The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
I remember BR. Not at all sure I'd want to go back to that. Maybe what older people are remembering is the more extensive railway network.
But it's really very hard to compare today's railways with the railways then in terms of nationalisation, because everything is so different. Except I think, perhaps, the railway is one place which is still well off for trades unions.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
One thing I’ll concede about railways is that the quality is very variable.
I live on the SWR Weymouth mainline. It’s frankly fantastic. Very regular service on clean and well run trains. And it returns a profit to the Treasury.
SWR was a pretty good service (as South West Trains) when I was using it regularly on the Exeter line up to Waterloo. But... the issue is lack of investment. There was no incentive for South West Trains to invest long term because of the lack of certainty about how long they would have the franchise for.
I did chuckle when I read First Group bemoaning the lack of drivers etc. that they inherited from Stagecoach. I'm sure they've never turned off the investment on a franchise they were going to lose...
Tories take note. ttps://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1044279082236747777?s=21
Indeed. It’s quite heartening to see how little support there actually is within Labour in general for the second referendum - as opposed to the small number of loud voices who have been getting disproportionate media coverage for the last couple of years.
Support for Remain in Labour ranks is very broad, but shallow.
Always worth remembering that Labour members gave Corbyn a second landslide victory in 2016, even after he'd explicitly said he would follow through on the Leave vote, against an opponent who made a second referendum one of the main parts of his platform.
I think for a majority of Labour members Brexit is not a priority issue either way. Not many would go to the wall for it either way, unlike the Tories or Lib Dems.
In that, they may well be closer to the Great British Public, bored of Brexit Brexit Brexit.
Tories take note. ttps://twitter.com/adambienkov/status/1044279082236747777?s=21
Indeed. It’s quite heartening to see how little support there actually is within Labour in general for the second referendum - as opposed to the small number of loud voices who have been getting disproportionate media coverage for the last couple of years.
I rather thought that decimating Labour and preventing the election of Corbyn might appeal to you...
I’d first like to see a sensible opposition who can hold the government to account and present themselves as a suitable alternative. Corbyn’s Labour really isn’t that party. Then I’d like to have a choice of who to vote for based on their campaigns and manifestos, rather than have only one party who even half appeals. I’m not particularly ideological, voted red in 2001 but was a Conservative member since the day Corbyn was elected (until a couple of weeks ago, didn’t renew as I fell off the electoral roll by accident).
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
.
In comment.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
The Beeching cuts were a misguided endeavour to make the railways more efficient and we based on a prime misconception; that people would drive to mainline railways stations, leave their cars there (where, often) and then take the train for long distance travel.
That’s my point. Nationalised industries are hopelessly poor at forecasting trends and planning for them accordingly. And, when they get it wrong, they find it very hard to change course, and usually don’t but just plough on regardless.
Before Beeching there was the lunacy of mass marshalling yards for wagons in the 1950s, and we were still building brand new steam engines in 1960!
If you want a 21st example, the first thing the Unions would do is put the kibosh on DOO-CCTV and digital railway operation, on the grounds it threatened jobs, thereby jacking up staffing costs and decreasing service reliability and frequency for years to come.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
" ... have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could at least theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services"
There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly the politicians were in charge of BR, and the politicians utterly mucked things up: it's only when railway managers were allowed to do their own thing with minimal political interference with sectorisation in the 1980s that the turnaround began.
The more important point is that, even though privatised, politicians interfere with the railways more than they ever have, perhaps including during the wars. TOCs do exactly what they are told, with little freedom to innovate. This is made worse by the massive amounts of investment put into enhancements on the network, which does require a lot of political control.
So with nationalisation, much will depend on how it is done. If they can find a way to divest control and decision-making down the organisation as far as possible to the freight user or passenger the better, with politicians just writing the cheques based on ideas coming up from the railways. Sadly, what we'll get is total control by politicians, with decisions like banning DOO operation being forced onto the railways.
If McDonnell gets in, the rational response is to get anything of value that isn’t tied down out of the country.
That will definitely be good for the NHS and other public services.
Are you scared my right-wing friend? LOL!
Look at what the sleazy Tories have done! The Brexit calamity, austerity punishing the poor and vulnerable while the rich get away dodging paying their share.
Look in the mirror, my right-wing friend and then you'll understand why Labour will win the next GE.
I don’t consider people who long for a government driven by envy and hatred of those who have the temerity to make something of themselves my friends.
Then again, you’ll get your comeuppance eventually when the people like SeanT, who probably pay more tax in a year than you’ll pay in a lifetime, take their talent and their money elsewhere. Good luck paying for the NHS then.
Do you know how much I earn? Stop being so presumptions you pea-brained right-wing moron!
I don’t, but it’s pretty unlikely it’s more than SeanT. Your posts are a timely reminder that bad manners and poor writing are no bar to earning good money. Well done!
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
" ... have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could at least theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services"
There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly the politicians were in charge of BR, and the politicians utterly mucked things up: it's only when railway managers were allowed to do their own thing with minimal political interference with sectorisation in the 1980s that the turnaround began.
The more important point is that, even though privatised, politicians interfere with the railways more than they ever have, perhaps including during the wars. TOCs do exactly what they are told, with little freedom to innovate. This is made worse by the massive amounts of investment put into enhancements on the network, which does require a lot of political control.
So with nationalisation, much will depend on how it is done. If they can find a way to divest control and decision-making down the organisation as far as possible to the freight user or passenger the better, with politicians just writing the cheques based on ideas coming up from the railways. Sadly, what we'll get is total control by politicians, with decisions like banning DOO operation being forced onto the railways.
From what I can tell, one problem with privatization has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often. There's a TSR on the down fast at Wimbledon at the moment. I don't know what the fault is, but it's hard for Network Rail to get access to the track to do the work to take the TSR off.
A few years ago NR did weekend possessions at Wimbledon which was a real pain for going up to London. Personally I think it would be better if they took possession of the line for a week or two and blitzed the work - a bit like the Waterloo possession last year.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it. They don't want their taxes to pay for the railways - that's for schools n hospitals. But they don't want to pay extortionate fares. And they certainly don't want rail replacement bus services.
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
" ... have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could at least theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services"
There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly the politicians were in charge of BR, and the politicians utterly mucked things up: it's only when railway managers were allowed to do their own thing with minimal political interference with sectorisation in the 1980s that the turnaround began.
The more important point is that, even though privatised, politicians interfere with the railways more than they ever have, perhaps including during the wars. TOCs do exactly what they are told, with little freedom to innovate. This is made worse by the massive amounts of investment put into enhancements on the network, which does require a lot of political control.
So with nationalisation, much will depend on how it is done. If they can find a way to divest control and decision-making down the organisation as far as possible to the freight user or passenger the better, with politicians just writing the cheques based on ideas coming up from the railways. Sadly, what we'll get is total control by politicians, with decisions like banning DOO operation being forced onto the railways.
Under McDonnell we’ll get the railways being entirely structured to service the interests of the RMT, not the passenger.
I remember British Rail. It was pretty grotty and run down, but pretty much the whole country was like that in the Seventies. It worked though, and was a hell of a lot cheaper.
If I need to go to a meeting in London it is £162 on an open return. That is ridiculous compared to continental fares or air travel. When I was a student it cost me a twentieth of that for a similar journey, albeit with a railcard.
From what I can tell, one problem with privatization has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often. There's a TSR on the down fast at Wimbledon at the moment. I don't know what the fault is, but it's hard for Network Rail to get access to the track to do the work to take the TSR off.
A few years ago NR did weekend possessions at Wimbledon which was a real pain for going up to London. Personally I think it would be better if they took possession of the line for a week or two and blitzed the work - a bit like the Waterloo possession last year.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it. They don't want their taxes to pay for the railways - that's for schools n hospitals. But they don't want to pay extortionate fares. And they certainly don't want rail replacement bus services.
Rail replacement bus services wouldn't be such a pain if they made adequate provision for luggage.
If McDonnell gets in, the rational response is to get anything of value that isn’t tied down out of the country.
