It will be considerably better by providing a proper structure to the rail system whereby the new public company (GBR) will manage the rail strategy. We won't have spivs running our trains.
The underlying issue is governments are generally bad at everything. UK trains will never be good but this might help them be less bad. Breath unheld however because I can't remember the last unqualified success one could attribute to Downing Street. There may not be one.
The TOCs all TUPE’d over BR staff, non? The issue is regulation not management per se. Even more so with water. The problem in this country with utilities, and the railways are a utility, is the structure is so Byzantine you won’t get any decent professional in to run it without guaranteeing them bunce at every stage. Because of the shit they have to put up with from unions and government. But to make it attractive means debasing it completely. We have no concept of partnership only of haves and have nots. As well of course as lots of greedy no marks whose idea of a good life is fancy restaurants, golf clubs, and resort holidays.
isn't this just basically formalising the reality of the rail sector now?
the railways were effectively under public control during covid and is it 4 of the operators are actually under public control now
“governments are generally bad at everything”
I would hope this is set up as a company with government ownership of the shares (although the danger there is the next tory gov comes in and flogs it off to the chinese for quick buck) rather that is directly meddled with by the department for transport
The Rev W Awdry appeared to be a cheerful soul but underne that facade lay a seething hatred of the corrupt railway management structure and the Teamsters who had destroyed Sodor.
The compelling argument for privatisation is usually competition, but there can be no meaningful competition (other than in the renewal of contracts) with something like the ralways, where there is a regional monopoly. It's just a question of whether that monopoly is run by the State or a private company.
London Transport has shown how effective intergrating a transport system can be. What I anticipate is improvements to the less profitable regional and branch lines, I doubt the mainlines from the North and West or the main commuter lines to London will improve much as they are profitable and already run pretty much to full capacity.
Actually a far more pressing need is bring local buses back into public ownership. Prior to compulsory privatisation most councils ran bus services at break even. Now we have the insane situation where private companies take the profits from the profitable routes and councils have to subsidise the unprofitable ones. And the service is generally worse than it was.
To give you an example, the motor insurance industry will hold itself entitled to invalidate your policy if you fail in the bit of life admin that is notifying them of a change in your address. And, being profit making businesses who are incentivised to try to deprive you of the service you’ve paid for just when you need it the most, they’ll probably try.
The government would be very unlikely to do this, as there’s be nothing in it politically, and there’s no actual economic justification anyway.
Quite apart from the fact that when government IT works properly, which it will under a Laz government, you’ll have a single government ID that leta you update your address for the purpose of all national and local public services with one form. This is what Government Gateway was supposed to be, but it’s been inexplicably allowed to wither on the vine.
Nationalising car insurance is a good idea. Premiums could be flat, ending absurdly high premiums for the young who can least afford it. Overall costs would be far lower as their would be no reason for legal wranglings between insurance companies as to who is at fault for an accident.
The need to do this for retail insurance is less convincing. It’s a deep market. People have choice. If underwriters are behaving like khunts then regulate them properly. The PRA and FCA are more than capable of… yes. Yes I see your issue, but the answer is better regulators, right?
Automate the trains and invest the subsequent savings in upgrading the entire system.
You'd need to upgrade the system first - the entire signalling system and significant infrastructure improvements and back up infra tructure to cover system failure.
The initial cost of that together with the massive disruption to the network while works were ongoing togetether with the ongoing maintenance required to the system means it would be decades before the capital investment was recouped from saved wages.
although in reality there would no longer be a third party element so I suppose I mean the premium would only be based on cost of repairing or replacing ones own vehicle, not related to risk profile.
The idea of nationalising car insurance is horrendous.
They nationalised health insurance and look at how that's going.
The NHS is still the most efficient model, but is starved of funds. If we spent as much on healthcare as the Americans, even as a proportion of GDP, and spent it on the NHS it would be the envy of the world because health services are far cheaper to run under a nationalised model
lack of funding would obviously not be a problem for a nationalised no fault car insurance scheme because the premiums collected would reflect the amounts paid out, you could even integrate car tax into it to simply matters further.
And do away with First Class. You tap your phone when you get on and tap it when you get off. £1 a mile for everyone. Anyone without a mobile travels for free.
