I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
I hope the fares go back to the same as they were under DOR, I can't say I noted any improvement in service when it was under Virgin though I admit I am a very infrequent user.
Well, someone has to pay - the tax payer or the passenger - which would you prefer?
I hope the fares go back to the same as they were under DOR, I can't say I noted any improvement in service when it was under Virgin though I admit I am a very infrequent user.
Virgin had an irritating policy of heavily advertising stupidly low London to Newcastle fares which were available only when no-one in work every travelled (Tuesday afternoons, Wednesday mornings) while ramping up peak fares to stupid levels. Some of the fares we had to pay on Friday evenings just to see the mother-in-law were beyond ridiculous, it would have been cheaper to fly the family to Majorca.
That has to be one of the weakest England WC squads ever.
Agree and southgate has made some poor choices in my view.
Loftus-cheek ahead of wilshere ? I think loftus-cheek is up with jack on the injury list front.
And don't get me going on Cahill,one of the poorest central defender's in England's history.
To be fair, he has got a shit deck to choose from whichever way you look at it. Smalling instead of Cahill, Wilshire instead of Loftus-Cheek isn't going to make any real difference.
He has clearly gone for the park the bus, lets not get thrashed by anybody, get to the knock-out stages and hope we get lucky.
Agree again but in wilshere we have one man who can put his foot on the ball to see a forward pass.
I was hoping anyone but Cahill and also hoping lallana would be given a chance seeming he was our best player not so long ago.
Southgate is determined to make sure we don't go above expectations ;-)
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
Is the Labour's spokesman on transport the poster boy for the Gammon insult?
Grayling has just shot Corbyn's renationalisation fox
Bizarre since the privatisng of BT, water and the railways are three of the top five of the most successful post war policy decisions of any government to date.
LOL
You'd prefer Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn to provide your mobile phone?
Quite. With BT being the first, it was one of the engines of the global communications revolution that has changed the world. The whole notion that telecommunications was not an arm of the government but a fully independent competitive market place created an explosion in innovation and advancement. Copied and replicated around the world.
Telecoms privatisation was a massive success.
Water and rail privatisation a huge failure.
How has rail privatisation been a failure? I use much newer trains, strikes are largely regional, rather than national, and the pricing is competitive. For example my season ticket from the home to the shop is less than parking would cost near the shop, let alone petrol/costs of car etc.
And how has water privatisation a huge failure? How we manage our water, both drinking and sewage has undergone the most staggering improvements and investments. Their work and together with the Environment Agency has seen the most rapid improvement of water quality in living memory.
We would laugh about the way we did things in the past. In fact much if not all of the way we used to dispose of things would be now unlawful.
Other countries did it in different ways, but water privatisation and the environment act have fundamentally changed our living environment for the better. The most successful quiet revolution in recent history.
But wasn`t that all thanks to the EU...??? Private companies would never have improved things if left to their own devices.
I've just checked my historic ticket prices for NNG -> KCX, 2015 £34 return; 2017 £46 return.
I didn't have to faff around with codes for wireless in 2015 either iirc.
Quite. Virgin quickly ramped up prices while services rapidly declined following the unnecessary departure of the very good Directly Operated Railways.
A family Friday night trip to Newcastle in 2016 for £200 with people strewn across the vestibules while First Class was empty remains one of the worst journeys of my life.
You are basing your entire opinion on one obviously deeply scarring journey. Virgin has been great on the east coast line - from staff, to the service, to BEAM (don't use it myself), etc, etc.
So great that they have just had the franchised removed.
Fair play to you for fighting a losing battle.
The service is unequivocally a good one as I am writing this. What the finances were or are I have no idea. The service has improved, has continued to improve immeasurably over the past 10 years. If this is because Virgin are paying themselves too much, then fine. But they have said they can't make enough money as is, which suggests that the improvement in service and current service levels are not sustainable at this level of funding.
You "used" it frequently. How long ago, exactly, and how about now?
I hope the fares go back to the same as they were under DOR, I can't say I noted any improvement in service when it was under Virgin though I admit I am a very infrequent user.
Well, someone has to pay - the tax payer or the passenger - which would you prefer?
According to your graph most railways are subsidised, with the exception of ECML and south west trains. Seeing as ECML seemingly returns a profit no matter who owns/runs it, I'd rather see it under Directly Operated Railways than Virgin/Stagecoach so we can ensure that profit returns to the taxpayer. The same for SWT. As for the rest of the railways they should definitely be private with the rail user paying the correct price. Ideologically making ECML go constantly back to the private sector is as muddled thinking as proposing the wholesale nationalisation of the entire railway network.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I agree. I assume you mean the retailing of electricity rather than the generation and distribution.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
I'm up for what works, and I think after 5 years of commuting in from Enfield on First/Great Northern and 3 years of commuting from Shepherd's Bush on TFL I'd take the nationalised one any day of the week.
If it were up to me I'd go in the other direction and introduce airport style landing slots for major railway stations and make the companies bid for them just as they do with airports. Offer no subsidy and force them to compete against each other on the same line. Eventually the slots would settle at the correct price for each time slot and we'd get the likes of EasyTrain offering £10 one way tickets for odd time arrivals and Virgin doing premium services etc...
I hope the fares go back to the same as they were under DOR, I can't say I noted any improvement in service when it was under Virgin though I admit I am a very infrequent user.
Virgin had an irritating policy of heavily advertising stupidly low London to Newcastle fares which were available only when no-one in work every travelled (Tuesday afternoons, Wednesday mornings) while ramping up peak fares to stupid levels. Some of the fares we had to pay on Friday evenings just to see the mother-in-law were beyond ridiculous, it would have been cheaper to fly the family to Majorca.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I agree. I assume you mean the retailing of electricity rather than the generation and distribution.
But there is competition in power generation.
Should I be prevented from building a solar power plant in my field? Or am I allowed to build a gas turbine for a steel mill, so it can benefit from producing its own electricity wholesale?
Indeed, even if you go back to the days when electricity was nationalised in the UK, there was still a reasonable amount (say 5-10%) of capacity that was 'merchant', i.e. owned by private companies. It tended to be peaking plant, because the grid would prioritise its own generating capacity, but it existed.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
I hope the fares go back to the same as they were under DOR, I can't say I noted any improvement in service when it was under Virgin though I admit I am a very infrequent user.