That will definitely be good for the NHS and other public services.
Are you scared my right-wing friend? LOL!
Look at what the sleazy Tories have done! The Brexit calamity, austerity punishing the poor and vulnerable while the rich get away dodging paying their share.
Look in the mirror, my right-wing friend and then you'll understand why Labour will win the next GE.
I don’t consider people who long for a government driven by envy and hatred of those who have the temerity to make something of themselves my friends.
Then again, you’ll get your comeuppance eventually when the people like SeanT, who probably pay more tax in a year than you’ll pay in a lifetime, take their talent and their money elsewhere. Good luck paying for the NHS then.
Do you know how much I earn? Stop being so presumptions you pea-brained right-wing moron!
I don’t, but it’s pretty unlikely it’s more than SeanT. Your posts are a timely reminder that bad manners and poor writing are no bar to earning good money. Well done!
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
From what I can tell, one problem with privatization has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often. There's a TSR on the down fast at Wimbledon at the moment. I don't know what the fault is, but it's hard for Network Rail to get access to the track to do the work to take the TSR off.
A few years ago NR did weekend possessions at Wimbledon which was a real pain for going up to London. Personally I think it would be better if they took possession of the line for a week or two and blitzed the work - a bit like the Waterloo possession last year.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it. They don't want their taxes to pay for the railways - that's for schools n hospitals. But they don't want to pay extortionate fares. And they certainly don't want rail replacement bus services.
"has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often."
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
One thing I’ll concede about railways is that the quality is very variable.
I live on the SWR Weymouth mainline. It’s frankly fantastic. Very regular service on clean and well run trains. And it returns a profit to the Treasury.
I’d argue one of the problems with Network Rail is that it’s too big, bureaucratic, centralised and quasi-nationalised.
It’s good at operational possessions to fix and maintain the network. It’s pretty hopeless at managing and delivering new projects, or working innovatively to partner with the private sector.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
From what I can tell, one problem with privatization has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often. There's a TSR on the down fast at Wimbledon at the moment. I don't know what the fault is, but it's hard for Network Rail to get access to the track to do the work to take the TSR off.
A few years ago NR did weekend possessions at Wimbledon which was a real pain for going up to London. Personally I think it would be better if they took possession of the line for a week or two and blitzed the work - a bit like the Waterloo possession last year.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it. They don't want their taxes to pay for the railways - that's for schools n hospitals. But they don't want to pay extortionate fares. And they certainly don't want rail replacement bus services.
"has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often."
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
" ... have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could at least theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services"
There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly the politicians were in charge of BR, and the politicians utterly mucked things up: it's only when railway managers were allowed to do their own thing with minimal political interference with sectorisation in the 1980s that the turnaround began.
The more important point is that, even though privatised, politicians interfere with the railways more than they ever have, perhaps including during the wars. TOCs do exactly what they are told, with little freedom to innovate. This is made worse by the massive amounts of investment put into enhancements on the network, which does require a lot of political control.
So with nationalisation, much will depend on how it is done. If they can find a way to divest control and decision-making down the organisation as far as possible to the freight user or passenger the better, with politicians just writing the cheques based on ideas coming up from the railways. Sadly, what we'll get is total control by politicians, with decisions like banning DOO operation being forced onto the railways.
Under McDonnell we’ll get the railways being entirely structured to service the interests of the RMT, not the passenger.
Does that make you our Dagny Taggart, manfully struggling to keep the railway going delicate the best efforts of the looters?
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
" ... have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could at least theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services"
There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly the politicians were in charge of BR, and the politicians utterly mucked things up: it's only when railway managers were allowed to do their own thing with minimal political interference with sectorisation in the 1980s that the turnaround began.
The more important point is that, even though privatised, politicians interfere with the railways more than they ever have, perhaps including during the wars. TOCs do exactly what they are told, with little freedom to innovate. This is made worse by the massive amounts of investment put into enhancements on the network, which does require a lot of political control.
So with nationalisation, much will depend on how it is done. If they can find a way to divest control and decision-making down the organisation as far as possible to the freight user or passenger the better, with politicians just writing the cheques based on ideas coming up from the railways. Sadly, what we'll get is total control by politicians, with decisions like banning DOO operation being forced onto the railways.
Under McDonnell we’ll get the railways being entirely structured to service the interests of the RMT, not the passenger.
Under McDonnell we won't be able to afford donkey-carts, let alone railways. Just for one moment listen to what he's saying.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
You know, I've always been a bit in the dark about how that democratic control thing is supposed to work in practice, unless you actually get a regular, individual, and specific vote on the railways.
Because, as I see it, the thing about General Elections is you get one vote, and that vote is your say on an entire swathe of things which may or may not be related in direction. If I'm unhappy with how my railway is currently run, happy with the local school, would like to see more imagination in options for further education, want to see lower taxes on small corporations but more progressivity in income taxation, would like to keep Trident, yadda, yadda, yadda - how the hell do they extract more democratic preference with regards to railways from all that lot?
And even if they could theoretically do that, my choices would be basically stick or twist, right?
I think, in practice, they did find nationalised services to be subject to producer capture on the hen-and-pig-breakfast* principle: those who actually would base their votes on the status of one or other nationalised industry were primarily those who worked for it (for example, we can expect the managers of water companies to probably not be inclined to vote Labour next time, regardless of other manifesto pledges). Those who simply used the service would be more likely to base their votes on a whole bunch of things and not for that service to the exclusion of all others (for one thing, they use a bunch of services)
*The hen, who provides the egg, is involved. The pig, who provides the bacon, is committed.
Speaking as someone who does not remember British Rail, nationalisation doesn't hold much immediate fear because the service seems to be poor and is very very expensive. That is probably naiive or just plain wrong, but plenty of work is needed to convince people it is a bad idea.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
From what I can tell, one problem with privatization has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often. There's a TSR on the down fast at Wimbledon at the moment. I don't know what the fault is, but it's hard for Network Rail to get access to the track to do the work to take the TSR off.
A few years ago NR did weekend possessions at Wimbledon which was a real pain for going up to London. Personally I think it would be better if they took possession of the line for a week or two and blitzed the work - a bit like the Waterloo possession last year.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it. They don't want their taxes to pay for the railways - that's for schools n hospitals. But they don't want to pay extortionate fares. And they certainly don't want rail replacement bus services.
"has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often."
This isn't a problem.
It is if you're the infrastructure manager.
I imagine that a new infrastructure manager can be found.
The point though is of course that NR should facilitate whatever services the rail operators care to pay for. (I know it's not black-and-white)
From what I can tell, one problem with privatization has been the demand from the private train companies to run trains earlier, later and more often. There's a TSR on the down fast at Wimbledon at the moment. I don't know what the fault is, but it's hard for Network Rail to get access to the track to do the work to take the TSR off.
A few years ago NR did weekend possessions at Wimbledon which was a real pain for going up to London. Personally I think it would be better if they took possession of the line for a week or two and blitzed the work - a bit like the Waterloo possession last year.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it. They don't want their taxes to pay for the railways - that's for schools n hospitals. But they don't want to pay extortionate fares. And they certainly don't want rail replacement bus services.
I think that's far. But AIUI that's not quite the way it works. private train companies can 'demand' to run later and earlier trains, but they cannot run them without the DfT's permission. The DfT can choose to include such services in the specification for a bid, or the bidder can choose to add them as a differentiator in their bid: but then the DfT has to okay those services.
They run those services because the DfT want them to, and allow them to. It is the DfT who decide how Network Rail's maintenance and renewals requirements will fit in, along with the requirements (e.g. paths) for other operators. Network Rail has input into that process.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Genuine question - do EU rules prevent nationalisation of the railways? If so how does SNCF exist?
Speaking as someone who does not remember British Rail, nationalisation doesn't hold much immediate fear because the service seems to be poor and is very very expensive. That is probably naiive or just plain wrong, but plenty of work is needed to convince people it is a bad idea.
The thing is, not that many people use them regularly. Corbyn was actually on to something when brought up buses at PMQs. But a lot of (self) important people do use them regularly. That's why this subject gets a lot of media coverage.
