A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
The reasons are obvious: the needs and requirements for civils is very different from operations, and running them both as one big group leads to problems and they are subdivided. Therefore there is always communication between subdivisions, even if they are both owned by the same overall entity. BR had loads of problems with this.
I always found it amusing that in Christian Wolmar's polemic he used the example of a railway manager over-ruling an engineer about a bridge replacement as an economy measure - just before the bridge collapsed - as an example of how effectively integrated the nationalised railway system was and how engineering considerations trumped all else.
I am enjoying the Jeremy Thorpe drama but it still suffers from that weird BBC touch: overly camp, played just a tad too much for the cheap laugh, over the top characterisation, etc. It’s not a drama, but a black farce.
Presumably there’s another Jeremy Thorpe drama out there which actually seeks to understand how a great liberal thinker should be driven to such moral squalor.
The problem is that the whole thing was a black farce. Anthony Newton's career as a contract killer was brief and humiliating "he is a man with a criminal past, but no criminal future, ho, ho, ho.". "Oh my God, they've murdered Rinka!". Auberon Waugh standing as a dog-lover in North Devon. Mr. Justice Cantley's summing-up, "he is a liar, a sponger, a parasite, a whiner, but he may still be telling the truth" whereas Thorpe was a man "of unblemished reputation."
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
A swap would result is a more efficient and return orientated outcome. It’s a silly straw man though.
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
A swap would result is a more efficient and return orientated outcome. It’s a silly straw man though.
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
You've missed out the bit that Toro Rosso is getting a new (higher power) Honda engine for Canada. Just in time for Red Bull who decide (after this race) what engine they go for next year.
One of the most enjoyable aspects of this season is seeing Mclaren getting their comeuppance for all the rude, arrogant, arrant and on occasion, by acquiescence, borderline racist stuff they either said or nodding along to about Honda.
Has there ever been a time when a PM has had to work with such a talentless and accident prone cabinet? The whole brexit debacle is being fed into this feeling of malaise and incompetence and the longer it goes on the more the the public are losing heart. It's not helped by having an opposition who don't look anywhere near capable of picking up the pieces.
Winning the world cup might change the mood but a re-run of the referendum is more likely
Just wait until Corbyn becomes PM.
Loathe Corbyn, but because the common expectation is that he would be a complete disaster I do wonder that if he ever does become PM the reality will be better than most expect. Initially
I would expect a new Labour government to announce a series of radical policies that might initially play quite well with the public at large. Personally I hope we never get to find out - the only thing that would get me to vote for him would be if the party went into the next election with an anti-Brexit stance.
A Corbyn government would be similar to the Hollande or Tsipras government's a brief period of honeymoon before reality sets in and higher taxes an inability to control spending etc and any reverse turns needed to appease the markets annoying its base. Much like the 1974 to 1979 Labour government inflation and union militancy would rise too. That government lasted just 5 years as did Hollande and Tsipras' Syriza are already trailing the centre right in the polls.
Of course it is also possible that Corbyn could find himself PM without even leading the largest party as Sanchez in Spain and Ardern in New Zealand are
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
A swap would result is a more efficient and return orientated outcome. It’s a silly straw man though.
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
I am still doing my patriotic duty in Leeds making sure that England wins a test match. A friend joined us last night from Glasgow. It had taken him more than 6 hours to get here because his Virgin train was so late he missed his connection.
A couple of months ago i visited my daughter in Gronnigan. At one point we had to switch trains and there was 2 minutes in which to do so. Any concerns about this being tight were met with mute incomprehension and so it proved. All the trains we were on there left and arrived within 10 seconds of when they should. I find these customer satisfaction numbers deeply untrustworthy.
I went on holiday this week to Edinburgh and we ended up by seconds missing the train due to our inability to get across the station promptly, it's not at all wheelchair friendly. We arrived at the station half an hour before departure and checked the platform listings and our station wasn't showing a platform yet so went to the First Class Lounge.
With a baby in a pushchair and a toddler we had to use the elevators and once the number popped up we went out but then had to get 5 lifts to get across to the right platform. Big queues at every lift meant it took about 4-5 minutes to get some of the lifts so we got to the platform just in time to see the doors close without us.
Originally met with gruff indifference by the staff there who simply said it was our fault we were late, when I said that the platform wasn't listed when we arrived he said they put it up 19 minutes before departure, with doors closing 1 minute before departure. Great, 18 minutes is fine if you can walk. Stuck needing wheelchair access then with 5 lifts with a queue for each on then giving 18 minutes to cross the station is not very long at all.
It sounds like the staff at the First Class Lounge messed up. They often hold back announcing platform information to avoid clustering that blocks people coming off the train. It's worth explaining to information desks that you need a bit more time so they can let you know the platform in advance of the general announcement.
A particular problem with first class carriages is that while the extra space is useful for those of limited mobility, the carriages themselves tend to be at the end of trains incurring extra distance to actually board.
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
2020: Commuters at Hamburg Hauptbahnhof have now been waiting for their train for over a year while David Davis and Boris Johnson argue about where it should go
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Actually, I think a renationalised railway will be an initial success. A Labour government will change the balance of paying for the railways, putting more on general taxpayer and less on the passengers. This is unsustainable in the long term, but will generate lots of good headlines.
Now, I can't guarantee they'll do that, but it's the mood music, and it's what I'd do for an easy 'win'.
There is another issue here: franchises are difficult to run, far from guarantee profit, and can generate bad headlines for the franchisee. The government / DfT are already finding it difficult to persuade bids for some franchises, and it could be the franchising system falls down because they just cannot attract any.
That would be an *interesting* way for privatisation to end ...
I can say from my grand sample size of 3 whole train trips in the last decade that my experience with Directly operated trainlines was better than Virgin on the ECML
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
A swap would result is a more efficient and return orientated outcome. It’s a silly straw man though.
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Sure. But we don't operate society for the benefit of railways but for the benefit of voters. If voters want to have a crap railway system so as to save money for low taxes, wonderful health services, or whatever, that's a democratic choice that they should be entitled to make. There will, I reckon, be a point at which they think it's so crap that it moves up the priority list, so that a more efficient railway becomes more important than, say, funding a closer GP practice.
In reality, of course, democratic control is a blunt instrument, since people vote for all sorts of funny reasons (I had a vote from someone who always voted for the tallest candidate). But that's an argument for more education for voters, or referendums, or if you like for abolishing democracy in the interest of an efficient railway (hello Benito).
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Railways have a massive amount of competition: from busses, coaches, planes, taxis and cars.
And since when did any MP lose their jobs over BR's sometimes appalling service? Can you name one MP who did?