Can't see this changing anything much - certainly not lower train fares (as average private sector profit per train journey is just 12p per trip), unless major subsidies are being considered (which we are told is currently not the case).
Main issue is to ensure that the exercise doesn't give rise to major liability commitments on the Gov, as these in turn could raise the cost of borrowing or result in the need for increased taxes.
Sensible policy for Labour, though, as in practice nothing much is likely to change, but from a cosmetic/publicity angle, they can bleat on about the 'positive' steps they are taking to renationalise the railways, as many people will not understand the nuances of what is really happening.
theRealist, I would hope the main difference is that investment in services will be by need rather than simply profit. Frequencies may be improved on less profitable lines cross subsidised by the profitable mainlines, something the private companies do not do.
yeah London Transport really demonstrates how awful public transport in public hands is Warlord eh?
In essence it just depends on how much you are will to spend on subsidies paid for in the main by one group of people for the benefit of another group.
Not just that realist, integrating a transport system and using profits on profitable lines to subsidise unprofitable lines rather than extracting the profit for shareholders can make a huge difference.
Most privatised bus companies require subsidy to run unprofitable services, whereas when local councils ran them they were typically self funding and typically better than now. So we pay more as tax payers for a worse service and the only beneficaries are the shareholders.
Genuine question: why do people think nationalising the rail will improve it? Other than there being no companies retaining profits (and accepting that the re-investment of what would have been profits is a good thing).
5
1
It will be different, but not better. Or different.
5
1
It will be considerably better by providing a proper structure to the rail system whereby the new public company (GBR) will manage the rail strategy. We won't have spivs running our trains.
5
1
complete no brainer
5
2
WITHOUT ANY EXAGGERATION, THIS IS REMINISCENT OF THE WORST - THE VERY WORST!! - EXCESSES OF COMMUNIST RUSSIA UNDER STALIN!!
1
0
Make the trains run on time!
0
0
BuT itS UNfUNdEd!
1
0
Make the trains run
4
0
Another excellent policy from the future govt
At this rate I'd be surprised if the Tories got more than 30 seats
They are done
What is that sound? Or it's rishi and risky crying
2
2
This will solve some of the current reasons the railways are a mess. But it will create new reasons for them to be a mess.
Outcome: railways will be a mess.
The need is money. There is no money.
0
0
A shambles run by the government again and not business.
It's my turn.............
No it's my turn.. ............
No it's my turn
0
1
Because?
0
0
Don’t you think the “spivs” will simply take jobs in the new entity 3d?
1
0
The underlying issue is governments are generally bad at everything. UK trains will never be good but this might help them be less bad. Breath unheld however because I can't remember the last unqualified success one could attribute to Downing Street. There may not be one.
0
1
The unions won't allow it. They have their own people.
0
0
I’d like to know what the parties propose to do with the govt stake in rbs
0
0
Lol
0
1
The TOCs all TUPE’d over BR staff, non? The issue is regulation not management per se. Even more so with water. The problem in this country with utilities, and the railways are a utility, is the structure is so Byzantine you won’t get any decent professional in to run it without guaranteeing them bunce at every stage. Because of the shit they have to put up with from unions and government. But to make it attractive means debasing it completely. We have no concept of partnership only of haves and have nots. As well of course as lots of greedy no marks whose idea of a good life is fancy restaurants, golf clubs, and resort holidays.
0
0
It’s the public sector. There’s always money.
3
0
“governments are generally bad at everything”
have u interacted with the private sector, ever
0
0
“The government has already promised to set up a new public sector body, named the Great British Railways”
LOL
water and the retail insurance industry next pls
1
0
You’re obsessed with retail insurance wokester. Which retail insurance markets would you nationalise?
0
0
isn't this just basically formalising the reality of the rail sector now?
the railways were effectively under public control during covid and is it 4 of the operators are actually under public control now
“governments are generally bad at everything”
I would hope this is set up as a company with government ownership of the shares (although the danger there is the next tory gov comes in and flogs it off to the chinese for quick buck) rather that is directly meddled with by the department for transport
0
0
lol. Its like none of you were alive in the 70s. As jelly says you’re simply swapping one set of problems for another. All the same!
