Snap General Election called

[Digby]

On a level more consistent with the normal board posting I see the son of Piers Morgan has faced criticism on social media after cheering the election result, highlighting how a win for Boris protects his inheritance. Frankly the criticism seems misplaced, whatever his name is only looking forward to the death of Piers like the rest of us.

You just made me laugh in the middle of my office. Thanks for the weird looks.

Puja

And people say Piers is useless, yet he'll do at least one decent thing

[Banquo]

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Or in the hands of govt, probably not, as that is exactly what BR failed to do. Workington man/woman remembers nationalised industries and services; those who don't remember, find this proposition quite appealing. They don't see what it took to get First Group to that level of profit, and how much investment has been made in rolling stock to get there; 2.9% margin is hardly exorbitant (for the year you refer to, 2.7% 18/19), and indeed some of that was penalty payments from Network Rail, and they are forecasting lower operating margins going forward. Before I voted for anyone who was promising state ownership of businesses that aren't fundamentally broken, I'd like to see how they'd prevent them going the way of BR (say), where underinvestment and poor productivity was the default; when you won't be allowed to fail, where is the incentive to innovate and change?

I'm not saying no to this, just convince me that govt would do a better job.

[Stom]

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Or in the hands of govt, probably not, as that is exactly what BR failed to do. Workington man/woman remembers nationalised industries and services; those who don't remember, find this proposition quite appealing. They don't see what it took to get First Group to that level of profit, and how much investment has been made in rolling stock to get there; 2.9% margin is hardly exorbitant (for the year you refer to, 2.7% 18/19), and indeed some of that was penalty payments from Network Rail, and they are forecasting lower operating margins going forward. Before I voted for anyone who was promising state ownership of businesses that aren't fundamentally broken, I'd like to see how they'd prevent them going the way of BR (say), where underinvestment and poor productivity was the default; when you won't be allowed to fail, where is the incentive to innovate and change?

I'm not saying no to this, just convince me that govt would do a better job.

Well, I've not done the detailed workings, that's not my job :p But I'd want to look at how those 6 countries manage such a good standard of rail transport.

[Sandydragon]

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Sadly the last time we had nationalised railways they were shit. Thats a compelling argument and BR was never as good as Virgin were.

Allowing the private sector in but subsidising the ticket rate is a good compromise.

[Son of Mathonwy]

On a level more consistent with the normal board posting I see the son of Piers Morgan has faced criticism on social media after cheering the election result, highlighting how a win for Boris protects his inheritance. Frankly the criticism seems misplaced, whatever his name is only looking forward to the death of Piers like the rest of us.

Sadly, like the Government's target for carbon neutrality, Piers's death is probably too far away to be of any use to anyone. At best it will give our children a moment's cheer as the UK submerges beneath what used to be Antarctic ice.

[Mellsblue]

And this is the key challenge for a socialist manifesto. If they are going to talk about nationalisation. monetary controls, higher taxation etc, they need to make a case that it isn't a return to the 1970s, or for that matter anywhere else where these methods have been tried and don't work. Venezuela turning into a basket case during the Corbyn era didn't help that cause. Re-nationalisation might appear popular to many voters, but not to many who would traditionally vote Conservative whose votes Labour need to win a majority.

However, Brexit offers Labour some additional flexibility. Following our EU departure, the UK government could subsidise travel. The rail service on the whole isn't that bad (one or 2 companies excepted). The big issue that many commuters have is price. Reduce that price and the moans will reduce, yet the UK government hasn't discouraged private investment which it needs.

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Germany does have private operators as does Denmark. That tier system is also based on pure outcomes, which is quite heavily skewed by state subsidies. Comparable data is difficult to find but you can rank those countries by subsidy and it’s a similar result to the tier ranking system. The only real outlier is Sweden....which uses a franchise system. Italy is almost wholly nationalised, is subsidised far more heavily than ours and still sits in the same tier. SNF is such a large drain on govt resources that they are looking for external investors...or at least they would do if the French would stop striking for at least one day. Germany’s train operator is also heavily state subsidised.

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market. However, this idea that state run trains are automatically better than private providers is a falsehood.

Pragmatism not ideology.

[Digby]

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market.

Seeing as I'm on my hobby horse having a rant about Labour having feck all to say about UBI I'm going to stay up and continue to rant, new news there I'm sure, that the Tories had nothing to say about the free market all too often being an oligopoly or even monopoly

Okay it's not just the big parties with far too little to say, and absolutely no detail, on major issues of their supposed policy areas, but they are the only two that count.