The sad thing is that railways will never be at the forefront of the public's minds, and only at politicians' when they go wrong, as at the moment. The priority will always be education, health, defence etc.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it.
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Sure. But we don't operate society for the benefit of railways but for the benefit of voters. If voters want to have a crap railway system so as to save money for low taxes, wonderful health services, or whatever, that's a democratic choice that they should be entitled to make. There will, I reckon, be a point at which they think it's so crap that it moves up the priority list, so that a more efficient railway becomes more important than, say, funding a closer GP practice.
In reality, of course, democratic control is a blunt instrument, since people vote for all sorts of funny reasons (I had a vote from someone who always voted for the tallest candidate). But that's an argument for more education for voters, or referendums, or if you like for abolishing democracy in the interest of an efficient railway (hello Benito).
Since the vast majority of voters rarely, if ever, travel by rail, then if you want to run them for the benefit of them then all the costs of running the railways would be put on the passengers ..
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
A voter has a single vote. Few are going to cast it on transport policies since almost everyone has more pressing priorities (see the thread header for evidence). Electoral control through MPs is therefore fake control, and will result in producer interests dominating in the vacuum.
If you were proposing directly elected transport commissioners, I might be more tempted by your logic. Then there would be meaningful voter control.
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
1. As Charles has said, because foreign governments are just contractors, the same as any private operator; they are not subject to the conflicts of interests that come from either (1) allocating spend between transport and, say, health, or (2) within the rail budget, political pressures to spend in marginal X rather than opposition safe seat Y, or to cut fares now rather than invest in infrastructure for later.
2. Inertia. I suspect that a privatised tube would be looking at investing in many more automated systems but taking on the RMT is hard enough in the private sector; it's nigh-on impossible in the public.
3. It wasn't good enough. As I said in the article, Virgin returned as much to the taxpayer in three years as the nationalised East Coast did in five. And that's before you get to the quality issues like those Mortimer mentions (which are a classic of the service-cuts penny-pinching approach typical of nationalised 'services').
4. It keeps service suppliers on their toes and allows failures to be replaced.
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Must admit I am always surprised when people look back on "British Rail" as the glory days of rail in the UK
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
A swap would result is a more efficient and return orientated outcome. It’s a silly straw man though.
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Roads?
As with the railways, virtually everything that runs on the roads is private. it seems to work. (Not that there aren't problems with the state running the infrastructure but as with all semi-monopolies, you can never entirely get away from political or whim-decision making).
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Actually, I think a renationalised railway will be an initial success. A Labour government will change the balance of paying for the railways, putting more on general taxpayer and less on the passengers. This is unsustainable in the long term, but will generate lots of good headlines.
Now, I can't guarantee they'll do that, but it's the mood music, and it's what I'd do for an easy 'win'.
There is another issue here: franchises are difficult to run, far from guarantee profit, and can generate bad headlines for the franchisee. The government / DfT are already finding it difficult to persuade bids for some franchises, and it could be the franchising system falls down because they just cannot attract any.
That would be an *interesting* way for privatisation to end ...
Which just reinforces the narrative of Corbyn Labpur raising your taxes.
The problem with franchises is that each line should have had at least two so you have more than 1 company to choose from and get say at least two separate trains from different companies every ten minutes, that way passengers choose the train company rather than just the government picking the franchise
It's not just the north David. The huge Great Northern/Thameslink network changes have been a total disaster so far and cover many marginal seats
Fair enough. I have less knowledge of that beyond brief reports about the Govia-Thameslink services. But that just reinforces the case for Graying to take some ownership, bring people together and demand daily reports and updates. There is a lack of public urgency about this from the government which is politically inept (and practically unhelpful).
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
A swap would result is a more efficient and return orientated outcome. It’s a silly straw man though.
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Roads?
As with the railways, virtually everything that runs on the roads is private. it seems to work. (Not that there aren't problems with the state running the infrastructure but as with all semi-monopolies, you can never entirely get away from political or whim-decision making).
"As with the railways, virtually everything that runs on the roads is private"
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Sure. But we don't operate society for the benefit of railways but for the benefit of voters. If voters want to have a crap railway system so as to save money for low taxes, wonderful health services, or whatever, that's a democratic choice that they should be entitled to make. There will, I reckon, be a point at which they think it's so crap that it moves up the priority list, so that a more efficient railway becomes more important than, say, funding a closer GP practice.
In reality, of course, democratic control is a blunt instrument, since people vote for all sorts of funny reasons (I had a vote from someone who always voted for the tallest candidate). But that's an argument for more education for voters, or referendums, or if you like for abolishing democracy in the interest of an efficient railway (hello Benito).
Since the vast majority of voters rarely, if ever, travel by rail, then if you want to run them for the benefit of them then all the costs of running the railways would be put on the passengers ..
Just out of interest, what does polling say about nationalisation broken down between regular and casual/non users of the railways?
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Must admit I am always surprised when people look back on "British Rail" as the glory days of rail in the UK
There are those who blame the chaos after privatisation for the defeat of John Major's government. DJL's first law of politics: commuters vote.
This can also explain Boris winning the mayoralty after the tube strikes.
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
A more effective -- if more cynical -- line for Labour might be to encourage voters to follow the subsidy: mock up some posters of Hammond/Grayling/May handing over cash to Angela Merkel (because no-one knows who the Dutch leader is).
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Must admit I am always surprised when people look back on "British Rail" as the glory days of rail in the UK
There are those who blame the chaos after privatisation for the defeat of John Major's government. DJL's first law of politics: commuters vote.
Major lost the 1997 election on 16th September 1992.
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Must admit I am always surprised when people look back on "British Rail" as the glory days of rail in the UK
Often those who don't remember it or have forgotten it
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
A more effective -- if more cynical -- line for Labour might be to encourage voters to follow the subsidy: mock up some posters of Hammond/Grayling/May handing over cash to Angela Merkel (because no-one knows who the Dutch leader is).
They could do that but even Germany has some privatised rail companies as well as the state owned franchises
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
You could surely argue it the other way round just as easily: because foreign owners do not need to worry about commuters' votes, they will hike fares, under-invest and asset-strip the railways to maximise short-term profit.
Whether German or Dutch railways are significantly better or worse than our own is left as an exercise for the reader.
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Must admit I am always surprised when people look back on "British Rail" as the glory days of rail in the UK
There are those who blame the chaos after privatisation for the defeat of John Major's government. DJL's first law of politics: commuters vote.
Major lost the 1997 election on 16th September 1992.
Though it was an impossible job anyway, no party has won a fifth term in office since the Tories in 1830 after the Duke of Wellington succeeded Lord Liverpool and that was before the Great Reform Act let alone universal suffrage and the Whigs won a landslide in 1834.