5
0
1
0
The Rev W Awdry appeared to be a cheerful soul but underne that facade lay a seething hatred of the corrupt railway management structure and the Teamsters who had destroyed Sodor.
0
0
Automate the trains and invest the subsequent savings in upgrading the entire system.
1
0
I’d start with car insurance because any product that it’s essentially mandatory to buy should probably be state provided.
But I can’t see much reason for home insurance or life insurance to be left in private hands either. Standards in those industries are appalling.
0
0
Tbf to risky I was not alive in the 70s
0
0
I experienced a massive reduction in my car tax when I added my wife who has never actually driven our car and is a poor driver.
Can’t remember whether courts/regulators decided sex discrimination is ok when setting car tax premiums.
Not convinced the service would be better or cheaper if car tax was done by some nationalised outfit in wales or wherever
0
0
Heh @ sails. Cos that’s going to happen in a nationalized industry with a labour govt
0
0
Laz has a point about 3rd party insurnwce
0
0
the reason for your nonconvincement is your compulsively anti-government prejudices, diceman
most places, most of the time, government does a good job
the exception is britain 2010-2015, but that’s a historical outlier
0
0
Well I pay very little for car insurance. And I’ve been able to keep fairly flat , despite inflation, by using comparison sites .
I wonder how conscious you are of your own prejudices
0
1
Why nationalise something heavily unionised....there is absolutely nothing to be gained
4
2
LABOUR HAVE REALLY SHOT THEMSELVES IN THE FOOT!!
PLUCKY BRITS WILL NEVER STAND FOR THEIR BELOVED PRIVATE TRAIN COMPANIES BEING DENIED RENEWAL OF THE PROFITABLE RAIL FRANCHISES THEY OPERATE SO WELL!!
SO MUCH FOR SIR BEER!!
3
0
The compelling argument for privatisation is usually competition, but there can be no meaningful competition (other than in the renewal of contracts) with something like the ralways, where there is a regional monopoly. It's just a question of whether that monopoly is run by the State or a private company.
1
0
London Transport has shown how effective intergrating a transport system can be. What I anticipate is improvements to the less profitable regional and branch lines, I doubt the mainlines from the North and West or the main commuter lines to London will improve much as they are profitable and already run pretty much to full capacity.
1
0
Actually a far more pressing need is bring local buses back into public ownership. Prior to compulsory privatisation most councils ran bus services at break even. Now we have the insane situation where private companies take the profits from the profitable routes and councils have to subsidise the unprofitable ones. And the service is generally worse than it was.
0
0
To give you an example, the motor insurance industry will hold itself entitled to invalidate your policy if you fail in the bit of life admin that is notifying them of a change in your address. And, being profit making businesses who are incentivised to try to deprive you of the service you’ve paid for just when you need it the most, they’ll probably try.
The government would be very unlikely to do this, as there’s be nothing in it politically, and there’s no actual economic justification anyway.
Quite apart from the fact that when government IT works properly, which it will under a Laz government, you’ll have a single government ID that leta you update your address for the purpose of all national and local public services with one form. This is what Government Gateway was supposed to be, but it’s been inexplicably allowed to wither on the vine.
0
0
That would be a handy innovation. It's a right PITA having to notify people about this stuff.
0
0
Nationalising car insurance is a good idea. Premiums could be flat, ending absurdly high premiums for the young who can least afford it. Overall costs would be far lower as their would be no reason for legal wranglings between insurance companies as to who is at fault for an accident.
0
0
Makes sense. Water next please.
The need to do this for retail insurance is less convincing. It’s a deep market. People have choice. If underwriters are behaving like khunts then regulate them properly. The PRA and FCA are more than capable of… yes. Yes I see your issue, but the answer is better regulators, right?
0
0
Surely any effective form of government ID knows where you’re living anyway and can automatically update your profile?
0
0
You'd need to upgrade the system first - the entire signalling system and significant infrastructure improvements and back up infra tructure to cover system failure.
The initial cost of that together with the massive disruption to the network while works were ongoing togetether with the ongoing maintenance required to the system means it would be decades before the capital investment was recouped from saved wages.
0
0
What do you mean by flat premiums guy? Presumably you’re not charging the same to a Porsche driver and a vw polo driver?