Also as an item of interest, Emma Dent Coad say she didn't reveal her diagnosis of breast cancer as she didn't want it to be a campaign issue. But if you're considering voting for someone to represent you would you want to know if they're likely to be absent or even dead? Decent points to be made on both sides, for myself I'd want to know, concluding if a candidate doesn't want to declare then don't stand

[Banquo]

Oops :p France.

Well, sell the rail renationalisation as the fact FirstGroup rail made almost £60m in profit. Reinvested over a 10 year period, that could improve service to people in the hardest to reach areas, without the need for additional government funding.

Or in the hands of govt, probably not, as that is exactly what BR failed to do. Workington man/woman remembers nationalised industries and services; those who don't remember, find this proposition quite appealing. They don't see what it took to get First Group to that level of profit, and how much investment has been made in rolling stock to get there; 2.9% margin is hardly exorbitant (for the year you refer to, 2.7% 18/19), and indeed some of that was penalty payments from Network Rail, and they are forecasting lower operating margins going forward. Before I voted for anyone who was promising state ownership of businesses that aren't fundamentally broken, I'd like to see how they'd prevent them going the way of BR (say), where underinvestment and poor productivity was the default; when you won't be allowed to fail, where is the incentive to innovate and change?

I'm not saying no to this, just convince me that govt would do a better job.

Well, I've not done the detailed workings, that's not my job :p But I'd want to look at how those 6 countries manage such a good standard of rail transport.

Indeed you should .

[Mellsblue]

Emily Thornberry confirms she’s running for leader.

[Digby]

Walking maybe

[Banquo]

Well, that's kind of my point, it was atrocious PR and marketing.

Currently, Europe has a 3 tiered railway system and Britain is tier 2.

Of the tier 1 countries, Switzerland, Germany, Denmark, Austria, Finland, and Germany all have state railways, only Sweden uses a franchise system.

That's pretty compelling.

Energy is a similar situation, as I understand, though I haven't looked into that.

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Germany does have private operators as does Denmark. That tier system is also based on pure outcomes, which is quite heavily skewed by state subsidies. Comparable data is difficult to find but you can rank those countries by subsidy and it’s a similar result to the tier ranking system. The only real outlier is Sweden....which uses a franchise system. Italy is almost wholly nationalised, is subsidised far more heavily than ours and still sits in the same tier. SNF is such a large drain on govt resources that they are looking for external investors...or at least they would do if the French would stop striking for at least one day. Germany’s train operator is also heavily state subsidised.

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market. However, this idea that state run trains are automatically better than private providers is a falsehood.

Pragmatism not ideology.

Train companies argue that they compete with cars, coaches and even planes- I worked for a while with a leading TOC in developing their channels (call centre, website), and they spent a lot of time thinking about getting car drivers especially to use the train for long journeys, and very successfully. Its a decent point though- in the Uk's case, privatisation of rail has lead to a miles better service than under BR with a long needed investment in both infrastructure and esp rolling stock. Unfortunately people who also made (too much) money were the rolling stock lessors.

[Mellsblue]

Germany like it so much they did it twice?

Also, no amount of marketing will convince Workington man or woman that he/she should subsidise two season tickets for commuting for the 'average family' as Jonny McD positioned it.

Germany does have private operators as does Denmark. That tier system is also based on pure outcomes, which is quite heavily skewed by state subsidies. Comparable data is difficult to find but you can rank those countries by subsidy and it’s a similar result to the tier ranking system. The only real outlier is Sweden....which uses a franchise system. Italy is almost wholly nationalised, is subsidised far more heavily than ours and still sits in the same tier. SNF is such a large drain on govt resources that they are looking for external investors...or at least they would do if the French would stop striking for at least one day. Germany’s train operator is also heavily state subsidised.

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market. However, this idea that state run trains are automatically better than private providers is a falsehood.

Pragmatism not ideology.

Train companies argue that they compete with cars, coaches and even planes- I worked for a while with a leading TOC in developing their channels (call centre, website), and they spent a lot of time thinking about getting car drivers especially to use the train for long journeys, and very successfully. Its a decent point though- in the Uk's case, privatisation of rail has lead to a miles better service than under BR with a long needed investment in both infrastructure and esp rolling stock. Unfortunately people who also made (too much) money were the rolling stock lessors.