Winning in 1992 was quite an achievement for Major, losing in 1997 inevitable and facing Blair just made it a huge landslide
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Must admit I am always surprised when people look back on "British Rail" as the glory days of rail in the UK
There are those who blame the chaos after privatisation for the defeat of John Major's government. DJL's first law of politics: commuters vote.
Major lost the 1997 election on 16th September 1992.
Though it was an impossible job anyway, no party has won a fifth yet since the Tories in 1830 after the Duke of Wellington succeeded Lord Liverpool and that was before the Great Reform Act let alone universal suffrage and the Whigs won a landslide in 1834
Another reason the tories will find it hard next time - it would require 4 elections in a row where they were largest party, and by enough that they get to lead the government, albeit one election was only after 2 years. Not an easy task at the best of times, which it won't be even with Corbyn's marmite factor.
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Must admit I am always surprised when people look back on "British Rail" as the glory days of rail in the UK
There are those who blame the chaos after privatisation for the defeat of John Major's government. DJL's first law of politics: commuters vote.
Major lost the 1997 election on 16th September 1992.
Though it was an impossible job anyway, no party has won a fifth term in office since the Tories in 1830 after the Duke of Wellington succeeded Lord Liverpool and that was before the Great Reform Act let alone universal suffrage and the Whigs won a landslide in 1834.
Winning in 1992 was quite an achievement for Major, losing in 1997 inevitable and facing Blair just made it a huge landslide
Sorry should be 1831 not 1834 for the Whig landslide which ushered in the Great Reform Act
The relative success of privatisation of the railways does not stop them likely being nationalised if Corbyn wins the next general election, Grayling or any other Transport Minister are really just holding the fort. It would then take a few yeas of people complainong about the standatd of nationalised rail for the case to be made to privatise them again
Must admit I am always surprised when people look back on "British Rail" as the glory days of rail in the UK
There are those who blame the chaos after privatisation for the defeat of John Major's government. DJL's first law of politics: commuters vote.
Major lost the 1997 election on 16th September 1992.
Though it was an impossible job anyway, no party has won a fifth yet since the Tories in 1830 after the Duke of Wellington succeeded Lord Liverpool and that was before the Great Reform Act let alone universal suffrage and the Whigs won a landslide in 1834
Another reason the tories will find it hard next time - it would require 4 elections in a row where they were largest party, and by enough that they get to lead the government, albeit one election was only after 2 years. Not an easy task at the best of times, which it won't be even with Corbyn's marmite factor.
Indeed before 1992 no party had been the largest party for 4 consecutive general elections since World War Two and Brown could not repeat Major's achievement in 2010 either.
Of course Major trailed in most of the polls in 1992 and Kinnock, like Corbyn, fully expected to become PM before the campaign at his second attempt, doing a deal with Ashdown's LDs if needed.
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
[snip]
That's simply not true. I linked the longterm figures in the article but to supply the link openly, it's here:
Passnger numbers were fairly steady immediately after WW2/nationalisation, running at just over 1bn/year through the 1950s and peaking at just over 1.1bn in 1957.
They then fell almost every year from 1957-82, whether the country was booming or in recession, bottoming out at 630m in 1982 (which was particularly low - 10% below the years either side; I don't know if that was particularly affected by strikes). This was of course the era of the growth of the motorways.
Passenger numbers then underwent a modest resurgence in the 1980s, peaking at 822m in 1988/9, before declining again to 735m in 1994/5 (the government, for reasons best known to itself switched from calendar years to financial years in 1985).
However, from that point on, numbers increased each and every year since, apart from a tiny drop in 2008/9, surpassing the 1980s peak in 1997/8, breaking back through 1bn for the first time in over forty years in 2003/4, and setting a new post-war record in 2006/7 - and then increasing by a further 50% in the following decade.
The notion that passenger numbers are related to economic growth is only true at the margins - it is one small factor. But it seems willfully blind to ignore the ownership / operational model change from BR to the privatised structures as playing a far greater role, given the scale and consistency of the increases, after decades of decline (bar the brief 1980s recovery), at the precise moment that privatisation was introduced.
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
A swap would result is a more efficient and return orientated outcome. It’s a silly straw man though.
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Roads?
As with the railways, virtually everything that runs on the roads is private. it seems to work. (Not that there aren't problems with the state running the infrastructure but as with all semi-monopolies, you can never entirely get away from political or whim-decision making).
"As with the railways, virtually everything that runs on the roads is private"
Not quite the same though is it?
Can I turn up at Paddington with my own train?
No, you need to book first. But if you want to run a train out of Paddington, you just (!) need to contact the relevant section of Network Rail, book your slot, ensure you have the requisite permissions and pay your access fee. There are plenty of non-franchise operators who run services over the network.
Railways have a massive amount of competition: from busses, coaches, planes, taxis and cars.
And since when did any MP lose their jobs over BR's sometimes appalling service? Can you name one MP who did?
The sad thing is that railways will never be at the forefront of the public's minds, and only at politicians' when they go wrong, as at the moment. The priority will always be education, health, defence etc.
Point 1 is simply blinkered - there are lots of people who have no realistic alternative to the train service. Tell someone commuting from Godalming to London that they can take a plane or a taxi! They could at a pinch go by road but it will take significantly longer.
Your other point is, as I said earlier, a matter of democratic choice. If voters don't care as much about rail travel as they do about education, then it's right that public subsidies should go into education rather than railways, until such time as voter opinion changes.
Moreover, the question that we're discussing - whether the railway should be publicly owned or not - is also something that should be decided by popular choice. It appears that most people want public ownership, but we don't really know how strongly they want it. Let parties put it (or something else) into their manifestos and people will give it whatever weight they think appropriate.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
That's not true. Railways generally have lots of competition.
At the moment, I'm working out of our Bradford office on secondment but for the last four years I've worked in Leeds and commuted by rail. It's not been a good service but it's tolerable - trains every half-hour going home and more during the rush hour on the way in (this has changed - I don't know how good the new timetable is).
I could, if I wanted to, get the bus. The 110 service goes from within 100m of my house direct to Leeds bus station but it'd take well over an hour, isn't that reliable and I'd have to share with a load of schoolkids. Or I could park and ride. Or I could drive to the city centre and park there. All of these are alternatives and on the four usual criteria of travel - cost, convenience, comfort and speed - rail works/ed best for me.
On longer services, air and coach travel compete at opposite ends of the market, as well as the car.