I’d argue one of the problems with Network Rail is that it’s too big, bureaucratic, centralised and quasi-nationalised.
It’s good at operational possessions to fix and maintain the network. It’s pretty hopeless at managing and delivering new projects, or working innovatively to partner with the private sector.
Perhaps but one of the biggest scandals to me has been the former Eurostar terminal at Waterloo and its platforms which closed when St Pancras International opened and, despite many promises, has never been fully utilised.
The line taken by the former Eurostar trains was constructed specially to loop across south London from Orpington to Waterloo and could take the weight off London Bridge and Victoria and provide additional capacity in and out of London but for whatever reason (apart from one occasion during refurbishment works) no southern or southeastern trains have come into Waterloo main station.
The problem is as much chokepoints as capacity - there are under-utilised stretches of line even around London which could take more trains than currently but I suspect the issues are with signalling at key junctions.
Speaking as someone who does not remember British Rail, nationalisation doesn't hold much immediate fear because the service seems to be poor and is very very expensive. That is probably naiive or just plain wrong, but plenty of work is needed to convince people it is a bad idea.
How are you judging poor? We have far more frequent services today than Britain in the 70s or Europe today. The modern railway is also the safest in Europe, if not the world. It does however cost more.
The railway would work far better as a unified whole, whether in the public or private sector. It’s difficult to see how we get there.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Genuine question - do EU rules prevent nationalisation of the railways? If so how does SNCF exist?
As several franchises have been nationalised, presumably EU law permits it.
Speaking as someone who does not remember British Rail, nationalisation doesn't hold much immediate fear because the service seems to be poor and is very very expensive. That is probably naiive or just plain wrong, but plenty of work is needed to convince people it is a bad idea.
But there is no evidence to suggest that a BR replacement would be capable of delivering better service at a lower price.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Genuine question - do EU rules prevent nationalisation of the railways? If so how does SNCF exist?
I think perhaps that the EU barrier to much of Labour's nationalisation plans is not the existence of a nationalised railway/water industry/electricity provider per se, so much as how you get from one to the other. I don't think McDonnell is particularly keen to have to compensate the current shareholders for removing their ownership...
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
As far as I can see, the current railways system has all the disadvantages of British Rail, except we're paying even more for the privilege and have no way of forcing the service managers to change their ways (whereas, with nationalisation, with politicians effectively in charge, we could atleast theoretically use democratic pressure to force better services - we'll be "taking back control" of the railways, to coin a phrase ).
Also worth pointing out that most polls find that support for re-nationalisation is strongest with older people - i.e. the people who remember British Rail are more likely to think it compares favourably to today's system than people who have no memories of BR.
One thing I’ll concede about railways is that the quality is very variable.
I live on the SWR Weymouth mainline. It’s frankly fantastic. Very regular service on clean and well run trains. And it returns a profit to the Treasury.
I’d argue one of the problems with Network Rail is that it’s too big, bureaucratic, centralised and quasi-nationalised.
It’s good at operational possessions to fix and maintain the network. It’s pretty hopeless at managing and delivering new projects, or working innovatively to partner with the private sector.
Network Rail has three man areas of work: maintenance (keeping the existing network going), renewals (renewing life-expired parts of the existing network) and enhancements (adding new goodies).
They've been poor at enhancements for some time. Unfortunately in the last few years they've also been failing at the bread-and-butter maintenance and renewals work, particularly during CP5. This is fairly unforgivable as few of the excuses for why enhancements are difficult apply.
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Sir John/Baron Simon appears to beat Brown.
I'm assuming that's 1931 to 1945. But for the last five years, as Lord Chancellor, he wasn't in the cabinet. I think he was the only Lord Chancellor of modern times to be so sidelined.
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Sir John/Baron Simon appears to beat Brown.
I'm assuming that's 1931 to 1945. But for the last five years, as Lord Chancellor, he wasn't in the cabinet. I think he was the only Lord Chancellor of modern times to be so sidelined.
That's impressive research.
EDIT: although was he not in the Cabinet, just not in the War Cabinet?
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Sir John/Baron Simon appears to beat Brown.
I'm assuming that's 1931 to 1945. But for the last five years, as Lord Chancellor, he wasn't in the cabinet. I think he was the only Lord Chancellor of modern times to be so sidelined.
That's impressive research.
It was due to the fact that in the Second World War the War Cabinet replaced the regular cabinet. So if you were not in the War Cabinet, you were not in the Cabinet. At various times even the Chancellor of the Exchequer wasn't in it, as Churchill seems to have picked personalities rather than precise roles (and he had for many years cordially detested Simon). In the First World War the wider cabinet still met at times, but not under Churchill.
Therefore I suppose Simon technically returned to the cabinet when it was reconstituted as a full Cabinet for the 'Caretaker' government of 1945, but that only lasted a few weeks.
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Attlee? Was he not in the cabinet for a couple of years under Ramsey MacDonald and then in the cabinet in various roles 1940-1951. I am not sure how long he was in the cabinet under MacDonald but he must be close to 13 years
I remember British Rail. It was pretty grotty and run down, but pretty much the whole country was like that in the Seventies. It worked though, and was a hell of a lot cheaper.
If I need to go to a meeting in London it is £162 on an open return. That is ridiculous compared to continental fares or air travel. When I was a student it cost me a twentieth of that for a similar journey, albeit with a railcard.
People say that on rail prices here all the time but peak time returns from Frankfurt to Cologne or Munich are similar prices to EMT.
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Attlee? Was he not in the cabinet for a couple of years under Ramsey MacDonald and then in the cabinet in various roles 1940-1951. I am not sure how long he was in the cabinet under MacDonald but he must be close to 13 years
Attlee was in office from 1930-31 as I think Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but there is some doubt as to whether the office he held was actually in the cabinet at the time. Informed opinion seems to come down on the side of 'no.' He was then in office from May 1940 to May 1945, and again from July 1945 to October 1951.
Speaking as someone who does not remember British Rail, nationalisation doesn't hold much immediate fear because the service seems to be poor and is very very expensive. That is probably naiive or just plain wrong, but plenty of work is needed to convince people it is a bad idea.
The thing is, not that many people use them regularly. Corbyn was actually on to something when brought up buses at PMQs. But a lot of (self) important people do use them regularly. That's why this subject gets a lot of media coverage.
Look at the coverage of the problems on Southern rail as a great example. Lots of TV people, actors and comedians live in Brighton and work in London.
The framework is just as much determined by the EU’s red lines, and the political imperative of discouraging others from going down the same path.
Is the EU refusing a Brexit based on the full SM/CU?
Full SM/CU is not Brexit.
It is for Norway, etc
Edit: and of course this is the most corrosive thing the Brexiters have done to our country. Peddled the myth that EEA/EFTA is somehow not in keeping with the vote in 2016 which is of course absolute bolleaux and won't that invented idea well and truly f&ck the country.
EEA countries are not in the Customs Union.
The Tory party has committed to end free movement from the EU. So it isn't consistent with government policy to remain in the SM.
Yes I appreciate that EEA countries are not in the CU. And it is entirely my point that the Tory Party decided that the vote meant that "the people" don't want FoM. Now of course many don't but so what? Brexit was always going to disappoint many people so I don't see why the fuckers decided that freedom of movement should be so important.
Indeed so. This is the arse-wipe nonsense at the core of the entire Brexit conundrum. Basically Mortimer – a bloke on the internet – HYUFD – another bloke on the internet – and some reactionaries in the Tory party have decided that ending the free movement of furinners is some sort of incontrovertible golden principle. It is toilet of the lowest order.
The Tories have made a judgement that ending free movement is in the interest of Britain. Much to the distaste of other blokes on the internet, it is quite popular.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Genuine question - do EU rules prevent nationalisation of the railways? If so how does SNCF exist?
No, but there is meant to be open access and limits on subsidies. I suspect the former would be particularly unpalatable.
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The widespread passion amongst the public for the return of those heady days of British Rail - Beeching cuts, clapped out rolling stock, regular national strikes, poor services and grotty unkempt stations - is one of the most bizarre political phenomena in town at the moment.
