I commented last week on the subject of the wrong type of investment in railways in the North so let me offer another example of where the government is making the wrong type of investment decision on railways in the North now.
East Coast Main Line Company Limited, the state owned company that has run the line from Kings Cross to Edinburgh and beyond via York and Newcastle since 2009 is to be privatised despite paying Β£1 billion to the Treasury over the last five years and that despite the fact that the previous private sector operate failed to meet its franchise obligations.
If the Treasury was serious about investing in the North it would invest in this state sector success on a key artery to the North, but it is instead planning to privatise it. That did not work last time. There is no reason why it should work again. By pursuing this plan to sell with all haste before May 2015 - to the French nationalised rail system if necessary - the government is showing it has no interest in the North at all. It just has interest in dogma.
If it was really interested in the North it would keep this route in state hands and work out how to make the North more accessible. It isn't. And that's a serious error of judgement.
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:
Quite right Richard. And don’t forget that the line has had two companies fail to meet their obligations. GNER failed before National Express. Third time lucky – I doubt it.
Indeed
I find your repeated references to “the North” extremely patronising and, to be candid, typical of Southerners who have travelled north of Lincoln of the odd occasion. Rail isn’t “an artery to the North”; they lead South! The North isn’t a single place on the map. I get similarly infuriated by references to “the Third World”, that well known theme park.
You also give no hint that you know what “investment” would look like.
Oh come on
All regions get named. I live in the East but it also varies widely
And I have argued what investment is needed – I linked to it
If you are going to reduce debate to this level there will be no change
I am a “northerner” and I do not feel patronised in the slightest. I believe Richard is a true friend of the north. Still struggling to find a way of getting Norfolk on our side of the New Hadrians Wall though !!!.
Couldnt agree more. When I was working for BR before privatisation it was abundantly obvious that the amount of annual subsidy could be increased almost tenfold but that it would not benefit the rail users (passengers not customers please) but would go to shareholders. The railway system under BR was held back by not being able to plan beyond a year at a time. Any underuse of the subsidy was returned to the treasury and subsidy for the next year was reduced(‘you didnt spend it so obviously you dont need that much’). The shareholders have had a bonanza at the expense of the country just like all the other privatised businesses.
Agreed
As an aside, and out of interest, what is the reason for the concern about referring to rail users as “customers”?
HMRC’s use of the term is, to say the least, controversial but, on the face of it, it would seem less contentious for rail operators, however owned, to use it.
Thanks,
Zacchaeus
‘Customers’ was a term imposed during the run up to privatisation. The old timers felt an obligation and duty toward our Passengers. This was eroded deliberatly. Customers was what M and S had and implied choice. Patients in hospital are not customers either. A bit like refering to ‘human resources’ rather than personnel.
The vile terminology ‘customer’ and ‘client’ crept in after the Reagan/Thatcher coup and commodities all of us imprisoning us in an alien conceptual world that denies us the right to see things as having social and ethical value.
The terms atomise people into self-contained cling-filmed units that have no shared purpose other than to maximise self-interest. This terminology has now been normalised and part of the psychopathology of post-modernism.
Wow. There’s clearly some strength of feeling on this for me to have had a “dislike” (or, for that matter, a “like”) for what I though was a fairly innocuous question. Let’s see how this comment lands… π
In case my motives are misinterpreted, I should perhaps start by saying that I’m strongly opposed to privatisation of the NHS and agree that rail privatisation has been a failure and should be reversed.
I also agree that the use of “customer” to refer to NHS patients is clearly inappropriate for similar reasons to those Simon sets out (though I might not put it quite so strongly) and that it probably does have its roots in attempts to prepare the ground for privatisation by commodifying healthcare.
However, I find the same arguments harder to sustain for a group like rail users. Regardless of how the service is owned, passengers are buying a service, paying for it at the point of use (although the service is subsidised), whereas NHS patients (should!) receive treatment free at the point of use. There is also, I think, a clearer moral imperative for the provision of healthcare, which bolsters such arguments about the importance of terminology in the NHS context.
The point about choice is also one I’m surprised to read in the context of rail services. If having a choice is part of the definition of a “customer” (I’m not entirely convinced that it is, but I’ll go with it for the sake of argument here), then it strikes me that rail users do have quite a bit of choice, even where there is a nationalised rail monopoly: e.g. don’t travel, take the bus, drive, fly. Certainly, they seem to have more choice than the typical NHS patient.
As I say, though, there are very strong feelings here. The exchange above about “The North” shows how language that one person considers innocuous can be highly emotive to another. I should stress that I’m not trying to do anyone down here. I’m genuinely interested in understanding your points of view (perhaps I’m struggling because I’m a child of the Thatcher era!), so I’d be grateful if you could answer a couple more of my daft questions:
– If I’ve understood Christine correctly (in particular the HR analogy), staff felt that “customers” dehumanised the users more than “passengers”. Have I understood this correctly and if so, what is it about the word “passengers” that meant it was more human/personal/[feel free to insert better term]?
– Whether it’s about dehumanisation or not, why did the use of “customer” erode the feeling of obligation and duty? I’m sure managers would have been saying that “customer” reflected the importance of “customer service”; why did staff feel that was weaker/less important than looking after passengers?
Thank you for your patience!