It's a fallacy that railways don't have competition but, I've found, not atypical of the public sector mindset which at times seems incapable of understanding the world outside their own little box. I've seen exactly the same thing in the social rented (ex-council house) sector, where managers failed to understand the rental/property market, either in the range of options available to tenants or potential tenants, within their area and beyond it; and also in education, where the LEA consistently regarded anything outside the boundaries or their control as sufficiently alien as to be incomprehensible.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
That's not true. Railways generally have lots of competition.
At the moment, I'm working out of our Bradford office on secondment but for the last four years I've worked in Leeds and commuted by rail. It's not been a good service but it's tolerable - trains every half-hour going home and more during the rush hour on the way in (this has changed - I don't know how good the new timetable is).
I could, if I wanted to, get the bus. The 110 service goes from within 100m of my house direct to Leeds bus station but it'd take well over an hour, isn't that reliable and I'd have to share with a load of schoolkids. Or I could park and ride. Or I could drive to the city centre and park there. All of these are alternatives and on the four usual criteria of travel - cost, convenience, comfort and speed - rail works/ed best for me.
On longer services, air and coach travel compete at opposite ends of the market, as well as the car.
It's a fallacy that railways don't have competition but, I've found, not atypical of the public sector mindset which at times seems incapable of understanding the world outside their own little box. I've seen exactly the same thing in the social rented (ex-council house) sector, where managers failed to understand the rental/property market, either in the range of options available to tenants or potential tenants, within their area and beyond it; and also in education, where the LEA consistently regarded anything outside the boundaries or their control as sufficiently alien as to be incomprehensible.
Not sure it’s a public sector mindset, more a geography one. Good luck trying to drive into London from the outskirts - or get a bus.
Surely what we should be aiming for is the best possible service run for the benefit of those who use it. In some places that might mean publicly-owned, in others privately. Looking back to the 20th century for solutions to 21st century problems is silly.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
That's not true. Railways generally have lots of competition.
At the moment, I'm working out of our Bradford office on secondment but for the last four years I've worked in Leeds and commuted by rail. It's not been a good service but it's tolerable - trains every half-hour going home and more during the rush hour on the way in (this has changed - I don't know how good the new timetable is).
I could, if I wanted to, get the bus. The 110 service goes from within 100m of my house direct to Leeds bus station but it'd take well over an hour, isn't that reliable and I'd have to share with a load of schoolkids. Or I could park and ride. Or I could drive to the city centre and park there. All of these are alternatives and on the four usual criteria of travel - cost, convenience, comfort and speed - rail works/ed best for me.
On longer services, air and coach travel compete at opposite ends of the market, as well as the car.
It's a fallacy that railways don't have competition but, I've found, not atypical of the public sector mindset which at times seems incapable of understanding the world outside their own little box. I've seen exactly the same thing in the social rented (ex-council house) sector, where managers failed to understand the rental/property market, either in the range of options available to tenants or potential tenants, within their area and beyond it; and also in education, where the LEA consistently regarded anything outside the boundaries or their control as sufficiently alien as to be incomprehensible.
Depends who you are and where you're going. My daughter is a student and doesn't drive yet and to get from North Wales to Hampshire there really is only one economic option.
In education, where the LEA consistently regarded anything outside the boundaries or their control as sufficiently alien as to be incomprehensible.
Hi David
I'm surprised by that sentence.
What was it inside their official control/boundaries that they could comprehend instead? Because having worked in an LEA school I'm utterly astonished to learn that they understood anything.
(@tlg86 - is that sufficiently off-topic or do I have to make a Brexit reference?)
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
[snip]
That's simply not true. I linked the longterm figures in the article but to supply the link openly, it's here:
Passnger numbers were fairly steady immediately after WW2/nationalisation, running at just over 1bn/year through the 1950s and peaking at just over 1.1bn in 1957.
They then fell almost every year from 1957-82, whether the country was booming or in recession, bottoming out at 630m in 1982 (which was particularly low - 10% below the years either side; I don't know if that was particularly affected by strikes). This was of course the era of the growth of the motorways.
Passenger numbers then underwent a modest resurgence in the 1980s, peaking at 822m in 1988/9, before declining again to 735m in 1994/5 (the government, for reasons best known to itself switched from calendar years to financial years in 1985).
However, from that point on, numbers increased each and every year since, apart from a tiny drop in 2008/9, surpassing the 1980s peak in 1997/8, breaking back through 1bn for the first time in over forty years in 2003/4, and setting a new post-war record in 2006/7 - and then increasing by a further 50% in the following decade.
The notion that passenger numbers are related to economic growth is only true at the margins - it is one small factor. But it seems willfully blind to ignore the ownership / operational model change from BR to the privatised structures as playing a far greater role, given the scale and consistency of the increases, after decades of decline (bar the brief 1980s recovery), at the precise moment that privatisation was introduced.
Did the population change in the meantime ? People who needed to travel.
Railways have a massive amount of competition: from busses, coaches, planes, taxis and cars.
And since when did any MP lose their jobs over BR's sometimes appalling service? Can you name one MP who did?
The sad thing is that railways will never be at the forefront of the public's minds, and only at politicians' when they go wrong, as at the moment. The priority will always be education, health, defence etc.
Point 1 is simply blinkered - there are lots of people who have no realistic alternative to the train service. Tell someone commuting from Godalming to London that they can take a plane or a taxi! They could at a pinch go by road but it will take significantly longer.
[snip]
In the longer term, people make lifestyle choices around these things, in terms of where they live and work, and where businesses operate. If the transport involved becomes intolerable, people move, or change jobs.
The assumption has to be that someone who chooses to live in Godalming and work in London has factored in the rail service. (We are touching here on the ridiculous London housing market, which also needs sorting out if the transport market is to work properly in the South East).
Of course, that's of no consolation in the short run but then that's why there are other mechanisms to stop profiteering and taking customers for a ride.
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
[snip]
That's simply not true. I linked the longterm figures in the article but to supply the link openly, it's here:
Passnger numbers were fairly steady immediately after WW2/nationalisation, running at just over 1bn/year through the 1950s and peaking at just over 1.1bn in 1957.
They then fell almost every year from 1957-82, whether the country was booming or in recession, bottoming out at 630m in 1982 (which was particularly low - 10% below the years either side; I don't know if that was particularly affected by strikes). This was of course the era of the growth of the motorways.
Passenger numbers then underwent a modest resurgence in the 1980s, peaking at 822m in 1988/9, before declining again to 735m in 1994/5 (the government, for reasons best known to itself switched from calendar years to financial years in 1985).