Well, someone has to pay - the tax payer or the passenger - which would you prefer?
According to your graph most railways are subsidised, with the exception of ECML and south west trains. Seeing as ECML seemingly returns a profit no matter who owns/runs it, I'd rather see it under Directly Operated Railways than Virgin/Stagecoach so we can ensure that profit returns to the taxpayer. The same for SWT. As for the rest of the railways they should definitely be private with the rail user paying the correct price. Ideologically making ECML go constantly back to the private sector is as muddled thinking as proposing the wholesale nationalisation of the entire railway network.
There
Why distinguish between franchises in such a way? Would you privatise London Underground?
Actually, in truth I generally agree that there is a case for looking at different solutions for different circumstances. A concession system might work better on some lines, for instance (been a great success on London Overground).
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
I see that a Labour councillor in Oxford has had the whip withdrawn for tweeting picures of children being threatened by armed soldiers. One picture showed a Nazi soldier from World War 2 whilst another showed an Israeli doing something similar a mere few days ago. Personally , I feel his point is well made by those photos - and fail to see how producing them amounts to Anti-Semitism at all. At the end of the day, Netanyahu is little better than Himmler et al.
The more-or-less official definition of antisemitism includes drawing parallels with the Nazis.
No matter how much their supporters try to make it so, Israel and Judaism are not synonymous. Indeed plenty of Orthodox Jews claim the existence of Israel is against Jewish teachings.
To claim that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is merely a way to shut down debate.
I hope the fares go back to the same as they were under DOR, I can't say I noted any improvement in service when it was under Virgin though I admit I am a very infrequent user.
Well, someone has to pay - the tax payer or the passenger - which would you prefer?
According to your graph most railways are subsidised, with the exception of ECML and south west trains. Seeing as ECML seemingly returns a profit no matter who owns/runs it, I'd rather see it under Directly Operated Railways than Virgin/Stagecoach so we can ensure that profit returns to the taxpayer. The same for SWT. As for the rest of the railways they should definitely be private with the rail user paying the correct price. Ideologically making ECML go constantly back to the private sector is as muddled thinking as proposing the wholesale nationalisation of the entire railway network.
There
I need to work on that chart. The stuff to the left of the y axis does go to the government, not the shareholders.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
My understanding is that a MAJORITY of Tory voters support nationalisation?
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
The subsidy pays for the running of the services.
Yes, that's the whole point. Firms bid on receiving the lowest subsidy for a given level of service.
Is the Labour's spokesman on transport the poster boy for the Gammon insult?
Grayling has just shot Corbyn's renationalisation fox
Bizarre since the privatisng of BT, water and the railways are three of the top five of the most successful post war policy decisions of any government to date.
LOL
You'd prefer Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn to provide your mobile phone?
Quite. With BT being the first, it was one of the engines of the global communications revolution that has changed the world. The whole notion that telecommunications was not an arm of the government but a fully independent competitive market place created an explosion in innovation and advancement. Copied and replicated around the world.
Telecoms privatisation was a massive success.
Water and rail privatisation a huge failure.
How has rail privatisation been a failure? I use much newer trains, strikes are largely regional, rather than national, and the pricing is competitive. For example my season ticket from the home to the shop is less than parking would cost near the shop, let alone petrol/costs of car etc.
And how has water privatisation a huge failure? How we manage our water, both drinking and sewage has undergone the most staggering improvements and investments. Their work and together with the Environment Agency has seen the most rapid improvement of water quality in living memory.
We would laugh about the way we did things in the past. In fact much if not all of the way we used to dispose of things would be now unlawful.
Other countries did it in different ways, but water privatisation and the environment act have fundamentally changed our living environment for the better. The most successful quiet revolution in recent history.
But wasn`t that all thanks to the EU...??? Private companies would never have improved things if left to their own devices.
No. And anyway, most of the investment in water has not come from the pockets of shareholders in private companies. They have demanded - and been given - state subsidies and guarantees for big investment projects.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
There is always a choice on ECML between Virgin, and Hull Trains. The latter being cheaper and quicker, but with fewer trains.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Some level of nationalisation is pretty popular. I think an assumption it is always best would be wrong, but most people are open to the idea, at the least in specific areas.
Look, it doesn't matter whether the TOCs are let to private companies or run in-house. Most of them need subsidies to run and the policy of the government (both Labour and Tory) has been to shift the burden from the taxpayer to the passenger.
The question is, is it worth having the bureaucracy of letting the franchises to private companies? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But bringing the services in-house is not going to magically make everything wonderful.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
I see that a Labour councillor in Oxford has had the whip withdrawn for tweeting picures of children being threatened by armed soldiers. One picture showed a Nazi soldier from World War 2 whilst another showed an Israeli doing something similar a mere few days ago. Personally , I feel his point is well made by those photos - and fail to see how producing them amounts to Anti-Semitism at all. At the end of the day, Netanyahu is little better than Himmler et al.
The more-or-less official definition of antisemitism includes drawing parallels with the Nazis.
No matter how much their supporters try to make it so, Israel and Judaism are not synonymous. Indeed plenty of Orthodox Jews claim the existence of Israel is against Jewish teachings.
To claim that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is merely a way to shut down debate.
Look, it doesn't matter whether the TOCs are let to private companies or run in-house. Most of them need subsidies to run and the policy of the government (both Labour and Tory) has been to shift the burden from the taxpayer to the passenger.
The question is, is it worth having the bureaucracy of letting the franchises to private companies? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But bringing the services in-house is not going to magically make everything wonderful.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
My post from just a few mins ago:
"If it were up to me I'd go in the other direction and introduce airport style landing slots for major railway stations and make the companies bid for them just as they do with airports. Offer no subsidy and force them to compete against each other on the same line. Eventually the slots would settle at the correct price for each time slot and we'd get the likes of EasyTrain offering £10 one way tickets for odd time arrivals and Virgin doing premium services etc..."
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
The subsidy pays for the running of the services.
And their operating profits.
The argument is that Arriva of whoever can deliver the service for a lower cost to the tax payer than if it was taken in house. So yes, they might make a profit, but who cares if the tax payer gets a better deal?
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
Errm - Just follow the same procedure airlines do ?
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
Depends on who caused the problem. This must be a solved issue as multiple companies already share the same track in some areas.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Some level of nationalisation is pretty popular. I think an assumption it is always best would be wrong, but most people are open to the idea, at the least in specific areas.
