1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Nationalise Our Railways said Poll

Discussion in 'News and Current Affairs' started by The Jogger, 2 Jan 2018.

  1. But the track is nationalised, under Network Rail. Privatisation was tried under Railtrack from 1994 to 2002, and proved to be much, much worse, and its practice of arms-length management of track work through subcontractors culminated in the Hatfield rail crash of 2000.
     
  2. Adrian

    Adrian Heed the elf's wisdom

    It's a good point that bears repeating
     
    theclaud and robjh like this.
  3. swansonj

    swansonj Veteran

    I'm not necessarily or entirely disagreeing with all that you say, but on one specific: almost the defining characteristic of the CEGB was that everything was planned to the nth degree for years ahead. That had strengths (no worries about meeting winter peak demand in those days) and weaknesses (inflexibility to new innovations, and an arrogance that what the plan said must be the best way). But long term plans was very much a consequence of nationalisation in the energy sector.
     
    theclaud, raleighnut and TinyMyNewt like this.
  4. Hitchington

    Hitchington Lovely stuff

    Location:
    That London
    Of course there's money, we're the 27th richest country in the world ranked on GDP/PPP. France are ranked 28th and have a fully functioning state owned rail service and network. The resistance to re-nationalise our rail service is based on ideological free market capitalism and not on evidence (see the success of running the East Coast under public ownership) or pragmatism. Commuters who are forced to pay 3,4,5 or 6 thousand a year don't get a choice, where's the competition when you're forced to travel using a failing train company who is being subsidised by the state. Our rail network is too important to be run by a collection of privateers who put profit ahead of service. Same goes for all our utilities. This isn't communism, this is a sensible approach for a mixed economy.
     
  5. Slick

    Slick Über Member

    Eh, is this the commuters that are using the service?
     
  6. Slick

    Slick Über Member

    I have yet to see anyone being forced to do anything, and this is exactly the kind of situation I've been arguing against.
     
  7. Hitchington

    Hitchington Lovely stuff

    Location:
    That London
    What, my poor turn of phrase?
    Often people don't have a real choice but to pay extortionate fares to get to work. For example someone works in the centre of a city. They can't afford to live in that city or can't drive to that city because of lack of parking. The only other option is to use the train run by a single operator who year on year increases the rail fare above the rate of inflation and wage growth. So yes "forced".
    Now these private rail companies are held up as a model of free market capitalism. But for capitalism to work there needs to be competition between companies and choice for the consumer, or in this case the commuter or traveller. But there isn't competition or choice. Again for capitalism to work a company which doesn't perform should be allowed to fail. Time and time again rail companies are failing the customer with overcrowded services and fare rises which are leaving people with less money. Failing rail companies are subsidised (by the state) so that they can pay their shareholders dividends and company directors bonuses and are allowed to walk away from franchises they don't like without any penalty being applied.
    Anything there you wish you "argue against"?
     
    Regulator and raleighnut like this.
  8. Slick

    Slick Über Member

    Yes,all of it really. Firstly, you sound like your taking it personally, don't, it's just the t'interweb. I've posted this more than once now, but it is my belief that the railways should be subsidised as it benefits all, but I'm not paying for your commute and if you can't afford it get the bus or even a bike. As far as I can tell, nobody is forced to do anything, and I find it amusing that people who disregard the argument that government don't lack the cash but more the political will, then use the argument that they don't have the cash. :wacko:
     
  9. BoldonLad

    BoldonLad Senior Member

    Location:
    South Tyneside
    And, in the British Rail days, the Competitors were who exactly?

    Agree on the "failing companies should be allowed to fail, and, enforcing penalties for not fulfilling contractual agreement(s).
     
  10. TinyMyNewt

    TinyMyNewt An execrable pun

    Location:
    South coast, UK
    That's not the point. Privatisation was supposed to improve things by introducing competition. It clearly hasn't.
     
    raleighnut, theclaud and Hitchington like this.
  11. Bromptonaut

    Bromptonaut Rohan Man

    Location:
    Bugbrooke UK
    If you subsidise the railways for the public good then you subsidise people who commute. Can't see how you avoid that.
     
    theclaud and TinyMyNewt like this.
  12. Slick

    Slick Über Member

    Yeah, true, but I was thinking more of the overall benefit to the UK as a whole. So if you actually use that system more, then suck it up and pay the going rate. It's much the same with the road network and why it's funded from general taxation but users pay more. Can't see how you avoid that either.
     
  13. TinyMyNewt

    TinyMyNewt An execrable pun

    Location:
    South coast, UK
    Motorists don't 'pay the going rate'.
     
  14. Slick

    Slick Über Member

    No, but they pay more.
     
  15. TinyMyNewt

    TinyMyNewt An execrable pun

    Location:
    South coast, UK
    More than what? They are massively subsidised, and pay nowhere near enough to cover the cost of the damage they do.