However, from that point on, numbers increased each and every year since, apart from a tiny drop in 2008/9, surpassing the 1980s peak in 1997/8, breaking back through 1bn for the first time in over forty years in 2003/4, and setting a new post-war record in 2006/7 - and then increasing by a further 50% in the following decade.
The notion that passenger numbers are related to economic growth is only true at the margins - it is one small factor. But it seems willfully blind to ignore the ownership / operational model change from BR to the privatised structures as playing a far greater role, given the scale and consistency of the increases, after decades of decline (bar the brief 1980s recovery), at the precise moment that privatisation was introduced.
Did the population change in the meantime ? People who needed to travel.
Yes the population did increase from 1957-82 with people who needed to travel despite the perpetually decreasing rail travel until the Thatcherite reforms/privatisation.
In education, where the LEA consistently regarded anything outside the boundaries or their control as sufficiently alien as to be incomprehensible.
Hi David
I'm surprised by that sentence.
What was it inside their official control/boundaries that they could comprehend instead? Because having worked in an LEA school I'm utterly astonished to learn that they understood anything.
(@tlg86 - is that sufficiently off-topic or do I have to make a Brexit reference?)
I wouldn't go so far as to say that they actually understood education provision within their boundary but they did at least recognise that their own schools existed, and were very keen on planning for them, irrespective of the needs or preferences of kids, teachers, heads, governors, parents or councillors.
One map I recall showed the location of every LEA school (but no others) within their boundary, surrounded by a border of grey. They might as well have written 'here be monsters' (although "here be St Mary's" would have been more useful, bar the grammar), given the leakage of pupils over the border.
In the longer term, people make lifestyle choices around these things, in terms of where they live and work, and where businesses operate. If the transport involved becomes intolerable, people move, or change jobs.
The assumption has to be that someone who chooses to live in Godalming and work in London has factored in the rail service. (We are touching here on the ridiculous London housing market, which also needs sorting out if the transport market is to work properly in the South East).
Of course, that's of no consolation in the short run but then that's why there are other mechanisms to stop profiteering and taking customers for a ride.
I wonder if there isn't an ownership model that incentives the rail companies to provide better services and also cuts in councils and assorted local nimby busybodies.
Rail companies have traditionally often been in the real estate business. Apparently this is part of the success of the privatised Japanese companies, which work well and without subsidy, because rail service and development around stations are obviously very synergistic. So maybe instead of nationalizing, you make a for-profit company to run each franchize and also develop nearby land, and airdrop shares to - say - current season-ticket holders and councils, and anyone else who needs paying off to get construction under way. The commuters living in those areas don't have much choice of rail service provider, but new house buyers definitely have the option of living somewhere else, so if the rail provider drops the ball they devalue their real estate holdings.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
Perhaps we should do a swap. Let the German government run UK railways and we run theirs.
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
A swap would result is a more efficient and return orientated outcome. It’s a silly straw man though.
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Roads?
As with the railways, virtually everything that runs on the roads is private. it seems to work. (Not that there aren't problems with the state running the infrastructure but as with all semi-monopolies, you can never entirely get away from political or whim-decision making).
"As with the railways, virtually everything that runs on the roads is private"
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
The plane service from Leamington to London is shocking.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
Nope. Cars not viable on commute into city. Zero competition.
A well written piece as ever from Mr David Herdson, but one that sadly falls into the same trap of the ideological privateers at its core. There’s the classic correlation vs causation fallacy at its heart (rail growth is largely a function of economic growth and commuter patterns).
He fails to address three key questions.
1. Why can foreign states run our railways but not our own state? 2. Why is the busiest railway in Britain accepted in the public sector but the other railways are not? 3. If nationalisation is good enough for six of the last ten years on ECML and now again then why rule it out as a permanent solution?
And finally,
4. What is franchising for?
The answer to (1) has been posted on here many times before
There is an inherent conflict of interest between optimising the overall outcome on the railways* and maximising near term political outcomes. Politicians will, as a rule, tend to underinvest (spending on schools’n’hospitals instead), hold down fares, increase wages and not focus on returns.
Without taking a view on what the right points on the spectrum for each of those factors is, I hope you can appreciate that the politicians best outcome is not necessarily the best outcome for the railways.
Where a foreign government is the owner they are not subject to the political pressures (their voters are not directly affected) and therefore it can be run in order to optimise the outcome for the railways. That’s not to say it *will be* but it *can be*
* a blend between investment, fares, wages and returns
You could surely argue it the other way round just as easily: because foreign owners do not need to worry about commuters' votes, they will hike fares, under-invest and asset-strip the railways to maximise short-term profit.
Whether German or Dutch railways are significantly better or worse than our own is left as an exercise for the reader.
And if they do then they lose the franchise at renewal. Companies the s to prefer long term business models
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
The plane service from Leamington to London is shocking.
Before the M25 and M40 were built, a lot of people used to fly from Elmdon Airport (the old B'ham airport) to Heathrow or Gatwick, because it was considerably faster than driving along single-carriage roads, and the time spent at the airport was a lot less in those days.
At the moment, I'm working out of our Bradford office on secondment but for the last four years I've worked in Leeds and commuted by rail. It's not been a good service but it's tolerable - trains every half-hour going home and more during the rush hour on the way in (this has changed - I don't know how good the new timetable is).
I could, if I wanted to, get the bus. The 110 service goes from within 100m of my house direct to Leeds bus station but it'd take well over an hour, isn't that reliable and I'd have to share with a load of schoolkids. Or I could park and ride. Or I could drive to the city centre and park there. All of these are alternatives and on the four usual criteria of travel - cost, convenience, comfort and speed - rail works/ed best for me.
On longer services, air and coach travel compete at opposite ends of the market, as well as the car.
It's a fallacy that railways don't have competition but, I've found, not atypical of the public sector mindset which at times seems incapable of understanding the world outside their own little box. I've seen exactly the same thing in the social rented (ex-council house) sector, where managers failed to understand the rental/property market, either in the range of options available to tenants or potential tenants, within their area and beyond it; and also in education, where the LEA consistently regarded anything outside the boundaries or their control as sufficiently alien as to be incomprehensible.
Depends who you are and where you're going. My daughter is a student and doesn't drive yet and to get from North Wales to Hampshire there really is only one economic option.
There are of course lots of journeys which for a particular individual with particular circumstances and particular needs mean that rail is the only useful option. But then that'll also be true for busses, cars, coaches, aeroplanes and so on. We do need to give some protection to special circumstances but the main eye should be on the big picture.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
The plane service from Leamington to London is shocking.