The number of train journeys has shot up since privatisation and not all of that can be put down anything other than taking from other forms of transport. However, given input from the correct brains there’s no reason a nationalised operator couldn’t do the same. Whether a govt obsessed with nationalisation would pluck those brains from the private sector, and properly remunerate the, is another matter entirely. Obviously, there’s less incentive when in public hands as there are no shareholders to please, other franchises to bid for etc but it I’m sure it could be done though, perhaps not to the same degree.
You also point to another issue I have with state owned train provision. Funding the improvements on rolling stock etc is a long way down any priority list in the political cycle. Private providers almost guarantee that this investment will be forthcoming.
Personally, I’d be happy to see a state owned company bid for the franchises in competition with private companies. If the state provider will run the franchise efficiently enough to make the £60mil profit Stom stated earlier and return that profit to the exchequer for reinvestment, we’ll soon end up with a fully nationalised train provider.....

As you allude to, there are pros and cons to both. Good and bad examples of both. It’s not one good the other bad.

[Banquo]

Germany does have private operators as does Denmark. That tier system is also based on pure outcomes, which is quite heavily skewed by state subsidies. Comparable data is difficult to find but you can rank those countries by subsidy and it’s a similar result to the tier ranking system. The only real outlier is Sweden....which uses a franchise system. Italy is almost wholly nationalised, is subsidised far more heavily than ours and still sits in the same tier. SNF is such a large drain on govt resources that they are looking for external investors...or at least they would do if the French would stop striking for at least one day. Germany’s train operator is also heavily state subsidised.

I’m no huge fan of privatised train companies as I think privatisation only works at its best in a truly competitive market. However, this idea that state run trains are automatically better than private providers is a falsehood.

Pragmatism not ideology.

Train companies argue that they compete with cars, coaches and even planes- I worked for a while with a leading TOC in developing their channels (call centre, website), and they spent a lot of time thinking about getting car drivers especially to use the train for long journeys, and very successfully. Its a decent point though- in the Uk's case, privatisation of rail has lead to a miles better service than under BR with a long needed investment in both infrastructure and esp rolling stock. Unfortunately people who also made (too much) money were the rolling stock lessors.

The number of train journeys has shot up since privatisation and not all of that can be put down anything other than taking from other forms of transport. However, given input from the correct brains there’s no reason a nationalised operator couldn’t do the same. Whether a govt obsessed with nationalisation would pluck those brains from the private sector, and properly remunerate the, is another matter entirely. Obviously, there’s less incentive when in public hands as there are no shareholders to please, other franchises to bid for etc but it I’m sure it could be done though, perhaps not to the same degree.
You also point to another issue I have with state owned train provision. Funding the improvements on rolling stock etc is a long way down any priority list in the political cycle. Private providers almost guarantee that this investment will be forthcoming.
Personally, I’d be happy to see a state owned company bid for the franchises in competition with private companies. If the state provider will run the franchise efficiently enough to make the £60mil profit Stom stated earlier and return that profit to the exchequer for reinvestment, we’ll soon end up with a fully nationalised train provider.....

As you allude to, there are pros and cons to both. Good and bad examples of both. It’s not one good the other bad.

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

[Mellsblue]

Train companies argue that they compete with cars, coaches and even planes- I worked for a while with a leading TOC in developing their channels (call centre, website), and they spent a lot of time thinking about getting car drivers especially to use the train for long journeys, and very successfully. Its a decent point though- in the Uk's case, privatisation of rail has lead to a miles better service than under BR with a long needed investment in both infrastructure and esp rolling stock. Unfortunately people who also made (too much) money were the rolling stock lessors.

The number of train journeys has shot up since privatisation and not all of that can be put down anything other than taking from other forms of transport. However, given input from the correct brains there’s no reason a nationalised operator couldn’t do the same. Whether a govt obsessed with nationalisation would pluck those brains from the private sector, and properly remunerate the, is another matter entirely. Obviously, there’s less incentive when in public hands as there are no shareholders to please, other franchises to bid for etc but it I’m sure it could be done though, perhaps not to the same degree.
You also point to another issue I have with state owned train provision. Funding the improvements on rolling stock etc is a long way down any priority list in the political cycle. Private providers almost guarantee that this investment will be forthcoming.
Personally, I’d be happy to see a state owned company bid for the franchises in competition with private companies. If the state provider will run the franchise efficiently enough to make the £60mil profit Stom stated earlier and return that profit to the exchequer for reinvestment, we’ll soon end up with a fully nationalised train provider.....

