Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming into power

SuperStu said:
I'm sorry but you've either misremembered or been misinformed there.

The rail nationalisation policy in the 2019 manifesto was similar to whats been announced here - bringing services under public control as rail operator franchises expire. Of course there'd be no compensation - there'd be none due. That would be like complaining if boro do sign Ayling this summer that they haven't compensated Leeds Utd. They won't have to as his contract with them is up.

The idea that Labours rail policy had an effect on the world market is ludicrous. How would you even measure such a thing?
Click to expand...
Perhaps I was misremembering and it was not the railways I was particularly thinking about , but when John McDonnell was Shadow Chancellor he was talking about various institutions and he said the nationalisation of the Energy Industry firms would cost nothing as no compensation was due.
 
h_m_boro said:
Off the back of the UKs return to good 'ol British Values, in true colonialism style could we not simply cancel the contracts immediately, then when the company kicks up a fuss just invade said country? 🤷🏻‍♂️🤷🏻‍♂️

Or has 14 years of Tory governance affected my rationale?
Click to expand...
Yes.
 
Pak_Doo_Ik said:
You’re lucky you’re too young to remember BR (the sandwiches comment was very, very tongue in cheek) but the service was terrible.

Nationalisation will only work if the correct people are overseeing the service.
Click to expand...
The poor BR service is largely an urban myth. Same as how much worse water, gas and electricity were said to be in public ownership.
If by 'service' you mean trains running as scheduled, mostly on time, no overcrowding, no need to take a out a bank loan to afford a ticket and clear ticket prices then BR wins hands down on the current mafia shake down.
 
They’ve been discussing this on Daily Politics. The usual Tory MP and surprise a Spectator person both pushing free market dogma.

What the discussion failed to acknowledge is railways, like water, is critical national infrastructure. It cannot and will never be “a market” as the whole thing is a monopoly. Because of that, there should be no private companies involved.
 
Trug said:
BR only became poor after Thatcher got in and reduced the subsidy. It got a whole lot worse when Major privatised it.
Click to expand...

Think that hits on a vital point to remember in any public/private ownership debate. We know the tories modus operandi. We know they run state organisations into the ground so that they can make their case for privatisation and sell as cheaply as possible to their mates. Exactly as they've done with Royal Mail, and exactly as they're in the process of doing with the NHS.
 
Pak_Doo_Ik said:
You’re lucky you’re too young to remember BR (the sandwiches comment was very, very tongue in cheek) but the service was terrible.

Nationalisation will only work if the correct people are overseeing the service.
Click to expand...
That first paragraph is bull and I'm old enough to remember BR.

I agree with the second part, but not having to pay dividends will leave more scope to improve the services.
 
festa5 said:
Thats just as true of privatisation though isn't it?

The only argument for privatisation was the myth that the private sector would be more efficient. A myth that's now been well and truly shown for what it is.
Click to expand...
Privatisation can work and can drive efficiency but only where there is genuine competition. A rail service can't have competition because you can only have one service running on it. Rail was not competing with rail, it is competing with buses and cars and it has lost massively (to cars, not buses which are also crap). There is basically no journey in the country where it is more time and cost-effective to use a train if you own a car. If you are paying for more than 1 person then it's even worse.

Also, efficiency in the private sector means biggest profit, not best service. That is not what we want or need as "customers".
 
Nano said:
Privatisation can work and can drive efficiency but only where there is genuine competition. A rail service can't have competition because you can only have one service running on it. Rail was not competing with rail, it is competing with buses and cars and it has lost massively (to cars, not buses which are also crap). There is basically no journey in the country where it is more time and cost-effective to use a train if you own a car. If you are paying for more than 1 person then it's even worse.

Also, efficiency in the private sector means biggest profit, not best service. That is not what we want or need as "customers".
Click to expand...

Well that's it, there isn't really any competition for the vast majority of public services is there?

All it does is encourage them to cut costs and charge as high prices as they can get away with. It's the opposite of efficient, they're effectively taking money or investment away from public services and putting it into the pockets of shareholders. High cost to the public purse (in terms of lost revenue or investment) for a cut to the bone service.

Are there any examples of it actually working?

I've yet to hear a remotely compelling argument for it.

No private company takes on a contract if they can't make money from it. But if that's the case, why can't it be publicly run and make money? That then goes back into investment in services or back the exchequer to spend elsewhere.

The only reason I can see politicians being so keen on it, is it's another opportunity to get their snouts in the F***ing trough.
 
ThePrisoner said:
The poor BR service is largely an urban myth. Same as how much worse water, gas and electricity were said to be in public ownership.
If by 'service' you mean trains running as scheduled, mostly on time, no overcrowding, no need to take a out a bank loan to afford a ticket and clear ticket prices then BR wins hands down on the current mafia shake down.
Click to expand...
It isn’t. The myth is probably more that of price.