It's almost as if the massive increase in public funding to the railways combined with exorbitant fare hikes doubly whammy that occured with privatisation left some kind of mark on people.
Genuine question - do EU rules prevent nationalisation of the railways? If so how does SNCF exist?
From memory: the EU's First Railway Directive from the early 1990s forced countries to split the infrastructure from the operations and allow open-access operations. This was to solve a real problem that afflicted Europe, where (say) DB was not keen to allow the SNCF to run trains over its rails, and vice versa. This was a significant barrier to cross-Europe travel, and also prevented competition.
So whilst the directive prevents full vertical integration under one owner, it does allow a split infrastructure owner and operations company to be state-owned: just as long as the former does not favour the latter over other operators.
We chose to go the whole hog and make both the operators and infrastructure owners private. This directive prevents reinstatement of a vertically-integrated BR; it does not prevent the operators being state-owned. It will prevent the government from preventing other bidders from bidding for operations, however, and stop them killing Open Access operations.
In the case of France, the SNCF run the services, whilst RFF and SNCF Infra run the infrastructure. I think it's fair to say they're only paying lip service to the rules ...
There have been several other EU raiil directives, but they're incredibly boring (i.e. I cannot remember them...)
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Attlee? Was he not in the cabinet for a couple of years under Ramsey MacDonald and then in the cabinet in various roles 1940-1951. I am not sure how long he was in the cabinet under MacDonald but he must be close to 13 years
Attlee was in office from 1930-31 as I think Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster but there is some doubt as to whether the office he held was actually in the cabinet at the time. Informed opinion seems to come down on the side of 'no.' He was then in office from May 1940 to May 1945, and again from July 1945 to October 1951.
He was also Post Master General from March 31 to August 31 which I believe was a Cabinet level post at the time.
Speaking as someone who does not remember British Rail, nationalisation doesn't hold much immediate fear because the service seems to be poor and is very very expensive. That is probably naiive or just plain wrong, but plenty of work is needed to convince people it is a bad idea.
But there is no evidence to suggest that a BR replacement would be capable of delivering better service at a lower price.
No, but people need to be persuaded of that. What they know is the service is adequate at best and extremely expensive, of course alternatives look reasonable.
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Genuine question - do EU rules prevent nationalisation of the railways? If so how does SNCF exist?
I think perhaps that the EU barrier to much of Labour's nationalisation plans is not the existence of a nationalised railway/water industry/electricity provider per se, so much as how you get from one to the other. I don't think McDonnell is particularly keen to have to compensate the current shareholders for removing their ownership...
Compensation is more likely to be an issue under the ECHR, which Labour are not proposing to leave. (Not yet anyway.)
The relevant EU rules relate to state aid.
The laws affecting this issue are complicated. Depending on what McDonnell wants to do and how he may be constrained. Or he could find himself involved in legal action. Either way it risks not creating an environment conducive to business or wealth creation. And it can end up adversely affecting the pensions of many millions of employees. But since the effects are not immediately obvious they are easy to overlook.
Of course, one of the ironies is that if he starts sacking bosses in the way that he says, they will be able to sue using the employment legislation McDonnell is so in favour of. So shareholders may end up with no compensation but the fatcat bosses will. Excellent use of public money there Mr McD!
He was also Post Master General from March 31 to August 31 which I believe was a Cabinet level post at the time.
It could be, but it didn't have to be. Likewise Paymaster General.
The point is of course that until arguably the 1950s the Cabinet was who the Prime Minister said it was. An office could be in or out of cabinet therefore according to the whims of the then premier - for example, in 1923 the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was in the Cabinet, from 1924 to 1927 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was, and in 1914 the Attorney General was a full member of the Cabinet (I was thinking of him because he was that same Sir John Simon, who as a result along with Churchill was one of two cabinet ministers present when both the First and Second World Wars were declared).
That was helpfully flexible in wartime, of course, but it does lead to some confusion in what were or were not peacetime appointments!
John Mann was waxing in in Parliament the other day saying how many of his constituents had voted Brexit so the railways could be renationalised. Renationalising the railways is a very popular idea. I assume you will be supporting its implementation on the same basis.
Genuine question - do EU rules prevent nationalisation of the railways? If so how does SNCF exist?
I think perhaps that the EU barrier to much of Labour's nationalisation plans is not the existence of a nationalised railway/water industry/electricity provider per se, so much as how you get from one to the other. I don't think McDonnell is particularly keen to have to compensate the current shareholders for removing their ownership...
Compensation is more likely to be an issue under the ECHR, which Labour are not proposing to leave. (Not yet anyway.)
The relevant EU rules relate to state aid.
The laws affecting this issue are complicated. Depending on what McDonnell wants to do and how he may be constrained. Or he could find himself involved in legal action. Either way it risks not creating an environment conducive to business or wealth creation. And it can end up adversely affecting the pensions of many millions of employees. But since the effects are not immediately obvious they are easy to overlook.
Of course, one of the ironies is that if he starts sacking bosses in the way that he says, they will be able to sue using the employment legislation McDonnell is so in favour of. So shareholders may end up with no compensation but the fatcat bosses will. Excellent use of public money there Mr McD!
Importantly. The new business will have to ‘wash it’s own face’. He might find there’s a fine line between profit and loss.
Genuine question - do EU rules prevent nationalisation of the railways? If so how does SNCF exist?
From memory: the EU's First Railway Directive from the early 1990s forced countries to split the infrastructure from the operations and allow open-access operations. This was to solve a real problem that afflicted Europe, where (say) DB was not keen to allow the SNCF to run trains over its rails, and vice versa. This was a significant barrier to cross-Europe travel, and also prevented competition.
So whilst the directive prevents full vertical integration under one owner, it does allow a split infrastructure owner and operations company to be state-owned: just as long as the former does not favour the latter over other operators.
We chose to go the whole hog and make both the operators and infrastructure owners private. This directive prevents reinstatement of a vertically-integrated BR; it does not prevent the operators being state-owned. It will prevent the government from preventing other bidders from bidding for operations, however, and stop them killing Open Access operations.
In the case of France, the SNCF run the services, whilst RFF and SNCF Infra run the infrastructure. I think it's fair to say they're only paying lip service to the rules ...
There have been several other EU raiil directives, but they're incredibly boring (i.e. I cannot remember them...)
Thanks, PB is an education on PB as always.
Sunil will probably run an advanced class on European railway ownership regs later this evening
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The London bus service is expensive? Not for those who use it!
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
TfL is facing very severe monetary problems, and the delay to Crossrail won't be helping as they'll miss millions in revenue.
Somewhat amusingly, the nationalised TfL is bidding on a $3.5 billion contract to run services in Buenos Aires.
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I did the same trip both ways 2 years ago, and my experience was much like yours.
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The London bus service is expensive? Not for those who use it!
Compared with similar cities abroad public transport in London is expensive. IIRC even New York is cheaper. But the service in London is excellent - and that was not always the case, it has improved tremendously in the last 10-15 years.
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
He was also Post Master General from March 31 to August 31 which I believe was a Cabinet level post at the time.
It could be, but it didn't have to be. Likewise Paymaster General.
The point is of course that until arguably the 1950s the Cabinet was who the Prime Minister said it was. An office could be in or out of cabinet therefore according to the whims of the then premier - for example, in 1923 the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was in the Cabinet, from 1924 to 1927 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was, and in 1914 the Attorney General was a full member of the Cabinet (I was thinking of him because he was that same Sir John Simon, who as a result along with Churchill was one of two cabinet ministers present when both the First and Second World Wars were declared).
That was helpfully flexible in wartime, of course, but it does lead to some confusion in what were or were not peacetime appointments!
PMs still have a fair bit of discretion when it comes to including or excluding a particular post from Cabinet membership.The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Paymaster General are sometimes included - as is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The London bus service is expensive? Not for those who use it!
Compared with similar cities abroad public transport in London is expensive. IIRC even New York is cheaper. But the service in London is excellent - and that was not always the case, it has improved tremendously in the last 10-15 years.