Zacchaeus
Labour should announce it may renationalise the EC company at the sale price, if elected. That should stymie the franchising process but the increased fares which the new IEPs will bring by 2019 will probably mean an early end to the franchise anyway.
As far as One North is concerned, a 125mph railway is not high speed but sensible. High Speed UK has a sensible scheme for the region, as well as for the remainder of the network, including a viable alternative to HS2, some of which could be implemented in a short timescale. The consultation document published with the decision the renew the two all Northern franchises – Trans Pennines Express and Northern – sets out the problems of Northern rail travel but leaves it to the prospective franchisees to resolve the problems whilst all they are only interested in is the bottom line. The government has to intervene and if it is prepared to back One North, whatever the timing, that should surely be welcomed but the franchising process should be stopped and re-started as a single franchise under a management contract.
Two points worth adding, Richard. First, the East Coast mainline service has to be re-privatised because it’s an ongoing and deeply embarrassing illustration, for the Treasury, the Department for Transport, and government more generally, of the fact that publicly run services can be highly successful. Furthermore, it demonstrates that rather than running a service for the financial benefit of private shareholders and senior management (or private equity houses), ie. largely for the benefit of the few, profit can be returned direct to the public purse, thus potentially benefiting the many. As these features of the East Coast mainline case are anathema to the neoliberal project they cannot be tolerated under any circumstances and thus a situation must be constructed where their existence is expunged. I’ve no doubt it would have taken place several years ago if the franchising process had not been thrown into disarray by developments elsewhere.
Second, by pursuing the re-privatisation process despite the success of the current state owned company, it demonstrates beyond any doubt whatsoever that this government, and more fundamentally perhaps, departments of state (the Treasury in particular), are so ideologically compromised that they no longer act in the public interest. Indeed, across government as a whole we now see clearly that the mission of departments of state is to gift public assets and services to private interests at whatever short or longer term cost to the state (and thus to the citizens of this country). The re-privatisation of the East Coast mainline service is simply a particularly egregious example of actions of the form of public administration that a neoliberal state demands.
Ivan-you are spot on. The fact that the line is successful is of no import as asset striping and short term wallet lining is the only game in town now. Longer term thinking does not exist in the dynamic stochastic general equilibrium world.
This is rip-off ans scam writ large like the sale of the post office. If the whole thing flops after the hedge funds have got there cut it will just be seen as a function of the market place which is viewed as an oracle of truth beyond the sphere of human agency.
Absolutely Ivan. Your comment should be printed out in 1 metre high letters and put on a banner on any building facing Parliament. Even better, it should be shoved down the throats of the cretins responsible for this nonsense. Given the success of the East Coast line in public hands, and the failure of the private sector before it to do the job, how does the party of ‘wealth creation’ justify this?
Oh of course, how silly of me. Wealth will be created for a few in the bloated bailed out financial sector who’ll be handed the opportunity to make a quick buck from asset stripping, just as they were with the Royal Mail privatisation.
Using normal business assessment principles, it surely makes sense to have another rail system against which the private franchises may be compared and measured. The ECML does precisely this.
This same principle should also be extended to banking and utilities provision. The City claims to thrive upon competition – but only when it is controlling both sides of the venture.
A basic state-run banking system for those who wish to use it, and to compete with the existing system for those who prefer this, would be a good starting point. On an international scale we can watch how the BRICS system develops and how BIS responds to it.
Interesting idea
No you come on Richard and stop being so nakedly disingenuous. “The East” simply isn’t used anywhere. Your blog provides evidence for that. You have referred often to East Anglia or Norfolk but I defy you to show us where you regularly refer to The East. The North isn’t a region; it covers half the country and encompasses a number of different regions.
I also object to you painting me as some sort of enemy of change and you as it’s advocate. This started with you actually objecting to investment saying it was the wrong sort. Well it IS investment and that means it is change. It is investment that has cross party support including from the Labour leaders of the Northern areas affected. I don’t see any any reference in your posts to any research or any authority other than your own opinion. With respect, those of us living in the Northern cities probably have more understanding of the issues affecting us than a blogger living in Norfolk who hasn’t shown us any research to support his opinions.
The North
The East
The Midlands
The Borders
The Welsh Borders
The South West
The South East
The Home Counties
Those are all used – frequently
And investment for investment’s sake is absurd
As would be my support just because party leaders thought it a good idea
I frequently don’t agree with party leaders and I will say so
You may not have noticed, this is my blog
And I did offer reasoned argument, which is one hell of a lot more than you have
Now please don’t waste my time again
You forgot the East Midlands, Richard. I’m insulted π
By the way, anyone who wants to see the English “regions” need do no more than look at the way in which the BBC names its local/regional TV news.
I knew I would upset someone
And thanks for your comment yesterday – it made the most popular blog of the day
Richard
The people actually affected and who have be en democratically elected don’t see it as investment for investment’s sake. No doubt you think they’re wasting your time as well. As you haven’t referred to any research or authority, I’ll tell you to stick to Norfolk a decent not waste our time again.
P.S. I have heard you are a bit of a coward who deletes as soon as he is exposed. I’m about to find that out aren’t I.
Clearly you’ve not read the vast majority of what I have ever written, including on investment
Of course I have not deleted you this time. I am happy for you to make a fool of yourself