I'm no expert on the railways but whilst the argument around competition is a well-worn one, more important to me is the issue of incentives. What is the incentive for the operators to run a good service? I remember someone putting it to me that the incentive was that if they didn't do a good job they would lose the franchise. My answer to which was so what? All the company needs to do is make a profit whilst the franchise is operating. Perhaps they have costs built in that assume the franchise being extended but what else? Obviously there are targets but we know how that's not necessarily a guarantee of quality.
It does enhance my belief in consumer-driven models but is that what we have?
I think there are two issues to get right for running the railways well.
1. Appropriate performances measures and rewards for all involved in running the railways. Bonuses based on share price for top managers is not a good measure. Neither is votes for politicians. We need a structure that is neither traditional nationalisation nor traditional private enterprise.
2. Adequate funding for long term investment. Short term franchises frustrate that. So does Government prioritisation in annual budgets.
It needs some energetic non-ideological creative thinking. Grayling can't do it. Perhaps Gove?
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
I think there are two issues to get right for running the railways well.
1. Appropriate performances measures and rewards for all involved in running the railways. Bonuses based on share price for top managers is not a good measure. Neither is votes for politicians. We need a structure that is neither traditional nationalisation nor traditional private enterprise.
2. Adequate funding for long term investment. Short term franchises frustrate that. So does Government prioritisation in annual budgets.
It needs some energetic non-ideological creative thinking. Grayling can't do it. Perhaps Gove?
On 2, I don't think that's true. A lot of new trains have been built recently.
What is more of a problem is renewing and upgrading the infrastructure. Until a couple of years ago NR was borrowing against the value of the network. Now it is nationalised, they are competing with schools and hospitals for money.
I haven't heard Labour talk about HS2 much, but I think they'd get a lot of support for cancelling HS2 and proposing to spend some of that money on the existing infrastructure.
In education, where the LEA consistently regarded anything outside the boundaries or their control as sufficiently alien as to be incomprehensible.
Hi David
I'm surprised by that sentence.
What was it inside their official control/boundaries that they could comprehend instead? Because having worked in an LEA school I'm utterly astonished to learn that they understood anything.
(@tlg86 - is that sufficiently off-topic or do I have to make a Brexit reference?)
I wouldn't go so far as to say that they actually understood education provision within their boundary but they did at least recognise that their own schools existed, and were very keen on planning for them, irrespective of the needs or preferences of kids, teachers, heads, governors, parents or councillors.
One map I recall showed the location of every LEA school (but no others) within their boundary, surrounded by a border of grey. They might as well have written 'here be monsters' (although "here be St Mary's" would have been more useful, bar the grammar), given the leakage of pupils over the border.
Sounds typical.
Although if they could draw accurate maps they were probably somewhat more intelligent than their counterparts in Bristol. They couldn't even find their arses with a map.
I think there are two issues to get right for running the railways well.
1. Appropriate performances measures and rewards for all involved in running the railways. Bonuses based on share price for top managers is not a good measure. Neither is votes for politicians. We need a structure that is neither traditional nationalisation nor traditional private enterprise.
2. Adequate funding for long term investment. Short term franchises frustrate that. So does Government prioritisation in annual budgets.
It needs some energetic non-ideological creative thinking. Grayling can't do it. Perhaps Gove?
On 2, I don't think that's true. A lot of new trains have been built recently.
What is more of a problem is renewing and upgrading the infrastructure. Until a couple of years ago NR was borrowing against the value of the network. Now it is nationalised, they are competing with schools and hospitals for money.
I haven't heard Labour talk about HS2 much, but I think they'd get a lot of support for cancelling HS2 and proposing to spend some of that money on the existing infrastructure.
On HS2 my understanding is we are reaching the limits of what can be done with the existing space available on current infrastructure. I’m sure there are ways to do it cheaper and better but fundamentally we need more (not just better) railways lines
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
And also against working from home, which is probably actually a more practical immediate substitute in a lot of cases.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
Nah, the difference is that competition works efficiently for supermarkets and up to a point for pharmacies (and usually what pharmacies sell don't form a major part of most people's budgets). In most places, railway services have no effective competition at all, while being essential for many users. The users of a nationalised railway have a recourse (complain to MPs and if necessary chuck them out). The users of a private raileway have no recourse whatsoever: they just to put up with it. That's why they get fed up.
Simply not true. Railways compete against cars and planes.
And also against working from home, which is probably actually a more practical immediate substitute in a lot of cases.
And against the internet generally for shopping, financial and entertainment purposes.
On a related note Sunday shopping with its free parking would have provided competition to railways as well.
Any gains there have been predicted to go to the LDs and SNP, up 3 MPs each, with the Tories down 4 and Labour and Plaid each down one.
That could still make Corbyn PM if the LDs vote for him rather than abstain and Sinn Fein take their seats and Corbyn also gets SNP, Plaid and Green support
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
I assume they'd both be PM and govern via consensus politics, which is about as realistic as a Green majority but in theory there's no reason why not. Our flexible constitution and all that, we could have two joint PMs in theory.
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
If the Greens won a majority, they could structure the government as they see fit - including joint-PMs. Obviously, it wouldn't work but it's not the purpose of the Green Party to put forward ideas that work.
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
There are of course lots of journeys which for a particular individual with particular circumstances and particular needs mean that rail is the only useful option. But then that'll also be true for busses, cars, coaches, aeroplanes and so on. We do need to give some protection to special circumstances but the main eye should be on the big picture.
I really don't agree - you're describing it as though it was a rather specialised case, like someone who has to eat turnips for their health. There are a LOT of people who simply can't continue their employment without train access. That's rarely true of other forms of transport, except for cars, and I'd accept that there's plenty of competition for providing cars. There is not, however, much competition in providing road space...which is why that is largely nationalised.
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
I assume they'd both be PM and govern via consensus politics, which is about as realistic as a Green majority but in theory there's no reason why not. Our flexible constitution and all that, we could have two joint PMs in theory.
They would of course have to pass a law first to enable that as our constitution only allows for one PM and also to enable sharing of 10 Downing Street and Chequers
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
If the Greens won a majority, they could structure the government as they see fit - including joint-PMs. Obviously, it wouldn't work but it's not the purpose of the Green Party to put forward ideas that work.
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
Not very likely to be a choice they have to make - but they could do it as a job share?
Having come across Sian Berry she really is an incredibly positive and upbeat person. Even if you aren't a Green it's hard not to like her. I think she will be a positive asset for them.
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
I’d appreciate a legal opinion on whether the commons actually has any real sway here. If the commons pass a motion requesting that the executive explore the idea of staying in the Customs union, surely the executive could say: we explored this, and it wasn’t possible?
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
I assume they'd both be PM and govern via consensus politics, which is about as realistic as a Green majority but in theory there's no reason why not. Our flexible constitution and all that, we could have two joint PMs in theory.