Are you sure? (buses - not talking about underground etc).
Just googled Paris, Berlin, New York and all look more expensive to me?
He was also Post Master General from March 31 to August 31 which I believe was a Cabinet level post at the time.
It could be, but it didn't have to be. Likewise Paymaster General.
The point is of course that until arguably the 1950s the Cabinet was who the Prime Minister said it was. An office could be in or out of cabinet therefore according to the whims of the then premier - for example, in 1923 the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was in the Cabinet, from 1924 to 1927 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was, and in 1914 the Attorney General was a full member of the Cabinet (I was thinking of him because he was that same Sir John Simon, who as a result along with Churchill was one of two cabinet ministers present when both the First and Second World Wars were declared).
That was helpfully flexible in wartime, of course, but it does lead to some confusion in what were or were not peacetime appointments!
PMs still have a fair bit of discretion when it comes to including or excluding a particular post from Cabinet membership.The Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and Paymaster General are sometimes included - as is the Chief Secretary to the Treasury.
True, as is minister without portfolio. Minister of Housing is another one that seems to fade in and out. Didn't Geoff Hoon get shafted over Leader of the House as well at one time?
However there seem to be roughly 20 offices that are generally accepted to be Cabinet rank now whoever is holding them. That is a fairly significant change.
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Personally I think that privatised railways are by far the better option. I saw nothing like my French experience on the British railways when I was young. Others suggest that BR was good, but really I find that almost irreconcilable with my own experience. To say though that nationalised rail can't deliver is a very different thing.
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Personally I think that privatised railways are by far the better option. I saw nothing like my French experience on the British railways when I was young. Others suggest that BR was good, but really I find that almost irreconcilable with my own experience. To say though that nationalised rail can't deliver is a very different thing.
Didn't it vary quite a lot based on where you lived and what you travelled on? Local trains in Gloucestershire and the South Wales Valleys were invariably dire. Expresses to Scotland rather less so. Some of my most cherished childhood memories are of Intercity train rides to Darlington and Scotland.
I was travelling on some old Mark II stock from the 1980s a few weeks ago. I have to say in terms of comfort, space and ride it's light years ahead of modern rolling stock, even if it does have slam doors.
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The London bus service is expensive? Not for those who use it!
Compared with similar cities abroad public transport in London is expensive. IIRC even New York is cheaper. But the service in London is excellent - and that was not always the case, it has improved tremendously in the last 10-15 years.
Are you sure? (buses - not talking about underground etc).
Just googled Paris, Berlin, New York and all look more expensive to me?
Happy to stand corrected - if london is also cheaper then it's an even better service than I thought!
Speaking as someone who does not remember British Rail, nationalisation doesn't hold much immediate fear because the service seems to be poor and is very very expensive. That is probably naiive or just plain wrong, but plenty of work is needed to convince people it is a bad idea.
But there is no evidence to suggest that a BR replacement would be capable of delivering better service at a lower price.
It's very simple. Run BR like the NHS, chuck it full of public money and it will serve commuters fine; or, run it like a business, and get what we have now. Nationalisation can't create something from nothing.
If McDonnell gets in, the rational response is to get anything of value that isn’t tied down out of the country.
That will definitely be good for the NHS and other public services.
Are you scared my right-wing friend? LOL!
Look at what the sleazy Tories have done! The Brexit calamity, austerity punishing the poor and vulnerable while the rich get away dodging paying their share.
Look in the mirror, my right-wing friend and then you'll understand why Labour will win the next GE.
I don’t consider people who long for a government driven by envy and hatred of those who have the temerity to make something of themselves my friends.
Then again, you’ll get your comeuppance eventually when the people like SeanT, who probably pay more tax in a year than you’ll pay in a lifetime, take their talent and their money elsewhere. Good luck paying for the NHS then.
Do you know how much I earn? Stop being so presumptions you pea-brained right-wing moron!
I don’t, but it’s pretty unlikely it’s more than SeanT. Your posts are a timely reminder that bad manners and poor writing are no bar to earning good money. Well done!
Who's the one with bad manners? You are the one who made an assertion about my income. I responded by calling you a moron for which I apologise but you probably need to reflect on what you said too.
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Personally I think that privatised railways are by far the better option. I saw nothing like my French experience on the British railways when I was young. Others suggest that BR was good, but really I find that almost irreconcilable with my own experience. To say though that nationalised rail can't deliver is a very different thing.
Didn't it vary quite a lot based on where you lived and what you travelled on? Local trains in Gloucestershire and the South Wales Valleys were invariably dire. Expresses to Scotland rather less so. Some of my most cherished childhood memories are of Intercity train rides to Darlington and Scotland.
I was travelling on some old Mark II stock from the 1980s a few weeks ago. I have to say in terms of comfort, space and ride it's light years ahead of modern rolling stock, even if it does have slam doors.
All modern trains I have been on work a lot better for me, with power sockets and wifi (well, some at least...)
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Personally I think that privatised railways are by far the better option. I saw nothing like my French experience on the British railways when I was young. Others suggest that BR was good, but really I find that almost irreconcilable with my own experience. To say though that nationalised rail can't deliver is a very different thing.
Didn't it vary quite a lot based on where you lived and what you travelled on? Local trains in Gloucestershire and the South Wales Valleys were invariably dire. Expresses to Scotland rather less so. Some of my most cherished childhood memories are of Intercity train rides to Darlington and Scotland.
I was travelling on some old Mark II stock from the 1980s a few weeks ago. I have to say in terms of comfort, space and ride it's light years ahead of modern rolling stock, even if it does have slam doors.
All modern trains I have been on work a lot better for me, with power sockets and wifi (well, some at least...)
These ones had sockets. Wifi was advertised, but I didn't test it as I was far too busy taking photos.
@SeanT - just wondered if you have already been to Sri Lanka on your paid-for journalistic travails? I vaguely remember you mentioning it a while ago...
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The London bus service is expensive? Not for those who use it!
Compared with similar cities abroad public transport in London is expensive. IIRC even New York is cheaper. But the service in London is excellent - and that was not always the case, it has improved tremendously in the last 10-15 years.
Are you sure? (buses - not talking about underground etc).
Just googled Paris, Berlin, New York and all look more expensive to me?
Happy to stand corrected - if london is also cheaper then it's an even better service than I thought!
I have never, ever, driven a car in London, and I can't understand why anyone would. If I lived there, I would sell both my cars and just use the tube. Cheaper, quicker and much less stressful.
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Personally I think that privatised railways are by far the better option. I saw nothing like my French experience on the British railways when I was young. Others suggest that BR was good, but really I find that almost irreconcilable with my own experience. To say though that nationalised rail can't deliver is a very different thing.
You can look at any sitcom or light entertainment shown from the 70s on youtube (if you have nothing better to do, of course).
It is remarkable how often BR is the butt of jokes.
I suspect that it is a good guide to how low BR was held in the national regard.
The cosy memory of elderly socialists that all was well with the railways when they were nationalised is false.
@SeanT - just wondered if you have already been to Sri Lanka on your paid-for journalistic travails? I vaguely remember you mentioning it a while ago...
(Might have a few tips for you!)
For the first tip - do not try to captain the Sri Lankan cricket team!
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Personally I think that privatised railways are by far the better option. I saw nothing like my French experience on the British railways when I was young. Others suggest that BR was good, but really I find that almost irreconcilable with my own experience. To say though that nationalised rail can't deliver is a very different thing.
Didn't it vary quite a lot based on where you lived and what you travelled on? Local trains in Gloucestershire were invariably dire. Expresses to Scotland rather less so. Some of my most cherished childhood memories are of Intercity train rides to Darlington and Scotland.
I was travelling on some old Mark II stock from the 1980s a few weeks ago. I have to say in terms of comfort, space and ride it's light years ahead of modern rolling stock, even if it does have slam doors.
My experience was unvaryingly poor. (That'd be N. London regional rail, and inter-city (or whatever it was then) out of London).
