Should British Rail be Publicly owned

[said]

British Rail had been running at a loss for many years. During John Major's term in office, various train services were tendered out to franchises, with the idea of improving services to the public, reducing union interference and keeping fares low?? The idea was that the franchises would compete against each other to ensure great improvements in rail travel.
Several components of the service are still publicly owned - each franchise has to pay the Government for track access, leasing stations, rolling stock and some maintenance - but the franchises do receive £millions in subsidies.
Fares have increased substantially, the services are little better and there have been several anomalies concerned with some of the franchises. Union interference is still present - we still have strikes.
Is it time to revert the whole of the Rail System in the UK back under state ownership?

[DixieRoy]

Hamble will surely love this post, watch this space 😀

[Hamble]

Hamble will surely love this post, watch this space 😀

https://player.bfi.org.uk/free/film/...ys-1948-online

[silver fox]

The railway's economic situation at the time of privatisation was a direct result of deliberate underfunding by the Tory government (shades of NHS) and in reality was nowhere near as bad as we were given to understand.

Railtrack was the first major failure where a combination of "savings" and incompetence resulted in far too many safety related incidents, eventually the operation handed to Network Rail with the taxpayer picking up the bill to correct the shortcomings of Railtrack and continued in public ownership.

When it comes to major investment in any area of the railways it is still the taxpayer paying the bills, the rail franchises merely rent/lease the rolling stock and pay for services ref; rail lines etc, it is also worth noting that the leasing companies, (who appear to make very high profits from relatively little outlay) were initially gifted virtually all the existing rolling stock belonging to BR at the time of privatisation

The biggest failure of all is to see the rail operating companies still receiving subsidies in most cases equal to or greater than the franchise payments, yet the rail operating companies can still pay out dividends to shareholders.

In this instance the rail operating companies are totally meaningless and merely a vehicle for moving taxpayers money into private pockets while providing no useful service or return to the taxpayer, the final failure is throughout the fiasco we now have the worst and most expensive rail services in Europe, ironically taxpayer subsidy is in too many cases going to European operators thereby funding their rail services.

[The PNP]

I see no reason for the state to run/have a 100% monopoly in any business, while there are private companies prepared to do the job....For some years after the war, it seemed almost everything was state-run: road haulage, postal/parcel delivery, mining/gas production, energy supply, public transport, telecoms, broadcasting, etc. Who on earth would want to go back to that sort of world?

[silver fox]

I see no reason for the state to run/have a 100% monopoly in any business, while there are private companies prepared to do the job....For some years after the war, it seemed almost everything was state-run: road haulage, postal/parcel delivery, mining/gas production, energy supply, public transport, telecoms, broadcasting, etc. Who on earth would want to go back to that sort of world?

It is considerably worse to gift private companies a monopoly, then to gift aid these companies with taxpayers money is against every bit of logic and sense, name just one of the public services or utilities which are now cheaper and more efficient than when under the public sector.

When or more likely IF any of the companies now "running" public sector services do so using their own funding, build their own infrastructure, train their own staff, give a genuine competitive and efficient service, then I will give ground, BUT to date the privatisation of all the public services has produced profits for the financiers, the hedge fund sharks and even foreign companies, it has not done anything to benefit the paying public or indeed the taxpayer.

[Hamble]

I see no reason for the state to run/have a 100% monopoly in any business, while there are private companies prepared to do the job....For some years after the war, it seemed almost everything was state-run: road haulage, postal/parcel delivery, mining/gas production, energy supply, public transport, telecoms, broadcasting, etc. Who on earth would want to go back to that sort of world?

I say PNP I do agree with you on that.

With the exception of the nhs what others are worth fighting for taking into consideration the negatives?

[ausard2]

For those who do not maybe understand. Everything in life has to be paid for, there seems to a lot of people whinging about share holders and dividends. Where do you think your pensions come from, where do think the unions invest their money. I believe southern rail have just
at around 28% unless its fake news. If true its obscene.

[Alikado]

I say PNP I do agree with you on that.

With the exception of the nhs what others are worth fighting for taking into consideration the negatives?

They are all worth fighting for, the taxpayer is being stung left right and centre and all the profits from these privatised monopolies disappear into overseas tax havens not to the benefit of the consumer.

[salus.populi]

I see no reason for the state to run/have a 100% monopoly in any business, while there are private companies prepared to do the job....For some years after the war, it seemed almost everything was state-run: road haulage, postal/parcel delivery, mining/gas production, energy supply, public transport, telecoms, broadcasting, etc. Who on earth would want to go back to that sort of world?

Surely the point is that essential public services shouldn't be businesses.

[Little Londoner]

The Leasing companies are NOT Government owned they are owned by Money Making Institutions like Banks.
Why should European State Railways be able to keep THEIR Countrymens fares low off the back of the profits made from the British Rail users.

Why are the government paying out MORE in subsidies to these "Private" companies than was EVER paid to British Railways. 20 years on and "Rail Privatisation" is a complete and utter farce causing misery to commuters in fare rises and costing the Taxpayer £billions to line the pocket of £multimillionaire shareholders and Foreign rail passengers.

[said]

The Leasing companies are NOT Government owned they are owned by Money Making Institutions like Banks.
Why should European State Railways be able to keep THEIR Countrymens fares low off the back of the profits made from the British Rail users.

Why are the government paying out MORE in subsidies to these "Private" companies than was EVER paid to British Railways. 20 years on and "Rail Privatisation" is a complete and utter farce causing misery to commuters in fare rises and costing the Taxpayer £billions to line the pocket of £multimillionaire shareholders and Foreign rail passengers.

It is true! Some of those with franchises in the UK - ALSO run rail services in their own country. Each franchise has to operate with their own administration staff and their own legal departments, etc.,m all of which is reflected in the cost of the ticket price. If one body was to run the majority of the services, there would be one department for administration and one legal department only! Several of those franchises are coming up for renewal in the next couple of years - it is high time that the government stopped the Rail subsidies by taking over running British Rail - and in doing so, employ experienced business people who know what they are doing, to make the service far more economical and efficient. Surely this would lead to far greater savings across the UK.

[silver fox]

For those who do not maybe understand. Everything in life has to be paid for, there seems to a lot of people whinging about share holders and dividends. Where do you think your pensions come from, where do think the unions invest their money. I believe southern rail have just
at around 28% unless its fake news. If true its obscene.

I don't think anyone objects to a well run independent company making a profit, indeed most would applaud that, investors who put their money at risk to fund ventures deserve the rewards when the risk pays off, BUT when it comes to public services the risks are light or non-existent because they have the most secure paymaster in the country, ie; the taxpayer and a captive customer base, how it can be remotely sensible to introduce a profit take into a not for profit organisation is beyond anything reasonable.

[Hamble]

They are all worth fighting for, the taxpayer is being stung left right and centre and all the profits from these privatised monopolies disappear into overseas tax havens not to the benefit of the consumer.

Would you vote for a party investing in an overseas tax haven?

[Alikado]

Would you vote for a party investing in an overseas tax haven?

Plenty of people have.

Investing in tax havens should be OK but when money is repatriated it should be taxed as income, the dodgy ruses such as fake loans and paying for none existant services need stamping out.