They would of course have to pass a law first to enable that as our constitution only allows for one PM and also to enable sharing of 10 Downing Street and Chequers
I don't think that's true about Nos 10 and 11, is it? Blair and Brown lived in the 'opposite' house for at least most of Blair's tenure. If it's like most government grace and favour apartments, they can be given at the government's discretion. I'd be very surprised if the joint PMs couldn't take the No 10 /11 apartments between them.
I think even your point about legislation might be circumventable. Most legislation will refer to 'the Secretary of State'. This isn't just shorthand for the relevant secretary of state, or to avoid embedding titles that change within legislation; in fact, any secretary of state can lawfully sign off any business relevant to any secretary of state. Obviously, for practical and political reasons, that doesn't often happen but it does on occasion, if something is urgent and the department's own SoS is unavailable. It may well be that having two prime ministers would legally operate in the same way.
There are of course lots of journeys which for a particular individual with particular circumstances and particular needs mean that rail is the only useful option. But then that'll also be true for busses, cars, coaches, aeroplanes and so on. We do need to give some protection to special circumstances but the main eye should be on the big picture.
I really don't agree - you're describing it as though it was a rather specialised case, like someone who has to eat turnips for their health. There are a LOT of people who simply can't continue their employment without train access. That's rarely true of other forms of transport, except for cars, and I'd accept that there's plenty of competition for providing cars. There is not, however, much competition in providing road space...which is why that is largely nationalised.
Yes, but then that's why there are franchise agreements, DfT regulations (too many to my mind but it's why they're there), the Rail Regulator and so on, all of which exist to try to minimise the risk that that customers are not abused. (And which did not exist under BR - in those days, you just got what you were given).
As long as both May and Corbyn remain committed to Brexit it is not over
Yes, because MPs always follow the Whip.
Most Tory MPs now back Brexit and most Labour MPs represent Leave voting seats
And government hasn't of course yet lost a meaningful Brexit related vote on substance - merely the meaningful vote defeat which was about process.
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
The biggest obstacle for May will be getting through leaving the Customs Union as Corbyn now effectively wants to stay in a Customs Union while he is still committed to leave the EU and Single Market
Of course the problem with the customs union is what exactly do the proponents mean. Is it 'the EU customs union as now', 'a customs union Turkey style where we can't negotiate our own trade deals but have the EUs trade deals imposed on us without us having a say' or the mythical 'Corbyn customs union where uniquely we can negotiate our own trade deals and not comply with many of the rules' or who knows what the Tory rebels want customs union or a customs partnership or a ten mile NI buffer zone or who knows what.
As we have seen from the debate it's not a simple answer
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
Co-leaders are all very nice in theory but if by some miracle the Greens won a majority at the next general election which one of them would become PM?
If the Greens won a majority, they could structure the government as they see fit - including joint-PMs. Obviously, it wouldn't work but it's not the purpose of the Green Party to put forward ideas that work.
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
Comments
You can see the problem. Each will run it to optimise their return and can't be kicked out in an election. Better that we run our railways and the Germans run theirs.
https://twitter.com/DavidChilds/status/1002804373662109696
Edited to add words so a sentence was formed...
Railways are not something that need to be subject to democratic control. Government should be about setting the ground rules abd national policy not necessarily about service provision.
As a straw man of my own: the logical outcome of your approach is that, say, pharmacies (delivery of health) should be under state ownership as should supermarkets (delivery of nutrition) since these are both fundamentally important to a modern society
https://twitter.com/hendopolis/status/1002835668656185344?s=21
Of course it is also possible that Corbyn could find himself PM without even leading the largest party as Sanchez in Spain and Ardern in New Zealand are
A particular problem with first class carriages is that while the extra space is useful for those of limited mobility, the carriages themselves tend to be at the end of trains incurring extra distance to actually board.
Now, I can't guarantee they'll do that, but it's the mood music, and it's what I'd do for an easy 'win'.
There is another issue here: franchises are difficult to run, far from guarantee profit, and can generate bad headlines for the franchisee. The government / DfT are already finding it difficult to persuade bids for some franchises, and it could be the franchising system falls down because they just cannot attract any.
That would be an *interesting* way for privatisation to end ...
In reality, of course, democratic control is a blunt instrument, since people vote for all sorts of funny reasons (I had a vote from someone who always voted for the tallest candidate). But that's an argument for more education for voters, or referendums, or if you like for abolishing democracy in the interest of an efficient railway (hello Benito).
And since when did any MP lose their jobs over BR's sometimes appalling service? Can you name one MP who did?
The sad thing is that railways will never be at the forefront of the public's minds, and only at politicians' when they go wrong, as at the moment. The priority will always be education, health, defence etc.
If you were proposing directly elected transport commissioners, I might be more tempted by your logic. Then there would be meaningful voter control.
2. Inertia. I suspect that a privatised tube would be looking at investing in many more automated systems but taking on the RMT is hard enough in the private sector; it's nigh-on impossible in the public.
3. It wasn't good enough. As I said in the article, Virgin returned as much to the taxpayer in three years as the nationalised East Coast did in five. And that's before you get to the quality issues like those Mortimer mentions (which are a classic of the service-cuts penny-pinching approach typical of nationalised 'services').
4. It keeps service suppliers on their toes and allows failures to be replaced.
The problem with franchises is that each line should have had at least two so you have more than 1 company to choose from and get say at least two separate trains from different companies every ten minutes, that way passengers choose the train company rather than just the government picking the franchise
"As with the railways, virtually everything that runs on the roads is private"
Not quite the same though is it?
Can I turn up at Paddington with my own train?
This can also explain Boris winning the mayoralty after the tube strikes.
It might even account for ge2017.
Major lost the 1997 election on 16th September 1992.
https://twitter.com/DrMatthewSweet/status/1002847557775777793
Whether German or Dutch railways are significantly better or worse than our own is left as an exercise for the reader.
Winning in 1992 was quite an achievement for Major, losing in 1997 inevitable and facing Blair just made it a huge landslide
Of course Major trailed in most of the polls in 1992 and Kinnock, like Corbyn, fully expected to become PM before the campaign at his second attempt, doing a deal with Ashdown's LDs if needed.
https://www.londonreconnections.com/2018/the-cicadas-take-flight-explaining-the-may-timetable-changes/
https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/displayreport/report/html/02136399-b0c5-4d91-a85e-c01f8a48e07e
Passnger numbers were fairly steady immediately after WW2/nationalisation, running at just over 1bn/year through the 1950s and peaking at just over 1.1bn in 1957.