It dipped substantially below poor regularly. The service to Cambridge was appalling - people used to get stranded in Royston so frequently I wondered if there was some agreement between the railway company and the local hotels.
The services out along to Oxford were no better - standing on a platform you wondered if you needed your tent. Back into London it was worse. I was stranded on Reading station because I'd had the wild expectation that they might run one of the two timetabled trains after 9pm.
I do like the old rolling-stock though - compartments and luggage racks. The stations with tea-rooms and porters There was that Dad's Army episode around that wasn't there... I think they made it into a film called Brief Encounter.
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Personally I think that privatised railways are by far the better option. I saw nothing like my French experience on the British railways when I was young. Others suggest that BR was good, but really I find that almost irreconcilable with my own experience. To say though that nationalised rail can't deliver is a very different thing.
You can look at any sitcom or light entertainment shown from the 70s on youtube (if you have nothing better to do, of course).
It is remarkable how often BR is the butt of jokes.
I suspect that it is a good guide to how low BR was held in the national regard.
The cosy memory of elderly socialists that all was well with the railways when they were nationalised is false.
The truth in the pudding is how few people actually used BR compared to the TOCs.
"It’s just repressed pro-European sentiment. People envy Deutsche Bahn and SNCF. "
****
I don't know anything about their financing, or debt, or whatever, but SNCF are great if you want to go by TGV from Paris to any major city in France. It's a big country and these superfast trains are a huge boon
Step off the TGV on to the badly maintained rural/provincial network and it is almost certainly worse than the UK equivalent.
The best run railway in the UK, from my personal experience, is the Chiltern rail line, owned by Arriva. Gleaming new trains, always on time, nice stations, clever Apps etc.
That said, Arriva are ultimately owned by Deutsche Bahn.....
You do French regional rail a disservice. Sometimes at least it can be great. I did a couple of journeys last year back and forth from Toulouse to the Pau area - can't recall the name of the stop. The staff were simply outstanding - not interacting with me, but with others, and overall I thought it was an exceptional example of what state control can deliver at its best.
I have also had excellent services on the privatised UK railways. And admittedly some poor ones.
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Personally I think that privatised railways are by far the better option. I saw nothing like my French experience on the British railways when I was young. Others suggest that BR was good, but really I find that almost irreconcilable with my own experience. To say though that nationalised rail can't deliver is a very different thing.
You can look at any sitcom or light entertainment shown from the 70s on youtube (if you have nothing better to do, of course).
It is remarkable how often BR is the butt of jokes.
I suspect that it is a good guide to how low BR was held in the national regard.
The cosy memory of elderly socialists that all was well with the railways when they were nationalised is false.
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The London bus service is expensive? Not for those who use it!
Compared with similar cities abroad public transport in London is expensive. IIRC even New York is cheaper. But the service in London is excellent - and that was not always the case, it has improved tremendously in the last 10-15 years.
Are you sure? (buses - not talking about underground etc).
Just googled Paris, Berlin, New York and all look more expensive to me?
Happy to stand corrected - if london is also cheaper then it's an even better service than I thought!
I have never, ever, driven a car in London, and I can't understand why anyone would. If I lived there, I would sell both my cars and just use the tube. Cheaper, quicker and much less stressful.
Quite. And the fact the TfL is a nationalised body shows that the idea that any publicly run service must automatically be worse than a private one is ideologically-driven b*llocks.
On the US elections, I found this interesting, suggesting that Democrat activists are super-motivated. They should do rather better than usual at getting out the vote:
Keir Starmer: second Brexit vote could contain remain option
Did he ask jezza and McDonnell before he said that?
Sky reported just now that they had attended a focus group of six labour mps and they could not agree even amongst the six of them
Of course remain is impossible for Corbyn/McDonnell's dinosaur economic proposals so we know the remainers (second referendum) are being played like a fish on the end the hook
See link for BBC article re McDonnell's plans and in particular Simon Jack's analysis near the bottom.
Surely there's a problem with Jack's analysis - Shell is a multinational company operating worldwide - McDonnell can't get his hands on operations outside UK.
Surely UK employees will be employed by UK subsidiary and McDonnell will only be able to get his hands on (10%) of the UK subsidiary's shares.
Ditto across the whole economy - UK subsidiaries of overseas parents won't even be listed.
More likely Shell will set up several subsidiary companies in the U.K. - none of whom will employ the required 250 staff. John McDonnell doesn’t have a clue how businesses work in the real world outside of his Marxist textbooks.
Oh sure - though I imagine he'll probably try some anti-avoidance measures so that companies under the same ownership are grouped together for the purposes of what he's doing.
It's also bound to lead to a massive increase in outsourcing.
Don't doubt that outsourcing will be curbed as well, it's a major problem with so many on zero hours contracts being involved. When employment starts to get competitive as immigration will not be allowed to take up any slack, then the option of going on zero hours means that employers will have to pay full time to retain staff. And when you get down to the figures, it really does not make financial sense for companies. Just like off-shoring, a fad that collapses like a house of cards when pressure is applied. (Staff in India, qualified and trained up, find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, leaving their old jobs filled by second or third choice staff who need trained and qualified - who find new, better paid jobs quite quickly, repeat. And yes, a company I worked for disposed of the entire UK IT dept and off shored to India. Last I heard they had to bring the work back onshore.)
Ask British Airways what happens when you outsource your IT department to Tata in India.
They'll send it to Tata so their employees have no steak in it?
@SeanT - just wondered if you have already been to Sri Lanka on your paid-for journalistic travails? I vaguely remember you mentioning it a while ago...
(Might have a few tips for you!)
For the first tip - do not try to captain the Sri Lankan cricket team!
@SeanT - just wondered if you have already been to Sri Lanka on your paid-for journalistic travails? I vaguely remember you mentioning it a while ago...
(Might have a few tips for you!)
For the first tip - do not try to captain the Sri Lankan cricket team!
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The London bus service is expensive? Not for those who use it!
Compared with similar cities abroad public transport in London is expensive. IIRC even New York is cheaper. But the service in London is excellent - and that was not always the case, it has improved tremendously in the last 10-15 years.
Are you sure? (buses - not talking about underground etc).
Just googled Paris, Berlin, New York and all look more expensive to me?
Happy to stand corrected - if london is also cheaper then it's an even better service than I thought!
I have never, ever, driven a car in London, and I can't understand why anyone would. If I lived there, I would sell both my cars and just use the tube. Cheaper, quicker and much less stressful.
Quite. And the fact the TfL is a nationalised body shows that the idea that any publicly run service must automatically be worse than a private one is ideologically-driven b*llocks.
Indeed. Services run by TfL are much better than the shoddy services run by these private Train companies in the London area.
Things have to and will change viz-a-viz the privatised railways.
As an aside, I seem to recall Conservatives suggesting privately-run rail companies in London be taken over by Transport for London (run by a Conservative Mayor at the time).
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
TfL - a nationalised industry - provides superb services these days. Light years ahead of the mainline railways. The London bus service also must be one of the best in the world (though expensive). the busiest tube lines run one train every 2 minutes at peak hours and reliability is far ahead of ordinary trains. This is probably not unrelated to the fact that the mayor is clearly accountable for TfLs performance, in contrast to the confusing and opaque structure of Network Rail and TOCs.
The London bus service is expensive? Not for those who use it!
Compared with similar cities abroad public transport in London is expensive. IIRC even New York is cheaper. But the service in London is excellent - and that was not always the case, it has improved tremendously in the last 10-15 years.
Are you sure? (buses - not talking about underground etc).
Just googled Paris, Berlin, New York and all look more expensive to me?
Paris with the correct weekly pass (Navigo Découverte photo costs an extra €5 ) is €22,80 a week for an all zone pass which will take you roughly as far as Amersham on London Underground...
Keir Starmer: second Brexit vote could contain remain option
Did he ask jezza and McDonnell before he said that?
Sky reported just now that they had attended a focus group of six labour mps and they could not agree even amongst the six of them
Of course remain is impossible for Corbyn/McDonnell's dinosaur economic proposals so we know the remainers (second referendum) are being played like a fish on the end the hook
What does that matter to Labour if those remainers continue to vote Labour? What would prompt them not to? Particularly when people like Starmer are smart enough to at least act like remaining is an option.
