Originally Posted by bensherman

This is what you voted for.
Propelled by the fiction about Brexit and resting on an "oven-ready" deal which Johnson did not even understand.
Moore's comments rest on the assumption that this cost MUST be borne by bill-payers. And that this cost could run to thousands per family.
I would like to see the latter allegation explained in detail because it sounds like nonsense.
As for the former- of course we should not under any circumstances threaten the comfort of the "entrepreneurs" who do so nicely out of their contracts with entirely captive customers. And who are in many cases foreign utilities here because they would not be allowed such profit and lax regulation in their home markets.
GET THIS MAN OUT.
And don't stop there...there are many more like him.

Thats an odd post,

of course we will be paying, who else is there?

and the neglect and waste during the nationalised era led to the privatisation.


Which definitely has been a mixed bag of improvement and assault by leeching owners.

As to Brexit please remember that the years of sewer neglect and sewage overflows happened during decades of EU membership.

Having to allow EU members to buy up our utilities and ransack them was due to EU membership.

One of our Unions has researched quite a piece on EU members buying up our assets
our so called friends are stripping us bare.

Originally Posted by local

Thats an odd post,

of course we will be paying, who else is there?

and the neglect and waste during the nationalised era led to the privatisation.


Which definitely has been a mixed bag of improvement and assault by leeching owners.

As to Brexit please remember that the years of sewer neglect and sewage overflows happened during decades of EU membership.

Having to allow EU members to buy up our utilities and ransack them was due to EU membership.

One of our Unions has researched quite a piece on EU members buying up our assets
our so called friends are stripping us bare.

Indeed there was under-investment in our public utilities.
I can't think of any improvement in any that were privatised.
Where I used to live our local railway was the Chiltern Line. It was the last line modernised before privatisation. New signalling, systems, rolling stock. Bought by its management team.
The idea of competition was a farce. It just went from being a public monopoly to a private one. It was a gold mine.
The management team sold it a few years later, with every one of them becoming a millionaire. Then they were retained by its new owners.
And the new owners sold it again a few years later.
LUDICROUSLY underpriced. It was probably worth TWICE what it was sold for initially.
Ditto when the Royal Mail was privatised and on the first day the share price rose 70%. Of course the "advisers" who had suggested the price got millions for their wisdom, and certain partied got advance information on what the price would be...
As for who bought them, I don't blame the foreign operators in the slightest. Just the people who created the circumstances where it was possible.

Originally Posted by bensherman

Indeed there was under-investment in our public utilities.
I can't think of any improvement in any that were privatised.
Where I used to live our local railway was the Chiltern Line. It was the last line modernised before privatisation. New signalling, systems, rolling stock. Bought by its management team.
The idea of competition was a farce. It just went from being a public monopoly to a private one. It was a gold mine.
The management team sold it a few years later, with every one of them becoming a millionaire. Then they were retained by its new owners.
And the new owners sold it again a few years later.
LUDICROUSLY underpriced. It was probably worth TWICE what it was sold for initially.
Ditto when the Royal Mail was privatised and on the first day the share price rose 70%. Of course the "advisers" who had suggested the price got millions for their wisdom, and certain partied got advance information on what the price would be...
As for who bought them, I don't blame the foreign operators in the slightest. Just the people who created the circumstances where it was possible.

Our exit from the EU would make it much easier to nationalise them if the public voted for a Party that would do it.

It might be easier to introduce legislation because no one would trust Keir Starmer and Boris is highly unlikely to.

Originally Posted by local

[/B][/I]


Our exit from the EU would make it much easier to nationalise them if the public voted for a Party that would do it.

It might be easier to introduce legislation because no one would trust Keir Starmer and Boris is highly unlikely to.

Can you explain how the EU would have prevented us doing that?
When most similar organisations in EU countries were never privatised in the first place?
The major obstacle would be the sheer cost.
Thatcher and Major's governments absorbed the income from selling assets to do ,,,er??

Originally Posted by bensherman

Can you explain how the EU would have prevented us doing that?
When most similar organisations in EU countries were never privatised in the first place?
The major obstacle would be the sheer cost.
Thatcher and Major's governments absorbed the income from selling assets to do ,,,er??

Under EU rules, member-state governments are allowed to provide state aid only with approval from the European Commission we have left now so it would be easier but not plain sailing as we have trade deals with the EU and WTO rules to consider.

This article I have C&P

EU rail policy has sought to impose a ‘vertical separation‘ principle, separating the management of rail infrastructure from the provision of services in an attempt to end the idea of ail companies as natural monopolies. The state can own and manage the rail infrastructure, but this needs to be separate from the provision of services. Services themselves can be provided by state-owned operators, but normally these operators would be expected to win contracts competitively. It should be underlined, though, that in this regard the EU is following the lead set by the UK. There is an obvious irony in the fact that leaving the EU would offer the UK the freedom to abandon an approach that it has been pursuing unilaterally for many years.



https://blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/...p-its-economy/


So now we have left the road is clearer although I am not sure if Sir Keir supports it or not he has ruled out quite a few things Jeremy would have.