They then fell almost every year from 1957-82, whether the country was booming or in recession, bottoming out at 630m in 1982 (which was particularly low - 10% below the years either side; I don't know if that was particularly affected by strikes). This was of course the era of the growth of the motorways.
Passenger numbers then underwent a modest resurgence in the 1980s, peaking at 822m in 1988/9, before declining again to 735m in 1994/5 (the government, for reasons best known to itself switched from calendar years to financial years in 1985).
However, from that point on, numbers increased each and every year since, apart from a tiny drop in 2008/9, surpassing the 1980s peak in 1997/8, breaking back through 1bn for the first time in over forty years in 2003/4, and setting a new post-war record in 2006/7 - and then increasing by a further 50% in the following decade.
The notion that passenger numbers are related to economic growth is only true at the margins - it is one small factor. But it seems willfully blind to ignore the ownership / operational model change from BR to the privatised structures as playing a far greater role, given the scale and consistency of the increases, after decades of decline (bar the brief 1980s recovery), at the precise moment that privatisation was introduced.
Your other point is, as I said earlier, a matter of democratic choice. If voters don't care as much about rail travel as they do about education, then it's right that public subsidies should go into education rather than railways, until such time as voter opinion changes.
Moreover, the question that we're discussing - whether the railway should be publicly owned or not - is also something that should be decided by popular choice. It appears that most people want public ownership, but we don't really know how strongly they want it. Let parties put it (or something else) into their manifestos and people will give it whatever weight they think appropriate.
At the moment, I'm working out of our Bradford office on secondment but for the last four years I've worked in Leeds and commuted by rail. It's not been a good service but it's tolerable - trains every half-hour going home and more during the rush hour on the way in (this has changed - I don't know how good the new timetable is).
I could, if I wanted to, get the bus. The 110 service goes from within 100m of my house direct to Leeds bus station but it'd take well over an hour, isn't that reliable and I'd have to share with a load of schoolkids. Or I could park and ride. Or I could drive to the city centre and park there. All of these are alternatives and on the four usual criteria of travel - cost, convenience, comfort and speed - rail works/ed best for me.
On longer services, air and coach travel compete at opposite ends of the market, as well as the car.
It's a fallacy that railways don't have competition but, I've found, not atypical of the public sector mindset which at times seems incapable of understanding the world outside their own little box. I've seen exactly the same thing in the social rented (ex-council house) sector, where managers failed to understand the rental/property market, either in the range of options available to tenants or potential tenants, within their area and beyond it; and also in education, where the LEA consistently regarded anything outside the boundaries or their control as sufficiently alien as to be incomprehensible.
Surely what we should be aiming for is the best possible service run for the benefit of those who use it. In some places that might mean publicly-owned, in others privately. Looking back to the 20th century for solutions to 21st century problems is silly.
I'm surprised by that sentence.
What was it inside their official control/boundaries that they could comprehend instead? Because having worked in an LEA school I'm utterly astonished to learn that they understood anything.
(@tlg86 - is that sufficiently off-topic or do I have to make a Brexit reference?)
The assumption has to be that someone who chooses to live in Godalming and work in London has factored in the rail service. (We are touching here on the ridiculous London housing market, which also needs sorting out if the transport market is to work properly in the South East).
Of course, that's of no consolation in the short run but then that's why there are other mechanisms to stop profiteering and taking customers for a ride.
One map I recall showed the location of every LEA school (but no others) within their boundary, surrounded by a border of grey. They might as well have written 'here be monsters' (although "here be St Mary's" would have been more useful, bar the grammar), given the leakage of pupils over the border.
Rail companies have traditionally often been in the real estate business. Apparently this is part of the success of the privatised Japanese companies, which work well and without subsidy, because rail service and development around stations are obviously very synergistic. So maybe instead of nationalizing, you make a for-profit company to run each franchize and also develop nearby land, and airdrop shares to - say - current season-ticket holders and councils, and anyone else who needs paying off to get construction under way. The commuters living in those areas don't have much choice of rail service provider, but new house buyers definitely have the option of living somewhere else, so if the rail provider drops the ball they devalue their real estate holdings.
It does enhance my belief in consumer-driven models but is that what we have?
1. Appropriate performances measures and rewards for all involved in running the railways. Bonuses based on share price for top managers is not a good measure. Neither is votes for politicians. We need a structure that is neither traditional nationalisation nor traditional private enterprise.
2. Adequate funding for long term investment. Short term franchises frustrate that. So does Government prioritisation in annual budgets.
It needs some energetic non-ideological creative thinking. Grayling can't do it. Perhaps Gove?
What is more of a problem is renewing and upgrading the infrastructure. Until a couple of years ago NR was borrowing against the value of the network. Now it is nationalised, they are competing with schools and hospitals for money.
I haven't heard Labour talk about HS2 much, but I think they'd get a lot of support for cancelling HS2 and proposing to spend some of that money on the existing infrastructure.
http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/homepage.html
Quelle surprise.
Although if they could draw accurate maps they were probably somewhat more intelligent than their counterparts in Bristol. They couldn't even find their arses with a map.
On a related note Sunday shopping with its free parking would have provided competition to railways as well.
That could still make Corbyn PM if the LDs vote for him rather than abstain and Sinn Fein take their seats and Corbyn also gets SNP, Plaid and Green support
Even allowing for the rebels the Tory whip seems to have been adhered to so far. We will wait to see how meaningful the actual meaningful vote will be!
Still nice of a pro remain 'friend' who has written a book saying Brexit won't happen to tweet Davis's thoughts so loudly. With friends like that....
Of more relevance, a Berry-Bartley leadership would be very London-centric and that will probably influence its campaigning issues, with them going on housing, austerity and stuff like Grenfell, and taking less time for, say, fracking. This is not going to increase their relevance.
Having come across Sian Berry she really is an incredibly positive and upbeat person. Even if you aren't a Green it's hard not to like her. I think she will be a positive asset for them.
I think even your point about legislation might be circumventable. Most legislation will refer to 'the Secretary of State'. This isn't just shorthand for the relevant secretary of state, or to avoid embedding titles that change within legislation; in fact, any secretary of state can lawfully sign off any business relevant to any secretary of state. Obviously, for practical and political reasons, that doesn't often happen but it does on occasion, if something is urgent and the department's own SoS is unavailable. It may well be that having two prime ministers would legally operate in the same way.
As we have seen from the debate it's not a simple answer
I quite like the quirky status of Busingen am Hochrein - a town of less than 1500 people which is in actually part of Germany but isn't in the EU customs union but in the Swiss customs union. Now if they can get a special deal why can't we?!!!!
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Büsingen_am_Hochrhein