Keir Starmer: second Brexit vote could contain remain option
Did he ask jezza and McDonnell before he said that?
Sky reported just now that they had attended a focus group of six labour mps and they could not agree even amongst the six of them
Of course remain is impossible for Corbyn/McDonnell's dinosaur economic proposals so we know the remainers (second referendum) are being played like a fish on the end the hook
Haha do you think a focus group of six Tory MPs would agree amongst themselves on anything Brexit-related Big_G?
@SeanT - just wondered if you have already been to Sri Lanka on your paid-for journalistic travails? I vaguely remember you mentioning it a while ago...
(Might have a few tips for you!)
For the first tip - do not try to captain the Sri Lankan cricket team!
Haha - England *might* even win a Test match away in SL!
They might.
More likely they'll win all of them though.
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Well SL are having a 'mare at the moment, losing to Afghanistan and Bangladesh in the Asia Cup.
However, they should be good to go by the time the Test series starts. Three Bunsen burners and all things being equal (i.e. England being hapless at playing spin) 3-0 to SL!
Actually, completely off topic, but I know there's a big wealth of knowledge out there and I'd like to tap it.
I've been trying to work out who the longest serving cabinet ministers are (that's Cabinet, not junior). It is surprisingly difficult to find the answer. Consecutively, since 1832 I think Lloyd George holds the record at 16 years 11 months - although if we're to be very picky, he was out of office for two days in the Palace Coup of 1916, which would I think leave Brown on top at 13 years and ten days (literally hours ahead of Straw and Darling and a couple of weeks longer than Butler).
If we go by non-consecutive appointments then I think Palmerston is top even if we discount his service under Liverpool (which technically was outside the Cabinet for eighteen of his twenty years) with 28 years of service. Churchill I think managed about 27 years. Gladstone would probably be near the top as well with 24 years. Others who had long tenure include Russell, Harrington/Devonshire, Hicks Beach, Balfour. I can't off-hand think of anybody else who clocked up two decades since 1832. (Obviously if we go before that then we could add Hawkesbury/Liverpool, Pitt, Addington/Sidmouh, Portland, Walpole, Wellington, North, etc.)
Have I missed anyone obvious or does that seem a fair summary?
Quintin Hailsham has a good (non consecutive) run
Lord Chancellor 79-88 Lord Chancellor 70-74 Lord President of the Council (60-64) Lord Privy Seal (59-60) Lord President of the Council (57-59)
On topic. Yes. Corbyns time as leader is coming to an end. Two things going to finish it. You can be young and left wing, and like Corbyn for his views, but between generations there will always be subtle differences, such as inter generational attitudes to EU for example. It’s very evident some in Shadow cabinet knowing where their own supporters are on Brexit, watch their tongue when quizzed on it, and leave some views they have in locked box at home in wardrobe. Secondly, As a politician he is certainly not feared in any way. Is it stubbly, clumsy communicator Corbyn his supporters love, or merely the concept of change he represents? If it’s the latter, the penny will drop there are better options, and they can greedily have it all.
Keir Starmer: second Brexit vote could contain remain option
Did he ask jezza and McDonnell before he said that?
Sky reported just now that they had attended a focus group of six labour mps and they could not agree even amongst the six of them
Of course remain is impossible for Corbyn/McDonnell's dinosaur economic proposals so we know the remainers (second referendum) are being played like a fish on the end the hook
What does that matter to Labour if those remainers continue to vote Labour? What would prompt them not to? Particularly when people like Starmer are smart enough to at least act like remaining is an option.
Amazing how quickly the people's vote campaign has gained momentum (sorry). I was at the launch in Camden and afterwards one of the platform speakers , who shall be nameless, said that they thought the chances of success were remote "but we have to try".
Now one of the main parties is on the verge of supporting it and another referendum is widely considered to be a serious option. The Brexiteers have messed up so badly that their project is close to self-destruction.
Keir Starmer: second Brexit vote could contain remain option
Did he ask jezza and McDonnell before he said that?
Sky reported just now that they had attended a focus group of six labour mps and they could not agree even amongst the six of them
Of course remain is impossible for Corbyn/McDonnell's dinosaur economic proposals so we know the remainers (second referendum) are being played like a fish on the end the hook
What does that matter to Labour if those remainers continue to vote Labour? What would prompt them not to? Particularly when people like Starmer are smart enough to at least act like remaining is an option.
Amazing how quickly the people's vote campaign has gained momentum (sorry). I was at the launch in Camden and afterwards one of the platform speakers , who shall be nameless, said that they thought the chances of success were remote "but we have to try".
Now one of the main parties is on the verge of supporting it and another referendum is widely considered to be a serious option. The Brexiteers have messed up so badly that their project is close to self-destruction.
Will the peoples vote campaign be so pleased with themselves if, in a peoples vote, the people vote for no deal? Yes that is a quite likely outcome even without a second referendum, but the confidence that this time the people will make the right choice may well be misplaced.
Keir Starmer: second Brexit vote could contain remain option
Did he ask jezza and McDonnell before he said that?
Sky reported just now that they had attended a focus group of six labour mps and they could not agree even amongst the six of them
Of course remain is impossible for Corbyn/McDonnell's dinosaur economic proposals so we know the remainers (second referendum) are being played like a fish on the end the hook
What does that matter to Labour if those remainers continue to vote Labour? What would prompt them not to? Particularly when people like Starmer are smart enough to at least act like remaining is an option.
Amazing how quickly the people's vote campaign has gained momentum (sorry). I was at the launch in Camden and afterwards one of the platform speakers , who shall be nameless, said that they thought the chances of success were remote "but we have to try".
Now one of the main parties is on the verge of supporting it and another referendum is widely considered to be a serious option. The Brexiteers have messed up so badly that their project is close to self-destruction.
Will the peoples vote campaign be so pleased with themselves if, in a peoples vote, the people vote for no deal? Yes that is a quite likely outcome even without a second referendum, but the confidence that this time the people will make the right choice may well be misplaced.
I agree. Another referendum would aggravate divisions and might well not produce the result its advocates want. It is a very high risk strategy. But we are rapidly heading toward a situation in which there is no alternative way forward.
On topic. Yes. Corbyns time as leader is coming to an end. Two things going to finish it. You can be young and left wing, and like Corbyn for his views, but between generations there will always be subtle differences, such as inter generational attitudes to EU for example. It’s very evident some in Shadow cabinet knowing where their own supporters are on Brexit, watch their tongue when quizzed on it, and leave some views they have in locked box at home in wardrobe. Secondly, As a politician he is certainly not feared in any way. Is it stubbly, clumsy communicator Corbyn his supporters love, or merely the concept of change he represents? If it’s the latter, the penny will drop there are better options, and they can greedily have it all.
The problem is that he is the best campaigner in the house, while the Tories have no one to touch him, and neither does the rest of the Parliamentary Labour Party, and as for the LibDems, Ming Campbell was ousted at 63 for being too old, while Vince Cable is well into his 70's, and looks and sounds it.
Comments
But it's really very hard to compare today's railways with the railways then in terms of nationalisation, because everything is so different. Except I think, perhaps, the railway is one place which is still well off for trades unions.
In that, they may well be closer to the Great British Public, bored of Brexit Brexit Brexit.
There are a couple of issues with this. Firstly the politicians were in charge of BR, and the politicians utterly mucked things up: it's only when railway managers were allowed to do their own thing with minimal political interference with sectorisation in the 1980s that the turnaround began.
The more important point is that, even though privatised, politicians interfere with the railways more than they ever have, perhaps including during the wars. TOCs do exactly what they are told, with little freedom to innovate. This is made worse by the massive amounts of investment put into enhancements on the network, which does require a lot of political control.
So with nationalisation, much will depend on how it is done. If they can find a way to divest control and decision-making down the organisation as far as possible to the freight user or passenger the better, with politicians just writing the cheques based on ideas coming up from the railways. Sadly, what we'll get is total control by politicians, with decisions like banning DOO operation being forced onto the railways.