Back in the early 80s, I used the train for two purposes in particular. To visit a girlfriend in Leeds, and to head off to uni each term. The former usually required two changes of trains, at Darlington and York, with each of the three legs having a less regular service than it does now and we now have the additional choice of an hourly direct service on a line that BR was consulting to close. As regards the latter, I remember that the regular fare, which would have been a walk up fare, although presumably an off-peak one, went from just below to just above £25 during my time at uni which seemed a big deal at the time. That would be about £40 without the Railcard. I paid almost exactly that amount to go to an event there a couple of years back. True the current walk up fares are an OTT £110 off peak and £160 peak and that is too much. But it’s only risen about with inflation over those 40 years. And the point is that back then, you could pretty much only get those walk up fares. People who have prepared to be flexible get a much better deal now.
 
festa5 said:
Well that's it, there isn't really any competition for the vast majority of public services is there?

All it does is encourage them to cut costs and charge as high prices as they can get away with. It's the opposite of efficient, they're effectively taking money or investment away from public services and putting it into the pockets of shareholders. High cost to the public purse (in terms of lost revenue or investment) for a cut to the bone service.

Are there any examples of it actually working?

I've yet to hear a remotely compelling argument for it.

No private company takes on a contract if they can't make money from it. But if that's the case, why can't it be publicly run and make money? That then goes back into investment in services or back the exchequer to spend elsewhere.

The only reason I can see politicians being so keen on it, is it's another opportunity to get their snouts in the F***ing trough.
Click to expand...
Depends what you mean by working. I'm sure the shareholders of the water, energy, rail etc. companies will be happy. But no, privately run monopolies do not put customers first.

The crux of the issue is that private companies shouldn't be making money under existing circumstances but they have been able to because there has been no requirement to spend money on infrastructure. Thames Water for example charges whatever it needs to cover its costs, with the assistance of OFWAT. It has then been dumping sewage because instead of doing what needs to be done and upgrading the sewer system as required over the 35 years it has been in private ownership it has neglected it. It has made money, taken on debts, paid huge dividends to shareholders but not spent anything on improving the waterways. Now it can't reclaim all that lost cash from investors and shareholders so it has to raise bills to cover for the decades of under-spending.

These services shouldn't be profitable and they don't need to be profitable. They are essential public services and they cost what they need to cost to deliver the service adequately. Privatisation is bull**** because it requires the altruistic view of a publicly run service to maintain service and without that and instead having a profit-driven motive it is never going to achieve that service. You can't even put it in a contract or anything of that matter because privately listed companies have a legal obligation to shareholders. The best we can do is a regulatory body but they are also limited and they can't force those companies to not make a profit.
 
Nano said:
Depends what you mean by working. I'm sure the shareholders of the water, energy, rail etc. companies will be happy. But no, privately run monopolies do not put customers first.

The crux of the issue is that private companies shouldn't be making money under existing circumstances but they have been able to because there has been no requirement to spend money on infrastructure. Thames Water for example charges whatever it needs to cover its costs, with the assistance of OFWAT. It has then been dumping sewage because instead of doing what needs to be done and upgrading the sewer system as required over the 35 years it has been in private ownership it has neglected it. It has made money, taken on debts, paid huge dividends to shareholders but not spent anything on improving the waterways. Now it can't reclaim all that lost cash from investors and shareholders so it has to raise bills to cover for the decades of under-spending.

These services shouldn't be profitable and they don't need to be profitable. They are essential public services and they cost what they need to cost to deliver the service adequately. Privatisation is bull**** because it requires the altruistic view of a publicly run service to maintain service and without that and instead having a profit-driven motive it is never going to achieve that service. You can't even put it in a contract or anything of that matter because privately listed companies have a legal obligation to shareholders. The best we can do is a regulatory body but they are also limited and they can't force those companies to not make a profit.
Click to expand...

Thames water had zero debt when it was privatised.
Now it has £15bn - it’s eye watering.

In that time senior managers have had massive bonuses and shareholders massive dividends.

That’s just wrong on so many levels and, for an ‘essential’ service is a chuffing disgrace.
 
Brian Marwood said:
British Rail was a disaster but the trains were beautiful.
Click to expand...
Not picking up on this reply in isolation (a few have said the same) but in its latter years with decent management and organisation BR was an extremely efficient railway (most efficient in Europe) and light years away from the 'disaster' period in the 70s and early 80s.

Can't disagree with the sentiments regarding stock and equipment, but they worked wonders with what they had, and given the same organisation as then with today's kit would do so again.

it wasn't all rust-tinted spectacles - for balance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top