Nationalisation for certain services is generally a good idea.
The unions then controlling it and holding the country to ransom to benefit their members is not.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
The subsidy pays for the running of the services.
And their operating profits.
The argument is that Arriva of whoever can deliver the service for a lower cost to the tax payer than if it was taken in house. So yes, they might make a profit, but who cares if the tax payer gets a better deal?
Is it clear that Arriva can offer that though? I don't know because I haven't done the necessary research, but I'm not attached to this dogmatic view that all industry should be privatised regardless of whether one can introduce competition. How do we know that a DRO for all of Arriva's franchises couldn't be run at a lower subsidy? Have the studies been done using the ECML as a base?
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
Errm - Just follow the same procedure airlines do ?
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
Errm - Just follow the same procedure airlines do ?
Does that work?
Yes. Very well in fact. It forces airlines to ensure they are on time.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
There is always a choice on ECML between Virgin, and Hull Trains. The latter being cheaper and quicker, but with fewer trains.
And, indeed, with Grand Central doing something similar to Hull Trains for other bits of ECML.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
My understanding is that a MAJORITY of Tory voters support nationalisation?
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
I'd vote for Javid over Gove, even though Javid was nominally a remainer.
Economist claims he only said 'Remain' to keep in with Cameron. Which implies he thought Remain would win, or at the very least Cameron wouldn't have to resign.
He's a big fan of Ayn Rand.
So Rand vs Marx could be the GE 2022 election in summary!!!!
What a prospect!
Randians believe in benevolent selfishness. Marxists believe in state enforced benevolence. Both are profoundly mistaken as they seriously misread human nature. Both eventually end up in the same place with psychopathic kleptomaniacs in charge.
Javid as a Randian is as big a danger as McDonnell as a Marxist.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
The subsidy pays for the running of the services.
And their operating profits.
The argument is that Arriva of whoever can deliver the service for a lower cost to the tax payer than if it was taken in house. So yes, they might make a profit, but who cares if the tax payer gets a better deal?
Is it clear that Arriva can offer that though? I don't know because I haven't done the necessary research, but I'm not attached to this dogmatic view that all industry should be privatised regardless of whether one can introduce competition. How do we know that a DRO for all of Arriva's franchises couldn't be run at a lower subsidy? Have the studies been done using the ECML as a base?
I don't know. What I do know is that the returns are not that great. I seem to recall a Labour PPB saying Abellio made £3 million one year out of their franchises here. The bigger issue is making sure there's enough companies bidding for the franchises in the first place. To be fair to the DfT, they've tried to reduce the costs associated with bidding.
Look, it doesn't matter whether the TOCs are let to private companies or run in-house. Most of them need subsidies to run and the policy of the government (both Labour and Tory) has been to shift the burden from the taxpayer to the passenger.
The question is, is it worth having the bureaucracy of letting the franchises to private companies? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But bringing the services in-house is not going to magically make everything wonderful.
Exactly. Of course there are plenty of positive externalities which would justify government subsidies/shifting onto the taxpayer but try arguing that.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
The subsidy pays for the running of the services.
And their operating profits.
The argument is that Arriva of whoever can deliver the service for a lower cost to the tax payer than if it was taken in house. So yes, they might make a profit, but who cares if the tax payer gets a better deal?
Is it clear that Arriva can offer that though? I don't know because I haven't done the necessary research, but I'm not attached to this dogmatic view that all industry should be privatised regardless of whether one can introduce competition. How do we know that a DRO for all of Arriva's franchises couldn't be run at a lower subsidy? Have the studies been done using the ECML as a base?
The trouble is that privatisation did produce a service that was a million times better than it was when it was nationalised. I use the east coast mainline all the time and it is miles better in private hands compared to public ownership. Indeed the only real problems we ever have is with track and signalling issues - which of course are run by the publicly owned Network Rail.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
Nope - it all works well with Virgin and Hull Trains. One might be late, or another might be; it's all good.
You really ought to reacquaint yourself with how it all works in real life now, rather than theoretically on an internet chat room, or once "back in the day".
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
My understanding is that a MAJORITY of Tory voters support nationalisation?
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
Yes actually you are correct.
Nationalisation is economics of the madhouse. The biggest problem that the railways currently have is capacity. Too many people wanting to use them too little supply. The old BR never had that problem, people just didnt want to use them.
Anyone who romanticises to what a state run railway service looks like in the UK, look at this graph.
I see that a Labour councillor in Oxford has had the whip withdrawn for tweeting picures of children being threatened by armed soldiers. One picture showed a Nazi soldier from World War 2 whilst another showed an Israeli doing something similar a mere few days ago. Personally , I feel his point is well made by those photos - and fail to see how producing them amounts to Anti-Semitism at all. At the end of the day, Netanyahu is little better than Himmler et al.
The more-or-less official definition of antisemitism includes drawing parallels with the Nazis.
No matter how much their supporters try to make it so, Israel and Judaism are not synonymous. Indeed plenty of Orthodox Jews claim the existence of Israel is against Jewish teachings.
To claim that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is merely a way to shut down debate.
That's the definition. That is probably also why there are so many accusations flying around now -- because the definition now includes things that would in the past not be understood as antisemitic (just as bloody stupid).
Look, it doesn't matter whether the TOCs are let to private companies or run in-house. Most of them need subsidies to run and the policy of the government (both Labour and Tory) has been to shift the burden from the taxpayer to the passenger.
The question is, is it worth having the bureaucracy of letting the franchises to private companies? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But bringing the services in-house is not going to magically make everything wonderful.
This is a very important question.
The bidding process is costly - estimates from 5-10 million quid per bid + legal contingencies of up to 2m, which a) deters competition b) has to be recovered from passengers/taxpayers.
Then of course there is the cost of assessing those bids, dealing with legal challenges etc...
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
You really ought to reacquaint yourself with how it all works in real life now, rather than theoretically on an internet chat room, or once "back in the day".
We were offered a critique of a mid-west US city earlier today the poster admitted they’d never actually set foot in....so it does appear to be a bit of a habit.....
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
The subsidy pays for the running of the services.
And their operating profits.
The argument is that Arriva of whoever can deliver the service for a lower cost to the tax payer than if it was taken in house. So yes, they might make a profit, but who cares if the tax payer gets a better deal?