A few years ago NR did weekend possessions at Wimbledon which was a real pain for going up to London. Personally I think it would be better if they took possession of the line for a week or two and blitzed the work - a bit like the Waterloo possession last year.
The problem is, everyone wants to have their cake and eat it. They don't want their taxes to pay for the railways - that's for schools n hospitals. But they don't want to pay extortionate fares. And they certainly don't want rail replacement bus services.
If I need to go to a meeting in London it is £162 on an open return. That is ridiculous compared to continental fares or air travel. When I was a student it cost me a twentieth of that for a similar journey, albeit with a railcard.
This isn't a problem.
It’s good at operational possessions to fix and maintain the network. It’s pretty hopeless at managing and delivering new projects, or working innovatively to partner with the private sector.
Because, as I see it, the thing about General Elections is you get one vote, and that vote is your say on an entire swathe of things which may or may not be related in direction. If I'm unhappy with how my railway is currently run, happy with the local school, would like to see more imagination in options for further education, want to see lower taxes on small corporations but more progressivity in income taxation, would like to keep Trident, yadda, yadda, yadda - how the hell do they extract more democratic preference with regards to railways from all that lot?
And even if they could theoretically do that, my choices would be basically stick or twist, right?
I think, in practice, they did find nationalised services to be subject to producer capture on the hen-and-pig-breakfast* principle: those who actually would base their votes on the status of one or other nationalised industry were primarily those who worked for it (for example, we can expect the managers of water companies to probably not be inclined to vote Labour next time, regardless of other manifesto pledges). Those who simply used the service would be more likely to base their votes on a whole bunch of things and not for that service to the exclusion of all others (for one thing, they use a bunch of services)
*The hen, who provides the egg, is involved. The pig, who provides the bacon, is committed.
The point though is of course that NR should facilitate whatever services the rail operators care to pay for. (I know it's not black-and-white)
They run those services because the DfT want them to, and allow them to. It is the DfT who decide how Network Rail's maintenance and renewals requirements will fit in, along with the requirements (e.g. paths) for other operators. Network Rail has input into that process.
(All AIUI)
The line taken by the former Eurostar trains was constructed specially to loop across south London from Orpington to Waterloo and could take the weight off London Bridge and Victoria and provide additional capacity in and out of London but for whatever reason (apart from one occasion during refurbishment works) no southern or southeastern trains have come into Waterloo main station.
The problem is as much chokepoints as capacity - there are under-utilised stretches of line even around London which could take more trains than currently but I suspect the issues are with signalling at key junctions.
The railway would work far better as a unified whole, whether in the public or private sector. It’s difficult to see how we get there.
They've been poor at enhancements for some time. Unfortunately in the last few years they've also been failing at the bread-and-butter maintenance and renewals work, particularly during CP5. This is fairly unforgivable as few of the excuses for why enhancements are difficult apply.
Transport for London is a public body which sub-contracts MTR to run the rail services much in the same way it owns the DLR and sub-contracts Serco to run the service.
Why not then have the Government own the railway and simply sub-contract out to operating companies?
EDIT: although was he not in the Cabinet, just not in the War Cabinet?
Therefore I suppose Simon technically returned to the cabinet when it was reconstituted as a full Cabinet for the 'Caretaker' government of 1945, but that only lasted a few weeks.
So whilst the directive prevents full vertical integration under one owner, it does allow a split infrastructure owner and operations company to be state-owned: just as long as the former does not favour the latter over other operators.
We chose to go the whole hog and make both the operators and infrastructure owners private. This directive prevents reinstatement of a vertically-integrated BR; it does not prevent the operators being state-owned. It will prevent the government from preventing other bidders from bidding for operations, however, and stop them killing Open Access operations.
In the case of France, the SNCF run the services, whilst RFF and SNCF Infra run the infrastructure. I think it's fair to say they're only paying lip service to the rules ...
There have been several other EU raiil directives, but they're incredibly boring (i.e. I cannot remember them...)
The relevant EU rules relate to state aid.
The laws affecting this issue are complicated. Depending on what McDonnell wants to do and how he may be constrained. Or he could find himself involved in legal action. Either way it risks not creating an environment conducive to business or wealth creation. And it can end up adversely affecting the pensions of many millions of employees. But since the effects are not immediately obvious they are easy to overlook.
Of course, one of the ironies is that if he starts sacking bosses in the way that he says, they will be able to sue using the employment legislation McDonnell is so in favour of. So shareholders may end up with no compensation but the fatcat bosses will. Excellent use of public money there Mr McD!
The point is of course that until arguably the 1950s the Cabinet was who the Prime Minister said it was. An office could be in or out of cabinet therefore according to the whims of the then premier - for example, in 1923 the Financial Secretary to the Treasury was in the Cabinet, from 1924 to 1927 the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was, and in 1914 the Attorney General was a full member of the Cabinet (I was thinking of him because he was that same Sir John Simon, who as a result along with Churchill was one of two cabinet ministers present when both the First and Second World Wars were declared).
That was helpfully flexible in wartime, of course, but it does lead to some confusion in what were or were not peacetime appointments!
Sunil will probably run an advanced class on European railway ownership regs later this evening
Somewhat amusingly, the nationalised TfL is bidding on a $3.5 billion contract to run services in Buenos Aires.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/may/30/transport-for-london-bidding-to-run-buenos-aires-metro-system
But the plain fact is that the UK's railways are carrying more passengers than ever before, and double what they were 30 years ago. The fact the system has managed to cope with this increase is frankly amazing, regardless of whether or not you think it was because of privatisation or not.
Just googled Paris, Berlin, New York and all look more expensive to me?
However there seem to be roughly 20 offices that are generally accepted to be Cabinet rank now whoever is holding them. That is a fairly significant change.
I was travelling on some old Mark II stock from the 1980s a few weeks ago. I have to say in terms of comfort, space and ride it's light years ahead of modern rolling stock, even if it does have slam doors.
(Might have a few tips for you!)
It is remarkable how often BR is the butt of jokes.
I suspect that it is a good guide to how low BR was held in the national regard.
The cosy memory of elderly socialists that all was well with the railways when they were nationalised is false.
https://es.pn/2xL5qFY
It dipped substantially below poor regularly. The service to Cambridge was appalling - people used to get stranded in Royston so frequently I wondered if there was some agreement between the railway company and the local hotels.
The services out along to Oxford were no better - standing on a platform you wondered if you needed your tent. Back into London it was worse. I was stranded on Reading station because I'd had the wild expectation that they might run one of the two timetabled trains after 9pm.
I do like the old rolling-stock though - compartments and luggage racks. The stations with tea-rooms and porters There was that Dad's Army episode around that wasn't there... I think they made it into a film called Brief Encounter.
https://twitter.com/issielapowsky/status/1044202148618219520?s=21
Did he ask jezza and McDonnell before he said that?
Of course remain is impossible for Corbyn/McDonnell's dinosaur economic proposals so we know the remainers (second referendum) are being played like a fish on the end the hook
More likely they'll win all of them though.
*Grabs tinfoil hat and ducks*
Things have to and will change viz-a-viz the privatised railways.
However, they should be good to go by the time the Test series starts. Three Bunsen burners and all things being equal (i.e. England being hapless at playing spin) 3-0 to SL!
Lord Chancellor 79-88
Lord Chancellor 70-74
Lord President of the Council (60-64)
Lord Privy Seal (59-60)
Lord President of the Council (57-59)
20 years?
Secondly, As a politician he is certainly not feared in any way. Is it stubbly, clumsy communicator Corbyn his supporters love, or merely the concept of change he represents? If it’s the latter, the penny will drop there are better options, and they can greedily have it all.
Now one of the main parties is on the verge of supporting it and another referendum is widely considered to be a serious option. The Brexiteers have messed up so badly that their project is close to self-destruction.
Yes, he should be included. Thank you. Although he was only Lord Chancellor until 87 before Havers took over for six months, then Mackay.