0
0
Flat premium for the third party element, variable for repairs to own vehicle according to value
0
0
A compulsory government ID would be horrendous.
0
0
although in reality there would no longer be a third party element so I suppose I mean the premium would only be based on cost of repairing or replacing ones own vehicle, not related to risk profile.
0
0
perhaps with uplifts for points and any driving convictions but not uplifts just based on your age or location.
1
0
IF it happens, it will be a complete 💩 show.
Any monies made from running it will be piped into other 'more worthy ' causes.
The whole system will be off the rails in a few years.
2
0
yeah London Transport really demonstrates how awful public transport in public hands is Warlord eh?
0
0
@Guy.
The idea of nationalising car insurance is horrendous.
They nationalised health insurance and look at how that's going.
1
1
Dalek25 Apr 24 07:43
lol. Its like none of you were alive in the 70s. As jelly says you’re simply swapping one set of problems for another. All the same!
_________________________________________________________
I wasn't alive in the 70s
for 2 to work, the things you're complaining about need to be the same thing
2
0
I remember it well. I was advising the Thatcher government from the comfort of my highchair.
0
0
So they're going to take lines back as franchises expire so quite possible it's still ongoing come the next election.
Risky that was rather my point. No Labour government will do anything that involves meaningfully reducing the numbers of unionised employees.
0
0
On the car insurance/wife thing.
Added wife, on a provisional licence, having never driven before - insurance went down 20%.
Wife passed her test, insurance went up 15%.
0
1
@Guy.
The idea of nationalising car insurance is horrendous.
They nationalised health insurance and look at how that's going.
The NHS is still the most efficient model, but is starved of funds. If we spent as much on healthcare as the Americans, even as a proportion of GDP, and spent it on the NHS it would be the envy of the world because health services are far cheaper to run under a nationalised model
2
0
Apart from the billions paid to rail franchise shareholders, of course?
0
0
lack of funding would obviously not be a problem for a nationalised no fault car insurance scheme because the premiums collected would reflect the amounts paid out, you could even integrate car tax into it to simply matters further.
0
0
The funny bit about holding tfl as a exemplar is the screams of outrage when the mayor dismantled the PPP-nonsense they got stuck with.
It was socialism gorn mad back then
0
0
Might work if we agree that those who work for nationalised industries can not be part of a union / strike.
Independent board or something to make things right.
0
1
The second postal 9.28 is of course completely wrong. A category can be the same without its elements being the same.
0
0
And do away with First Class. You tap your phone when you get on and tap it when you get off. £1 a mile for everyone. Anyone without a mobile travels for free.
0
0
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy63j4x66ylo
1
0
Can't see this changing anything much - certainly not lower train fares (as average private sector profit per train journey is just 12p per trip), unless major subsidies are being considered (which we are told is currently not the case).
Main issue is to ensure that the exercise doesn't give rise to major liability commitments on the Gov, as these in turn could raise the cost of borrowing or result in the need for increased taxes.
Sensible policy for Labour, though, as in practice nothing much is likely to change, but from a cosmetic/publicity angle, they can bleat on about the 'positive' steps they are taking to renationalise the railways, as many people will not understand the nuances of what is really happening.
0
0
theRealist, I would hope the main difference is that investment in services will be by need rather than simply profit. Frequencies may be improved on less profitable lines cross subsidised by the profitable mainlines, something the private companies do not do.
0
0
Now do the water companies.
0
0
yeah London Transport really demonstrates how awful public transport in public hands is Warlord eh?
In essence it just depends on how much you are will to spend on subsidies paid for in the main by one group of people for the benefit of another group.
0
0
Not just that realist, integrating a transport system and using profits on profitable lines to subsidise unprofitable lines rather than extracting the profit for shareholders can make a huge difference.
Most privatised bus companies require subsidy to run unprofitable services, whereas when local councils ran them they were typically self funding and typically better than now. So we pay more as tax payers for a worse service and the only beneficaries are the shareholders.
0
0
Genuine question: why do people think nationalising the rail will improve it? Other than there being no companies retaining profits (and accepting that the re-investment of what would have been profits is a good thing).
Join the discussion