most of these are private companies and make a profit. Why not nationalise them too? Except many are overseas organisations. The railway network was never state planned - it was built with private capital. There isn't anything wrong with making a reasonable profit - the railways have and will employ organisations to provide goods and services - and those organisations will be in business to make a profit.

 

[Railsigns]

Not sure where you got that from. Subsidy per passenger is slightly lower than during British Rail, and even total subsidy is only about double (in real terms).

Total government support to the rail industry.

This "subsidy per passenger" nonsense is no comfort to the average taxpayer, whose only concern is that the cost of subsidising the railways has risen alarmingly. It's just an attempt to portray a damning statistic in a better light.

 

[highdyke]

So where has the money gone? A few ideas

- Greater capital investment
- Duplication of resources
- Wage inflation, caused by stop-start investment and unionised workforce
- Introducing costs that weren't there in the first place: For example NR paying for staff travel when mangers used to write free tickets
- Lack of productivity in some areas and more red tape
- Still more to do on innovation
- Tighter health and safety regulations
- Interest on loans and way railway is funded
- End of maintenance holidays

There's still more to do, but in comparison BR staff were very low paid and the railway make do and mend for the most part. Lot of investment going in now, while BR was all about running down services. Plenty of TSRs on all but the main lines, even XC routes had plenty in the 90s. Low morale, bit of a national joke, lot of industrial strife, falling passenger numbers (apart from late 1980s city boom) and falling freight ton-miles.

 

[Gareth Marston]

So where has the money gone? A few ideas

- Greater capital investment
- Duplication of resources
- Wage inflation, caused by stop-start investment and unionised workforce
- Introducing costs that weren't there in the first place: For example NR paying for staff travel when mangers used to write free tickets
- Lack of productivity in some areas and more red tape
- Still more to do on innovation
- Tighter health and safety regulations
- Interest on loans and way railway is funded
- End of maintenance holidays

There's still more to do, but in comparison BR staff were very low paid and the railway make do and mend for the most part. Lot of investment going in now, while BR was all about running down services. Plenty of TSRs on all but the main lines, even XC routes had plenty in the 90s. Low morale, bit of a national joke, lot of industrial strife, falling passenger numbers (apart from late 1980s city boom) and falling freight ton-miles.

We have to remember that nationalized British Railways/British Rail spent most of its existence under governments ideologically opposed to the concept of state owned industry. Its last 18 years were all under Thatcher/Majors Governments having a "successful" nationalized industry was not on their agenda.

The same play will be made again say JC won the next election but Conservatives were back in power 5 years later.

 

[backontrack]

When were libraries privatised?

I wasn't suggesting we privatise those things - I was talking about the lack of investment they receive. Why does all our money go on these?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...ved=0ahUKEwjJ3auXvNrOAhWDF8AKHYWnASsQ_AUIBygC
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...ved=0ahUKEwiendOdvNrOAhWqC8AKHVcYAtwQ_AUIBigB
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...ved=0ahUKEwit6YShvNrOAhUlL8AKHQ_1ARQQ_AUIBigB
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...ved=0ahUKEwjC3cvEvNrOAhXrBcAKHYMvAZIQ_AUIBygC

 

[Harbornite]

I wasn't suggesting we privatise those things - I was talking about the lack of investment they receive. Why does all our money go on these?

https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...ved=0ahUKEwjJ3auXvNrOAhWDF8AKHYWnASsQ_AUIBygC
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...ved=0ahUKEwiendOdvNrOAhWqC8AKHVcYAtwQ_AUIBigB
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...ved=0ahUKEwit6YShvNrOAhUlL8AKHQ_1ARQQ_AUIBigB
https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=t...ved=0ahUKEwjC3cvEvNrOAhXrBcAKHYMvAZIQ_AUIBygC

The two cannot be compared. Anyway, the Shard was paid for with private capital so is irrelevant.

 

[najaB]

I wasn't suggesting we privatise those things - I was talking about the lack of investment they receive. Why does all our money go on these?

I wasn't aware that any significant sums of public money went into any of those, could you share the details please?

 

[giblets]

The biggest argument for denationalisation of the railways is monopolies. You think of virtually every other privatisation and it has lead to competition: utilities, airlines, haulage (yes they tried to nationalise all the HGVs in the 50s), but trains?! There is no competition to speak of (with the limited exception of routes like London-Birmingham).
As such it does allow an element of profiteering,


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk