I like this headline in the Guardian this morning:
So it's only privately owned franchises that work, is it?
The evidence is in. And that's just not true.
We need nationalised railways, now. That way we might get the system we need, and pay for.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Not possible while in the EU.
Have a read:
http://www.brugesgroup.com/BrugesRailwaysPaper.pdf
Just not true
“The aims of the directive are to create a more efficient rail network by creating greater competition. To achieve this aim member states are required to ensure that organisations operating the infrastructure (track, signalling etc.), and those operating services (trains) are separate and run on a commercial basis”
EU Directive 91/440
Nothing says that does not allow privatisation
And it ignores the fact subsidies are allowed
Indeed -some time ago, in its @mythbusters’ series, the NEF reported that the east Coast line was the ONLY line not requiring Government subsidy -very few people realise this -why?
This is more clear evidence of public money ideologically bailing out companies and creating fake privatisation scams. When will our dozy public realise that they have been victim to another wallet-lining scam? Either nationaise or let the private companies collapse if they can’t hack it which is how capitalism should work, instead we have the WORSE of both worlds!
Try to find out where the Virgin rail money is. Which tax haven is that???
Er, “Virgin” may hold the clue.
“we have the WORSE of both world”
Or could that be the best of all worlds.
It all depends upon the viewpoint.
For us, we pay high fares, and also a subsidy to the companies (whether a rail traveller or not), for the companies and their investors they get money; whatever.
I have neither the time nor patience to wade through the register of our non-representative representatives, filled as they are by irrelevant padding, to discover who pays them what…although from that notoriously left/right/centre/communist (delete as required) organisation the BBC: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14232290
So we can safely assume that corporate corruption is alive and well, and expanding its malignant interests into “the mother of parliaments”
“Try to find out where the Virgin rail money is. Which tax haven is that”
The hint would be in the name…….
If we really do want to bow to the pressure of market forces and competition then a state-run company should be free to compete in the running of transport, banking, utilities etc, then it would quickly become clear who was offering the best service at the most favourable cost. For those with a bias, they could choose their service provider to suit their politics.
The running of the East Coast Main Line has certainly illustrated this point when we consider that the previous two franchise holders failed.
I really do not understand your fixation with Nationalisation. Nationalisation is
the opposite of Open Government, it inevitably leads to hidden bureaucratic organization.It is oligopoly gone even worst. It’s top down management wasteful of
resources. I prefer your own model of competition but strongly regulated by the State. And to repeat my own opinion (of course) the State is not the People, it’s the diametric opposite: it’s a cabal more or less (often mostly less) representative of the People. Have a good Day!
Ownership is not the issue
It is the structure that best achieves the goal that does
UK railways need one owner – a natural monopoly – first realised but not delivered 90 years a go
Only the state should run natural monopolies
In his excellently written book (23 things they don’t tell you about capitalism) economist Ha Joon Chang uses the example of his native South Korea to expose the myth that Government is incapable of efficient business decisions for what it is. I will be the first to admit that, where Nationalised industries were concerned, the track record of British Government has, at times, been patchy.
It is important to remember, though, that there are many reasons why. These include, but are not limited to, our failure to make full use of the human capital due to our unequal education system, the ideological motivation of the people tasked with running it, and, perhaps most importantly, a system that values red-brick degrees over work-place experience. (I strongly believe that much of the success of modern Germany as an industrial nation is due to a more inclusive management model).
Having said all that I see no examples in the private sector where any of those basic flaws have been eradicated, or even improved on.
I see no reason, therefore, why anyone would expect the devolution of control of previously state controlled industries to produce greater efficiencies, higher levels of service etc.
The main difference we have seen in the de-Nationalised industries is a paradigm shift from a symbiotic relationship with the Nation to a parasitic one.
In my, perhaps naïve, understanding of economics the single most important element is the BOP. If I am right in this assumption then the billions of pounds being sucked out of our economy by private ownership of our railways, PPI hospitals, energy firms and the rest is nothing short of disastrous for the country.
British management has simply been bad, full stop, is the right conclusion
Except at feathering nests
Their own
It is the legacy of the class system and the politics of envy that dominate right wing thinking
My late Father was an industrial engineer. During the 70’s he was witness to the destruction of several previously highly successful companies, due to mismanagement. Most of them were companies that had been started by one man with a lathe, which, due to the acumen and hard work of that individual, grew both in terms of physical size and profitability to a point where they became desirable acquisitions for much larger companies. In every case the founder of the company was replaced by a team of ‘professional’ managers, with the greatest decision-making power vested in the role of the financial director. These financial director’s often hailed from completely different industries and the decisions they made were, invariably, catastrophic for the company.
A piece of British industrial history that few, if any, talk about.
Oh, and I thought it was the unions which destroyed our industrial base, nothing to do with management and under-investment.
Any remaining well-run small manufacturers were finally killed off in the 80s by the deliberate policy of keeping the pound overvalued. I well remember the Japanese and Germans flocking here for the fire sale of recently purchased high value capital goods.
Christian Wolmar has an interesting take on one of the bidders for the East Coast Railway
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2013/10/east-coast-set-to-remain-in-the-public-sector-sort-of/
This Government, like Thatchers cannot see British assets passed into foreign hands quick enough (qv today’s stories about the Royal Mail sell off). If you deliberately set out to bankrupt a nation you couldn’t think of a better way to do it.