As you allude to, there are pros and cons to both. Good and bad examples of both. It’s not one good the other bad.

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

[Banquo]

The number of train journeys has shot up since privatisation and not all of that can be put down anything other than taking from other forms of transport. However, given input from the correct brains there’s no reason a nationalised operator couldn’t do the same. Whether a govt obsessed with nationalisation would pluck those brains from the private sector, and properly remunerate the, is another matter entirely. Obviously, there’s less incentive when in public hands as there are no shareholders to please, other franchises to bid for etc but it I’m sure it could be done though, perhaps not to the same degree.
You also point to another issue I have with state owned train provision. Funding the improvements on rolling stock etc is a long way down any priority list in the political cycle. Private providers almost guarantee that this investment will be forthcoming.
Personally, I’d be happy to see a state owned company bid for the franchises in competition with private companies. If the state provider will run the franchise efficiently enough to make the £60mil profit Stom stated earlier and return that profit to the exchequer for reinvestment, we’ll soon end up with a fully nationalised train provider.....

As you allude to, there are pros and cons to both. Good and bad examples of both. It’s not one good the other bad.

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

[Stom]

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

I agree, actually.

I think there's definitely room to change how state run bodies do their business, to make them operate more as businesses just that the profits go back into investment in service.

It was something Labour tried to say but got it lost in their messaging, actually. They wanted shareholder panels made up of users, experts, and so on, who the nationalised energy companies would be answerable to.

I think that's a pretty good idea.

But, as you say, the devil is in the detail.

[Mellsblue]

There isn't much evidence that the state runs many things well in this country, and much to the contrary. Hence my point on needing to be convinced....what would be different this time? I've highlighted the flaw in your plan.

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

Agreed but I’m not advocating renationalising the trains do you’ll have to get to get your operating model from someone who is

[Digby]

I'd again like to note a lot of the problems with a lack of state investment in companies now privatised stemmed from investment levels that were low 'cause the government doesn't have the money to invest, but also 'cause the Tories intentionally under invested to make the various bodies cheaper to buy, and whilst there has been a lot of private investment a lot of that is actually just based on borrowing. So you could get very similar investment levels if you simply allowed public bodies to borrow, whether that's a good thing is open to debate, but private investment does tend to push up debt held in the country rather than see new money coming in, whether that's a good or bad thing is also open to debate.

I'm of the view there tends to be good and bad in things run by the state and done privately, a plague on both their houses. But I lean towards state run organisations when it's national infrastructure with natural monopolies, and I'm amenable to not for profits sitting slightly outside the state.

I'm also of the view however if you want to renationalise you need a really clear idea where the money is coming from, to understand debt isn't free, and that you cannot nationalise in the cheap without risking a lot of investment beyond those previously private firms. So maybe now it's done I'd choose to work with what there is than launch into some massive public purchasing projects, it rather feels like there's already enough to be getting on with

[Banquo]

I'd again like to note a lot of the problems with a lack of state investment in companies now privatised stemmed from investment levels that were low 'cause the government doesn't have the money to invest, but also 'cause the Tories intentionally under invested to make the various bodies cheaper to buy, and whilst there has been a lot of private investment a lot of that is actually just based on borrowing. So you could get very similar investment levels if you simply allowed public bodies to borrow, whether that's a good thing is open to debate, but private investment does tend to push up debt held in the country rather than see new money coming in, whether that's a good or bad thing is also open to debate.

I'm of the view there tends to be good and bad in things run by the state and done privately, a plague on both their houses. But I lean towards state run organisations when it's national infrastructure with natural monopolies, and I'm amenable to not for profits sitting slightly outside the state.

I'm also of the view however if you want to renationalise you need a really clear idea where the money is coming from, to understand debt isn't free, and that you cannot nationalise in the cheap without risking a lot of investment beyond those previously private firms. So maybe now it's done I'd choose to work with what there is than launch into some massive public purchasing projects, it rather feels like there's already enough to be getting on with

Well you got there in the end. But its not just about the money source, its about the culture, and there is a very different mindset in running a service that will never be allowed to fail, versus one that has to succeed- definition of success is the interesting bit- or be replaced (see rail franchises although that specific model had its own issues).

