1finny
Well-known member
It was a joke.
It was also a long long time ago.
Nationalisation doesn’t change performance - only good leadership and governance does that.
It’s a great policy in principle and a bold one.
Hope he sticks with it.
Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming into power
- Thread starter LessoftheLip
- Start date
It was a joke.
It was also a long long time ago.
Nationalisation doesn’t change performance - only good leadership and governance does that.
It’s a great policy in principle and a bold one.
Hope he sticks with it.
FishofContemplation
Well-known member
Two cheers for now. Ideologically, I am aligned with this and I think it is interesting politically that labour is publicly announcing what is essentially an ideological policy, albeit one that appears popular. At the very least, it indicates a level of confidence in victory, and perhaps it indicates a preparedness to show at least a little bit of radicalism in government.
I’ll reserve the third cheer for now because, being of a certain age, and being a regular rail user through the 80s and the 90s when I didn’t have a car, I am certainly of the view that the Halcyon days of British rail are a myth. Two things that have changed since then are a massive increase in the number and range of services offered and a proliferation of advanced purchase tickets that mean that most of my journeys are comparable in price in absolute terms, and cheaper in real terms than they were a quarter of a century ago. I would be sorry to see a return to the old days of primarily walk up fares which some traditionalists seem to favour even if it did reduce there sometimes eye watering level.
I’ll reserve the third cheer for now because, being of a certain age, and being a regular rail user through the 80s and the 90s when I didn’t have a car, I am certainly of the view that the Halcyon days of British rail are a myth. Two things that have changed since then are a massive increase in the number and range of services offered and a proliferation of advanced purchase tickets that mean that most of my journeys are comparable in price in absolute terms, and cheaper in real terms than they were a quarter of a century ago. I would be sorry to see a return to the old days of primarily walk up fares which some traditionalists seem to favour even if it did reduce there sometimes eye watering level.
Brian Marwood
Well-known member
British Rail was a disaster but the trains were beautiful.
dorivasmiddlefinger
Well-known member
Current fares are obscene and the service is a disaster. LNER on the ECML has proven a nationised system can work. Lets run with it while we have the opportunity. A fully integrated system. If i have a rail ticket for Darlington to LKX, why should i pay to get the bus to the station as well from Stockton?
BoroMart
Well-known member
The problem with British rail was that much of the rolling stock was antiquated. We didn’t have the availability , capacity, maintainability of the stock much of which was pre-70s technology. Today's stock have a lot more technology to monitor the trains and allow preventative maintenance rather than train failures.
Big difference between private and nationalised is the priority. A privatised company's priority is to generate profit where a nationalised company should be to maximise usage.
I work in the NHS and I get tired of hearing about productivity in terms of money and not in terms of capacity/outcomes so I hope a nationalised rail operator doesn't see the pursuit of profit as its priority. As with the NHS the real benefits of getting things right are felt outside of the organisation, not within it. A good rail system will attract more people which will reduce traffic on the roads which should reduce maintenance/capacity requirements there and will also go some way to improving environmental concerns.
Lottowyn
Well-known member
Well the last shadow chancellor under Corbyn threaten to not bother “buying the railways back” but just to take them over with no compensation. This created a bit of a rumpus in the world market. Is this still the case ?
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
I'd like to think so.
Taking over the rolling stock isn't going to be expensive, their contracts will end and not be renewed, subsidies can be stopped.
If the 'world market' shat itself over that then there's not much hope for the future of capitalism.
Nothing needs to be bought. Franchises have a contract to deliver the service. Once that contract ends the government just doesn't renew it or put it out to tender but delivers it themselves.
Why would there be more strikes
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?
Just to be clear, Labours policy as per the article in the OP is specifically not to take over the rolling stock. Just to nationalise running the services. This is another thing that makes me doubt it as its almost like building in a back door for the tories to exploit whenever they're next back in power.
Having a single national operator should bring advantages around economies of scale but it will be very easy to see who benefits by the structure of the national operator. When purchasing/leasing the rolling stock will the whole system be purchasing as one or will it be regional operators bidding against each other? One of them causes competition between the operators which means higher prices for the rolling stock, and thus more profit to the rolling stock companies, and the other causes competition between the rolling stock companies and therefore lower prices.
LessoftheLip
Well-known member
And unfortunately that's why the 5 year period has been quoted. Terminating rail franchises early and without just cause will be expensive, time consuming and legally complex.
If they actually carry out this policy, then having to wait for the franchises to end wouldn't worry me in the slightest. We've put up with Thatcherism this long, and for most of the time with absolutely no end in sight.
And even if it takes 5 years to complete, there are two franchises with end dates in 2025 as far as I can tell. So Labour could demonstrate that they're sticking to this policy (or not) very early on.
Corcaigh_the_Cat
Well-known member
East Midlands franchise runs until October 2030, all others end beforehand.
Pak_Doo_Ik
Well-known member
Exactly Finny
Pak_Doo_Ik
Well-known member
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.
1finny
Well-known member
You are right - this is a can of worms.
Just been reading up on it.
87% of rolling stock is owned by 3 companies *ROSCOs) who have profited massively since privatisation. There are also questions about where they pay their tax.
The government will lease the rolling stock from these companies.
From a pure commercial point of view it is a fascinating position.
They both need each other and the government will want the right investment in rolling stock to keep the trains running.
It’s doable - just need the right people round the table to creat win/win.