Is it clear that Arriva can offer that though? I don't know because I haven't done the necessary research, but I'm not attached to this dogmatic view that all industry should be privatised regardless of whether one can introduce competition. How do we know that a DRO for all of Arriva's franchises couldn't be run at a lower subsidy? Have the studies been done using the ECML as a base?
The trouble is that privatisation did produce a service that was a million times better than it was when it was nationalised. I use the east coast mainline all the time and it is miles better in private hands compared to public ownership. Indeed the only real problems we ever have is with track and signalling issues - which of course are run by the publicly owned Network Rail.
As discussed, for six of the last ten years ECML was in PUBLIC hands and was run extremely well. So many of the journeys you made would have been under public ownership.
Is the Labour's spokesman on transport the poster boy for the Gammon insult?
Grayling has just shot Corbyn's renationalisation fox
Bizarre since the privatisng of BT, water and the railways are three of the top five of the most successful post war policy decisions of any government to date.
LOL
You'd prefer Theresa May or Jeremy Corbyn to provide your mobile phone?
Quite. With BT being the first, it was one of the engines of the global communications revolution that has changed the world. The whole notion that telecommunications was not an arm of the government but a fully independent competitive market place created an explosion in innovation and advancement. Copied and replicated around the world.
Telecoms privatisation was a massive success.
Water and rail privatisation a huge failure.
How has rail privatisation been a failure? I use much newer trains, strikes are largely regional, rather than national, and the pricing is competitive. For example my season ticket from the home to the shop is less than parking would cost near the shop, let alone petrol/costs of car etc.
And how has water privatisation a huge failure? How we manage our water, both drinking and sewage has undergone the most staggering improvements and investments. Their work and together with the Environment Agency has seen the most rapid improvement of water quality in living memory.
We would laugh about the way we did things in the past. In fact much if not all of the way we used to dispose of things would be now unlawful.
Other countries did it in different ways, but water privatisation and the environment act have fundamentally changed our living environment for the better. The most successful quiet revolution in recent history.
But wasn`t that all thanks to the EU...??? Private companies would never have improved things if left to their own devices.
Actually a lot of that is due to the EU. But it is how we implemented it. A nation that either never had, or we had lost the concept of not treating the environment as a dumping ground. Either way we chose to implement these things via the EA and water companies requiring staggering amounts of capital, that any government would rather spend on hospitals and schools.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
My understanding is that a MAJORITY of Tory voters support nationalisation?
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
Yes actually you are correct.
Nationalisation is economics of the madhouse.
This is the kind of exaggeration we need to get away from. Clearly nationalised trains work fine in some other countries. Nationalised other stuff works fine in this country too.
The key criterion in my view is whether you can have meaningful competition. I just don't think you can for trains.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
The subsidy pays for the running of the services.
And their operating profits.
The argument is that Arriva of whoever can deliver the service for a lower cost to the tax payer than if it was taken in house. So yes, they might make a profit, but who cares if the tax payer gets a better deal?
Is it clear that Arriva can offer that though? I don't know because I haven't done the necessary research, but I'm not attached to this dogmatic view that all industry should be privatised regardless of whether one can introduce competition. How do we know that a DRO for all of Arriva's franchises couldn't be run at a lower subsidy? Have the studies been done using the ECML as a base?
The trouble is that privatisation did produce a service that was a million times better than it was when it was nationalised. I use the east coast mainline all the time and it is miles better in private hands compared to public ownership. Indeed the only real problems we ever have is with track and signalling issues - which of course are run by the publicly owned Network Rail.
I take the Swiss railways extensively and they are cheaper than what I used to pay in the UK and they are more punctual. The Swiss railways company is publicly owned, it is efficient and makes an annual profit. I don't see why a similar system couldn't be replicated in the UK.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
You really ought to reacquaint yourself with how it all works in real life now, rather than theoretically on an internet chat room, or once "back in the day".
We were offered a critique of a mid-west US city earlier today the poster admitted they’d never actually set foot in....so it does appear to be a bit of a habit.....
Oh please, pipe down.
I was using it as shorthand as I explained to you at the time.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
My understanding is that a MAJORITY of Tory voters support nationalisation?
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
Yes actually you are correct.
Nationalisation is economics of the madhouse.
This is the kind of exaggeration we need to get away from. Clearly nationalised trains work fine in some other countries. Nationalised other stuff works fine in this country too.
The key criterion in my view is whether you can have meaningful competition. I just don't think you can for trains.
Quite. I took the Turin to Paris HST the other day. Nationalised of course. Puts most of our services to shame. In every way.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
My understanding is that a MAJORITY of Tory voters support nationalisation?
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
Yes actually you are correct.
Nationalisation is economics of the madhouse. The biggest problem that the railways currently have is capacity. Too many people wanting to use them too little supply. The old BR never had that problem, people just didnt want to use them.
Anyone who romanticises to what a state run railway service looks like in the UK, look at this graph.
Surely that graph needs to be scaled to % of the population ? Were the railways private or state owned up to 1923... rail journeys per capita looks to be a heady peak to me around 1910 !
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Ironically, some of our railways are publicly owned but by foreign governments. Every few weeks Philip Hammond writes a cheque to Angela Merkel as her share of the subsidy. I don't suppose that helps the balance of payments either, now I come to think of it.
Yes, that's always been one of the bugbears I've had, it's fine for the Dutch or German state to own UK railways but not for the UK state. Wrt to GTR the Dutch state is probably losing a lot of money on it so it's a reverse subsidy, but Arriva is profitable and receives a large annual subsidy.
The 1992 railways act, or 1995, some such actually prevents the UK gvt from owning or running a franchise (except as a fall back). That was something that Blair never changed. The UK gvt could change the rules and run a franchise if it wants. But this isnt the good old days. The UK gvt run franchise will be in competition with the german government run franchise. No hidden subsidy. = Single Market.
As discussed, for six of the last ten years ECML was in PUBLIC hands and was run extremely well. So many of the journeys you made would have been under public ownership.
British Railways was a disaster run by the unions for the unions with no investment and tired worn out rolling stock.
The compromise of a public private railway is the sensible way forward with open rail lines available to be used by independent train operators to introduce competition
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
You really ought to reacquaint yourself with how it all works in real life now, rather than theoretically on an internet chat room, or once "back in the day".