[Banquo]

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

Agreed but I’m not advocating renationalising the trains do you’ll have to get to get your operating model from someone who is

and again, pretty sure the Labour Party didn't spell that out.

[Banquo]

I’m not convinced it would be much better/different this time. In fact, I very much doubt it would be. I’m not advocating we go back to state run rail. That said, I’m not convinced saying it was crap, and it was crap, 25 years ago is to say it would definitely be crap now. Lessons can be learnt and best practice can be stolen from elsewhere. As you know, I’ve worked in both public and private sector, and seen the good and bad in both, and I definitely think the private sector should run the trains. I just believe that without true competition, ie providers running exactly the same routes which is practicably impossible, privatisation will never harness its greatest asset. Hence my comment of ‘not a huge fan’. That’s not to say I think nationalised rail would be better just that I see the current model as flawed.
As I said in my previous post, let the state provider compete with the private providers. If the state provider is the better model we’ll naturally evolve to a nationalised railway. I’d put a heavy wager on that not even coming close to happening.

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

I agree, actually.

I think there's definitely room to change how state run bodies do their business, to make them operate more as businesses just that the profits go back into investment in service.

It was something Labour tried to say but got it lost in their messaging, actually. They wanted shareholder panels made up of users, experts, and so on, who the nationalised energy companies would be answerable to.

I think that's a pretty good idea.

But, as you say, the devil is in the detail.

Labour set out a whole bunch of bodies/quangos to oversee the Energy re-nationalisation. Looked like the old regional boards (14 of them). They were very vague about rail.

[Stom]

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

I agree, actually.

I think there's definitely room to change how state run bodies do their business, to make them operate more as businesses just that the profits go back into investment in service.

It was something Labour tried to say but got it lost in their messaging, actually. They wanted shareholder panels made up of users, experts, and so on, who the nationalised energy companies would be answerable to.

I think that's a pretty good idea.

But, as you say, the devil is in the detail.

Labour set out a whole bunch of bodies/quangos to oversee the Energy re-nationalisation. Looked like the old regional boards (14 of them). They were very vague about rail.

Yeah, I know.

But some kind of independent oversight is necessary

[Sandydragon]

....only saying I need to see what would be different, ie the operating model, who would run it, how would success be measured etc etc. Devil in detail and all that.

Agreed but I’m not advocating renationalising the trains do you’ll have to get to get your operating model from someone who is

and again, pretty sure the Labour Party didn't spell that out.

A big problem with the railways is that the railway companies have to rely on someone else owning and managing the track.

[Sandydragon]

I'd again like to note a lot of the problems with a lack of state investment in companies now privatised stemmed from investment levels that were low 'cause the government doesn't have the money to invest, but also 'cause the Tories intentionally under invested to make the various bodies cheaper to buy, and whilst there has been a lot of private investment a lot of that is actually just based on borrowing. So you could get very similar investment levels if you simply allowed public bodies to borrow, whether that's a good thing is open to debate, but private investment does tend to push up debt held in the country rather than see new money coming in, whether that's a good or bad thing is also open to debate.

I'm of the view there tends to be good and bad in things run by the state and done privately, a plague on both their houses. But I lean towards state run organisations when it's national infrastructure with natural monopolies, and I'm amenable to not for profits sitting slightly outside the state.

I'm also of the view however if you want to renationalise you need a really clear idea where the money is coming from, to understand debt isn't free, and that you cannot nationalise in the cheap without risking a lot of investment beyond those previously private firms. So maybe now it's done I'd choose to work with what there is than launch into some massive public purchasing projects, it rather feels like there's already enough to be getting on with

Renationalisation would scare investors and make them wary about investing in other areas. I’d prefer to make the railways more efficient and user friendly by other means, such as subsidies. I get that many tax payers don’t want to pay for someone else’s travel, but equally I don’t want to pay for someone else’s police response. That’s just the way it works.

Cheaper public transport would make it more cost efficient to work further from home and for those whose incomes can’t sustain significant transport costs. It would also ease traffic on the roads.

[Son of Mathonwy]

To be fair, Labour were only planning to nationalise enterprises that are natural monopolies, where competition is not present or is weak at best.

No doubt, with the benefit of hindsight, too many nationalisations were planned. Indeed, I'm not sure that Labour's core goals required any urgent nationalisations. They probably should have picked just one - say, the railways - not to frighten people, or in fact to overload government's workload.