We aren't talking about state aid.

And the principle you quote about separating elements of rail delivery are not followed in practice in several EU countries.

In 2010-ish I worked on a contract for GNER, who ran the East Coast line, and was largely working at York station. I got to know several of the senior GNER managers and some Railtrack people.

They all felt, strongly, that the structure adopted was seriously inefficient. Thousands of staff were involved in communication between the entities, and cross-billing.

The station manager gave me an example. A light needed replacement on one of the platforms. He told me that to get it fixed he had to put in a request to to his own HQ, who asked Railtrack, who told their regional infrastructure team, who would then select a subcontractor to attend. Under British Rail he just went to see the station electrician.

One of them reckoned that if the bureaucracy created by privatisation was removed, fares could have been reduced by 10% and cross-system ticketing transformed.

Meanwhile 30-year old locos drew trains through the station towing expensively-leased rolling stock because operators would not invest with franchises lasting on average seven years. If you would like to see a company which made MASSIVE profits from it all have a look at Porterbrook. A business which did not even need to exist before privatisation.

Member states doing what they want is not unusual as I copied above our railway model is one the EU for some reason finds reasonable.

Don't forget the EU is about driving all member countries to the same practices, fine if it works for your country but not if it doesn't.

As the newly enlightened Barnier pointed out the EU is run for the likes of Germanies convenience.

Whilst on the subject of the new Barnier he said "France must regain its "legal sovereignty in order to no longer be subject to the judgments" of the Court of Justice of the European Union "

Mention the s word on here and the invective gets filed and delivered.

Freedom to do as we wish even if that includes your nationalised railway doesn't sound bad to me and the new Barnier.

Originally Posted by bensherman

We aren't talking about state aid.

And the principle you quote about separating elements of rail delivery are not followed in practice in several EU countries.

In 2010-ish I worked on a contract for GNER, who ran the East Coast line, and was largely working at York station. I got to know several of the senior GNER managers and some Railtrack people.

They all felt, strongly, that the structure adopted was seriously inefficient. Thousands of staff were involved in communication between the entities, and cross-billing.

The station manager gave me an example. A light needed replacement on one of the platforms. He told me that to get it fixed he had to put in a request to to his own HQ, who asked Railtrack, who told their regional infrastructure team, who would then select a subcontractor to attend. Under British Rail he just went to see the station electrician.

One of them reckoned that if the bureaucracy created by privatisation was removed, fares could have been reduced by 10% and cross-system ticketing transformed.

Meanwhile 30-year old locos drew trains through the station towing expensively-leased rolling stock because operators would not invest with franchises lasting on average seven years. If you would like to see a company which made MASSIVE profits from it all have a look at Porterbrook. A business which did not even need to exist before privatisation.

A couple of years ago I had a trip to the Midlands on the way back I had to change at Wolverhampton, I was much bemused when a chappy in a West Midlands uniform came out of door of the platform building and waved his magic wand to see off the train I had just alighted, minutes later a Cross Country train appeared followed by a Welsh train and a Virgin all to be waved away by different people in different uniforms, it was like a kids TV program. How inefficient and costly is that? They could all have been replaced by one person whose wage could have been contributed to by all the companies.

Originally Posted by local

Member states doing what they want is not unusual as I copied above our railway model is one the EU for some reason finds reasonable.

Don't forget the EU is about driving all member countries to the same practices, fine if it works for your country but not if it doesn't.

As the newly enlightened Barnier pointed out the EU is run for the likes of Germanies convenience.

Whilst on the subject of the new Barnier he said "France must regain its "legal sovereignty in order to no longer be subject to the judgments" of the Court of Justice of the European Union "

Mention the s word on here and the invective gets filed and delivered.

Freedom to do as we wish even if that includes your nationalised railway doesn't sound bad to me and the new Barnier.

The issue about state aid is to do with subsidising industries in competition with other EU providers.
And it doesn't even ban it. But allows it under certain conditions.
Nationalising rail again would take it out of that arena as competition would be irrelevant.
Surely you can see that the net effect of our privatised system has been that we have the most expensive rail travel in Europe. Even though operators are running extremely old equipment long ago amortised.
It's interesting that Merseyrail deviated from the required model and retained ownership of the fleet. Which is why it can confidently buy a whole new fleet.
If you want a model see the Netherlands. One operator, Spoorwagen. Modern trains excellent service and value.