We were offered a critique of a mid-west US city earlier today the poster admitted they’d never actually set foot in....so it does appear to be a bit of a habit.....
My point about food deserts in the US stands.
Based on what experience? We’ve already established it’s not Cincinnati.....
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I agree. I assume you mean the retailing of electricity rather than the generation and distribution.
But there is competition in power generation.
Should I be prevented from building a solar power plant in my field? Or am I allowed to build a gas turbine for a steel mill, so it can benefit from producing its own electricity wholesale?
Indeed, even if you go back to the days when electricity was nationalised in the UK, there was still a reasonable amount (say 5-10%) of capacity that was 'merchant', i.e. owned by private companies. It tended to be peaking plant, because the grid would prioritise its own generating capacity, but it existed.
I think the strategic element of generation (keeping the lights on) should be state owned. It is also capital intensive with very long lead times and requires very cheap capital. There is no reason, on the margin, to disallow private generators.
The National Grid, quite rightly, is the state owned wholesale distributor for similar reasons, though it doesn't prevent private distributors on the margin.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
My understanding is that a MAJORITY of Tory voters support nationalisation?
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
Yes actually you are correct.
Nationalisation is economics of the madhouse. The biggest problem that the railways currently have is capacity. Too many people wanting to use them too little supply. The old BR never had that problem, people just didnt want to use them.
Anyone who romanticises to what a state run railway service looks like in the UK, look at this graph.
Surely that graph needs to be scaled to % of the population ? Were the railways private or state owned up to 1923... rail journeys per capita looks to be a heady peak to me around 1910 !
That graph is also taken in isolation. What were petrol prices like? How much did company car rules change during that time? What other costs changed for road users like road tax etc...
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Should I be prevented from building a solar power plant in my field? Or am I allowed to build a gas turbine for a steel mill, so it can benefit from producing its own electricity wholesale?
Indeed, even if you go back to the days when electricity was nationalised in the UK, there was still a reasonable amount (say 5-10%) of capacity that was 'merchant', i.e. owned by private companies. It tended to be peaking plant, because the grid would prioritise its own generating capacity, but it existed.
There isn't an enormous amount of competition though is there? I mean the big 6 is still >80% share I think.
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Gordon Brown's bloody fuel price escalator. That was an absolute killer back in the late 2000s.
I believe I am correct in saying that the cost (in real terms) of public subsidies is much greater for the privatised system than the subsidies that used to be paid to British Rail? And fares are also higher in real terms?
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I suspect one can often find ways of introducing competition, if there is desire. There's no reason not to have two different railway companies on the same piece of track (i.e. Thameslink and East Midlands between Bedford and London).
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
And when the quieter 0658 is late out and causes the busier 0706 to be late, Great Northern blames Virgin and the public blame Great Northern and ask for a refund, and what does the poor revenue distributor do then?
You really ought to reacquaint yourself with how it all works in real life now, rather than theoretically on an internet chat room, or once "back in the day".
We were offered a critique of a mid-west US city earlier today the poster admitted they’d never actually set foot in....so it does appear to be a bit of a habit.....
My point about food deserts in the US stands.
Based on what experience? We’ve already established it’s not Cincinnati.....
My most recent trip featured a stay in South Carolina. You should try that!
If the Lib Dems had enabled the Tories to form a government by refusing to back Brown in a vote of confidence, then Cameron could reasonably have argued during the summer that there was no viable alternative - how could Labour nominate someone if they either (1) had the leader the Lib Dems had already rejected, or (2) were in the middle of a leadership election?
Alternatively, had the crisis in parliament not developed until the autumn (i.e. once Labour had a new leader), then the precedent from 1974 would have been sufficient to argue that Cameron was entitled to a dissolution on request based on time elapsed, and other precedents (1923?) that a government defeated in the Commons could go to the country even if an alternative one might be available within the existing House.
I don't think events would have panned out quite as you suggest.
Labour had an Acting Leader - Harriet Harman- who could have fulffiled the role of alternative PM in the same way that Attlee did in 1935 following George Landsbury's resignation. It is also entirely possible that faced with the fall of a minority Cameron Government that Labour would have found a way to accelerate its leadership election process. I am not persuaded that the 1974 precedent is particularly strong here. Had Ted Heath been able to reach some agreement with Jeremy Thorpe's Liberals and the various Ulster Unionist factions in the Summer that year, can we be sure that Harold Wilson would have been granted a second Dissolution that year? Re- the 1923 Parliament - when Ramsay Macdonald's minority Labour Government sought a Dissolution in Autumn 1924 George V only agreed to the request following discussions with Baldwin and Asquith - both of whom assured him they were not in a position to form a Government.
I don't see how Harman could have concluded any sort of agreement with the smaller parties which the leadership candidates could have repudiated. In reality, Miliband and Balls were more interested in positioning for the expected leadership contest than they were in concluding a deal during the negotiations immediately post-election. How much more incentive to play that game with the leadership contest actually on? Who would Kennedy (and the other party leaders) have been concluding a deal with - and with what guarantees?
Likewise, the new leader trying to form a government with four or more parties' support and a bare majority would have been massively unstable. Why bother when it could barely have done anything and would have been vulnerable to the whims of just about any backbencher with a grievance or a hobbyhorse? Again, even if Miliband had tried, I don't see how he could have made a deal stick - which is why I doubt he would have tried. Far better to go back to the country with an air of optimism, even if faked.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I agree. I assume you mean the retailing of electricity rather than the generation and distribution.
But there is competition in power generation.
Should I be prevented from building a solar power plant in my field? Or am I allowed to build a gas turbine for a steel mill, so it can benefit from producing its own electricity wholesale?
Indeed, even if you go back to the days when electricity was nationalised in the UK, there was still a reasonable amount (say 5-10%) of capacity that was 'merchant', i.e. owned by private companies. It tended to be peaking plant, because the grid would prioritise its own generating capacity, but it existed.
I think the strategic element of generation (keeping the lights on) should be state owned. It is also capital intensive with very long lead times and requires very cheap capital. There is no reason, on the margin, to disallow private generators.
The National Grid, quite rightly, is the state owned wholesale distributor for similar reasons, though it doesn't prevent private distributors on the margin.
National Grid isn't state-owned! Not much of significance is any more.
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Gordon Brown's bloody fuel price escalator. That was an absolute killer back in the late 2000s.
Which is my point, that graph is always used as an example of why privatisation has been a game changer, but it takes into account absolutely no external factors or the cost increases for other modes of transport.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
Well said! Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
Here are some thoughts on the matter from that other well-known Corbynista, Peter Hitchens.
I mean given that polling shows a substantial minority of Tories are in favour of nationalisation I guess I knew there had to be some out there, but they never seem to be on pb.com....
My understanding is that a MAJORITY of Tory voters support nationalisation?
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
Yes actually you are correct.
Nationalisation is economics of the madhouse. The biggest problem that the railways currently have is capacity. Too many people wanting to use them too little supply. The old BR never had that problem, people just didnt want to use them.
Anyone who romanticises to what a state run railway service looks like in the UK, look at this graph.
Surely that graph needs to be scaled to % of the population ? Were the railways private or state owned up to 1923... rail journeys per capita looks to be a heady peak to me around 1910 !
That graph is also taken in isolation. What were petrol prices like? How much did company car rules change during that time? What other costs changed for road users like road tax etc...
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Gordon Brown's bloody fuel price escalator. That was an absolute killer back in the late 2000s.
Which is my point, that graph is always used as an example of why privatisation has been a game changer, but it takes into account absolutely no external factors or the cost increases for other modes of transport.
House prices/patterns of urbanisation also a big factor I think. Commuters into London for instance really don't have much choice.
I believe I am correct in saying that the cost (in real terms) of public subsidies is much greater for the privatised system than the subsidies that used to be paid to British Rail? And fares are also higher in real terms?
Almost all of the subsidy is to Network Rail, the government made a profit from the operating companies in the last year.
Mr Speaker I have already set out my plans to restructure the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise following the successful delivery of the Thameslink Programme.
I have indicated that we will separate it into 2 or more franchises after the end of the current contract in 2021. We have not yet reached a decision about how to operate Great Northern services.
However I have had initial discussions with the Mayor of London about the possibility of transferring some of these to the London Overground, as recommended by Chris Gibb in his report.
Any change would be subject to consultation. But there is also an operational case for integrating Great Northern services from Kings Cross into the new LNER operation, and this is an option that I am asking my officials and the new LNER route board to do feasibility work on.
Should I be prevented from building a solar power plant in my field? Or am I allowed to build a gas turbine for a steel mill, so it can benefit from producing its own electricity wholesale?
Indeed, even if you go back to the days when electricity was nationalised in the UK, there was still a reasonable amount (say 5-10%) of capacity that was 'merchant', i.e. owned by private companies. It tended to be peaking plant, because the grid would prioritise its own generating capacity, but it existed.
There isn't an enormous amount of competition though is there? I mean the big 6 is still >80% share I think.
It's the best system I think - Aside from Npower my experience of the market has been very positive. British Gas have also never been the cheapest option so far as I can tell:
2018 Eon 2017 Bulb 2016 Extra energy 2015 Flow 2014 Npower (Never again) 2013 iSupply 2012 Scottish Power 2011 Eon
I believe I am correct in saying that the cost (in real terms) of public subsidies is much greater for the privatised system than the subsidies that used to be paid to British Rail? And fares are also higher in real terms?
That is indeed correct. Just like private healthcare in the US costs more to the taxpayer than the NHS.
I believe I am correct in saying that the cost (in real terms) of public subsidies is much greater for the privatised system than the subsidies that used to be paid to British Rail? And fares are also higher in real terms?
That is indeed correct. Just like private healthcare in the US costs more to the taxpayer than the NHS.
It's a UK-wide full alignment option but for a limited (indefinite, could be quite long) period. Would remove some of the pressure of uncertainty on businesses for sure.
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Gordon Brown's bloody fuel price escalator. That was an absolute killer back in the late 2000s.
Which is my point, that graph is always used as an example of why privatisation has been a game changer, but it takes into account absolutely no external factors or the cost increases for other modes of transport.
House prices/patterns of urbanisation also a big factor I think. Commuters into London for instance really don't have much choice.
Indeed. There is no competition down here for home counties commuters either from other rail companies or other transport modes. Rail is the one and only viable option for 9-5 workers – it's a "take it or leave it" situation.
I believe I am correct in saying that the cost (in real terms) of public subsidies is much greater for the privatised system than the subsidies that used to be paid to British Rail? And fares are also higher in real terms?
Almost all of the subsidy is to Network Rail, the government made a profit from the operating companies in the last year.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter who gets the subsidy. Originally the subsidy went to the TOCs who then paid real access rights to Railtrack. Nowadays the subsidy is split between the TOCs and NR, but ultimately it's still funded by the tax payer.
What is difficult is knowing where subsidy for day to day operations ends and subsidy for enhancements begin.
I'm still open to the idea of publicly owned railways. If there is no chance of proper competition (and franchising doesn't count as proper competition) then public ownership is an option. Water companies should also fall under this IMO.
In parts of the economy where competition is possible we can clearly see the benefits (telecoms, electricity, air travel etc...) but where it is not possible or the market is a poor imitation of a real market there are less clear benefits (Water, railways) and the possibility for price gouging is too high.
I agree. I assume you mean the retailing of electricity rather than the generation and distribution.
But there is competition in power generation.
Should I be prevented from building a solar power plant in my field? Or am I allowed to build a gas turbine for a steel mill, so it can benefit from producing its own electricity wholesale?
Indeed, even if you go back to the days when electricity was nationalised in the UK, there was still a reasonable amount (say 5-10%) of capacity that was 'merchant', i.e. owned by private companies. It tended to be peaking plant, because the grid would prioritise its own generating capacity, but it existed.
I think the strategic element of generation (keeping the lights on) should be state owned. It is also capital intensive with very long lead times and requires very cheap capital. There is no reason, on the margin, to disallow private generators.
The National Grid, quite rightly, is the state owned wholesale distributor for similar reasons, though it doesn't prevent private distributors on the margin.
National Grid isn't state-owned! Not much of significance is any more.
I believe I am correct in saying that the cost (in real terms) of public subsidies is much greater for the privatised system than the subsidies that used to be paid to British Rail? And fares are also higher in real terms?
Almost all of the subsidy is to Network Rail, the government made a profit from the operating companies in the last year.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter who gets the subsidy. Originally the subsidy went to the TOCs who then paid real access rights to Railtrack. Nowadays the subsidy is split between the TOCs and NR, but ultimately it's still funded by the tax payer.
What is difficult is knowing where subsidy for day to day operations ends and subsidy for enhancements begin.
Doesn't part of the subsidy go towards infrastructure projects like Crossrail and HS1/2?
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Gordon Brown's bloody fuel price escalator. That was an absolute killer back in the late 2000s.
Which is my point, that graph is always used as an example of why privatisation has been a game changer, but it takes into account absolutely no external factors or the cost increases for other modes of transport.
House prices/patterns of urbanisation also a big factor I think. Commuters into London for instance really don't have much choice.
Indeed. There is no competition down here for home counties commuters either from other rail companies or other transport modes. Rail is the one and only viable option for 9-5 workers – it's a "take it or leave it" situation.
An old classmate is currently doing a daily commute from Eastleigh to Redbridge. Sounds brutal.
I believe I am correct in saying that the cost (in real terms) of public subsidies is much greater for the privatised system than the subsidies that used to be paid to British Rail? And fares are also higher in real terms?
Almost all of the subsidy is to Network Rail, the government made a profit from the operating companies in the last year.
To be honest, it doesn't really matter who gets the subsidy. Originally the subsidy went to the TOCs who then paid real access rights to Railtrack. Nowadays the subsidy is split between the TOCs and NR, but ultimately it's still funded by the tax payer.
What is difficult is knowing where subsidy for day to day operations ends and subsidy for enhancements begin.
Doesn't part of the subsidy go towards infrastructure projects like Crossrail and HS1/2?
Some does - but that's excluded from the figures in that chart I linked to up thread. But it's still a bit dubious as to how much of the subsidy for the existing network is being used to upgrade the network.
It's a UK-wide full alignment option but for a limited (indefinite, could be quite long) period. Would remove some of the pressure of uncertainty on businesses for sure.
Para 49 says "maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and customs union which support north-south cooperation, the all-island economy and the Good Friday Agreement."
That's internal market as well as customs union.
No doubt it will be renamed "common market arrangement" and "customs arrangement" or somesuch to avoid the arch Brexiteers jump out of the slowly heating pan.
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Gordon Brown's bloody fuel price escalator. That was an absolute killer back in the late 2000s.
Which is my point, that graph is always used as an example of why privatisation has been a game changer, but it takes into account absolutely no external factors or the cost increases for other modes of transport.
House prices/patterns of urbanisation also a big factor I think. Commuters into London for instance really don't have much choice.
Indeed. There is no competition down here for home counties commuters either from other rail companies or other transport modes. Rail is the one and only viable option for 9-5 workers – it's a "take it or leave it" situation.
Of course, such fares are regulated on the basis that there is no option. I'd be fascinated to see what would happen if the government deregulated London season tickets. I reckon they could whack up the price considerably without losing too many passengers.
John McDonnell MP ✔ @johnmcdonnellMP Good to see Grayling implementing first stage of Labour’s Manifesto promise to renationalise the railways. I think I’m right in saying that he’s now nationalised more railways than any Labour minister in 6 decades. Come on Chris, East Coast line today, the whole system tomorrow.
It's a UK-wide full alignment option but for a limited (indefinite, could be quite long) period. Would remove some of the pressure of uncertainty on businesses for sure.
Para 49 says "maintain full alignment with those rules of the internal market and customs union which support north-south cooperation, the all-island economy and the Good Friday Agreement."
That's internal market as well as customs union.
No doubt it will be renamed "common market arrangement" and "customs arrangement" or somesuch to avoid the arch Brexiteers jump out of the slowly heating pan.
If you extended the backstop to the whole UK, the withdrawal agreement would say “The territory of the United Kingdom shall be considered to be part of the customs territory of the Union.”
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Gordon Brown's bloody fuel price escalator. That was an absolute killer back in the late 2000s.
Which is my point, that graph is always used as an example of why privatisation has been a game changer, but it takes into account absolutely no external factors or the cost increases for other modes of transport.
House prices/patterns of urbanisation also a big factor I think. Commuters into London for instance really don't have much choice.
Indeed. There is no competition down here for home counties commuters either from other rail companies or other transport modes. Rail is the one and only viable option for 9-5 workers – it's a "take it or leave it" situation.
Of course, such fares are regulated on the basis that there is no option. I'd be fascinated to see what would happen if the government deregulated London season tickets. I reckon they could whack up the price considerably without losing too many passengers.
I'm not sure that experiment is in your immediate interests
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
Gordon Brown's bloody fuel price escalator. That was an absolute killer back in the late 2000s.
Which is my point, that graph is always used as an example of why privatisation has been a game changer, but it takes into account absolutely no external factors or the cost increases for other modes of transport.
House prices/patterns of urbanisation also a big factor I think. Commuters into London for instance really don't have much choice.
Indeed. There is no competition down here for home counties commuters either from other rail companies or other transport modes. Rail is the one and only viable option for 9-5 workers – it's a "take it or leave it" situation.
Of course, such fares are regulated on the basis that there is no option. I'd be fascinated to see what would happen if the government deregulated London season tickets. I reckon they could whack up the price considerably without losing too many passengers.
I'm not sure that experiment is in your immediate interests
Well it's one sure way of making Woking vote Labour!
Comments
I was hoping anyone but Cahill and also hoping lallana would be given a chance seeming he was our best player not so long ago.
Southgate is determined to make sure we don't go above expectations ;-)
Didn't expect that from your other posts... Corbynism must be catching.
You "used" it frequently. How long ago, exactly, and how about now?
As for the rest of the railways they should definitely be private with the rail user paying the correct price.
Ideologically making ECML go constantly back to the private sector is as muddled thinking as proposing the wholesale nationalisation of the entire railway network.
There
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2625338/PETER-HITCHENS-Bring-British-Raid-Privatisation-act-political-madness-huge-left-delays-antique-trains-vast-bill-Labour-knows-time.html
If it were up to me I'd go in the other direction and introduce airport style landing slots for major railway stations and make the companies bid for them just as they do with airports. Offer no subsidy and force them to compete against each other on the same line. Eventually the slots would settle at the correct price for each time slot and we'd get the likes of EasyTrain offering £10 one way tickets for odd time arrivals and Virgin doing premium services etc...
Should I be prevented from building a solar power plant in my field?
Or am I allowed to build a gas turbine for a steel mill, so it can benefit from producing its own electricity wholesale?
Indeed, even if you go back to the days when electricity was nationalised in the UK, there was still a reasonable amount (say 5-10%) of capacity that was 'merchant', i.e. owned by private companies. It tended to be peaking plant, because the grid would prioritise its own generating capacity, but it existed.
Actually, in truth I generally agree that there is a case for looking at different solutions for different circumstances. A concession system might work better on some lines, for instance (been a great success on London Overground).
To claim that criticism of Israel is anti-Semitic is merely a way to shut down debate.
https://twitter.com/claire_phipps/status/996696692467621889?s=21
My man crush on Benedict Cumberbatch is only matched by man crush on Johnny Mercer.
Try this for a thought experiment. Imagine the government set the fares for the line, and then each franchisee took turns to chose a train time until capacity had been reached. You'd then allocate the revenues to the franchisees according to the share of passengers. The two firms would be competing to get you (the passenger) to travel on the 6:58 with Virgin rather than the 7:06 with Great Northern.
MaxPB is a Tory member I believe as is BigG and both are sympathetic to the idea I think.
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/thames-tideway-tunnel-government-support-package-contract-documents
The question is, is it worth having the bureaucracy of letting the franchises to private companies? Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. But bringing the services in-house is not going to magically make everything wonderful.
"If it were up to me I'd go in the other direction and introduce airport style landing slots for major railway stations and make the companies bid for them just as they do with airports. Offer no subsidy and force them to compete against each other on the same line. Eventually the slots would settle at the correct price for each time slot and we'd get the likes of EasyTrain offering £10 one way tickets for odd time arrivals and Virgin doing premium services etc..."
Nationalisation for certain services is generally a good idea.
The unions then controlling it and holding the country to ransom to benefit their members is not.
Randians believe in benevolent selfishness. Marxists believe in state enforced benevolence. Both are profoundly mistaken as they seriously misread human nature. Both eventually end up in the same place with psychopathic kleptomaniacs in charge.
Javid as a Randian is as big a danger as McDonnell as a Marxist.
You really ought to reacquaint yourself with how it all works in real life now, rather than theoretically on an internet chat room, or once "back in the day".
Anyone who romanticises to what a state run railway service looks like in the UK, look at this graph.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privatisation_of_British_Rail#/media/File:GBR_rail_passengers_by_year_1830-2015.png
The bidding process is costly - estimates from 5-10 million quid per bid + legal contingencies of up to 2m, which a) deters competition b) has to be recovered from passengers/taxpayers.
Then of course there is the cost of assessing those bids, dealing with legal challenges etc...
http://www.railtechnologymagazine.com/Rail-News/growing-cost-of-franchise-bidding-a-deterrent-to-new-entrants-says-rdg
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/east-coast-rail-firm-directly-operated-railways-boosts-profits-8181255.html
The key criterion in my view is whether you can have meaningful competition. I just don't think you can for trains.
I was using it as shorthand as I explained to you at the time.
My point about food deserts in the US stands.
Were the railways private or state owned up to 1923... rail journeys per capita looks to be a heady peak to me around 1910 !
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/east-coast-rail-firm-directly-operated-railways-boosts-profits-8181255.html
British Railways was a disaster run by the unions for the unions with no investment and tired worn out rolling stock.
The compromise of a public private railway is the sensible way forward with open rail lines available to be used by independent train operators to introduce competition
The National Grid, quite rightly, is the state owned wholesale distributor for similar reasons, though it doesn't prevent private distributors on the margin.
It may be that privatisation helped passenger numbers grow, at the same time I seem to remember being a motorist under Labour became much more expensive than it was under the Tories, that will have changed the game for railways as well.
I mean the big 6 is still >80% share I think.
I believe I am correct in saying that the cost (in real terms) of public subsidies is much greater for the privatised system than the subsidies that used to be paid to British Rail? And fares are also higher in real terms?
Likewise, the new leader trying to form a government with four or more parties' support and a bare majority would have been massively unstable. Why bother when it could barely have done anything and would have been vulnerable to the whims of just about any backbencher with a grievance or a hobbyhorse? Again, even if Miliband had tried, I don't see how he could have made a deal stick - which is why I doubt he would have tried. Far better to go back to the country with an air of optimism, even if faked.
Not much of significance is any more.
UK 'considering third option' over customs dilemma
https://www.rte.ie/amp/963831
https://tinyurl.com/y7kkk4ws
Commuters into London for instance really don't have much choice.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/east-coast-rail-update
The Great Northern thing is still to be decided:
Mr Speaker I have already set out my plans to restructure the Thameslink, Southern and Great Northern franchise following the successful delivery of the Thameslink Programme.
I have indicated that we will separate it into 2 or more franchises after the end of the current contract in 2021. We have not yet reached a decision about how to operate Great Northern services.
However I have had initial discussions with the Mayor of London about the possibility of transferring some of these to the London Overground, as recommended by Chris Gibb in his report.
Any change would be subject to consultation. But there is also an operational case for integrating Great Northern services from Kings Cross into the new LNER operation, and this is an option that I am asking my officials and the new LNER route board to do feasibility work on.
British Gas have also never been the cheapest option so far as I can tell:
2018 Eon
2017 Bulb
2016 Extra energy
2015 Flow
2014 Npower (Never again)
2013 iSupply
2012 Scottish Power
2011 Eon
It's a UK-wide full alignment option but for a limited (indefinite, could be quite long) period. Would remove some of the pressure of uncertainty on businesses for sure.
What is difficult is knowing where subsidy for day to day operations ends and subsidy for enhancements begin.
- JC
Peaceful Palestinian demonstration !
That's internal market as well as customs union.
No doubt it will be renamed "common market arrangement" and "customs arrangement" or somesuch to avoid the arch Brexiteers jump out of the slowly heating pan.
John McDonnell MP
✔
@johnmcdonnellMP
Good to see Grayling implementing first stage of Labour’s Manifesto promise to renationalise the railways. I think I’m right in saying that he’s now nationalised more railways than any Labour minister in 6 decades. Come on Chris, East Coast line today, the whole system tomorrow.
Mr. Owls, didn't Blair nationalise that line too?
Good afternoon, everyone.
Do you think it was appropriate ?