3 ms·

OK, that puts a rather different complexion on it. > To me, it's not clear that a return to a nationalised operator would help things in GB; ... the railway is

OK, that puts a rather different complexion on it. > To me, it's not clear that a return to a nationalised operator would help things in GB; ... the railway is far more micromanaged by the government today than it ever was under British Rail True, whilst I understand the reasoning of Labour's suggestion to re-nationalise, at best we would get a less effective repeat of 1947. 1947-1960 (before Beeching) worked OK in good part because BR still had the shape of the big 4 years. Even if Labour planned, executed and funded perfectly we would, at some point, get a Tory government, who would be inclined to under-fund it. Off we go again, still with infrastructure 50 years behind. I mention nationalisation more as a reason to bring it all back into one whole first -- to split it up more sensibly at the next attempt. Divvying up various bits of all the various companies differently seems challenging. :) The central micromanagement speaks to other UK post-war problems, which also affect rail. We've become one of the most centralised countries there is, whilst talking of smaller government and deregulation. Local funding has been steadily gutted since the end of the general rates. Local authorities used to be able to make far wider reaching decisions, and fund them. They could start, fund or develop local services, such as bus, power or train, and often create a municipal corporation to run it -- hands off. That's the other appeal of returning to the pre-war organisation, it would distance the government from the day to day, and local choices, especially in Scotland, the North etc, might be possible once again. We could add capacity, and undo some of the worst of Beeching. Now if only we could only undo some of the UK's excess centralisation as well...

gsnedders 7y ago
I'm not going to claim there aren't ways nationalisation could play out well (and with a time machine I certainly wouldn't sell BR off), just… I'm dubious with the politically situation in this country that it would end well. Labour's railway plans essentially view nationalisation as the solution to all problems (though it might make people blame those actually making the decisions!), and it would likely take longer than one election cycle for people to realise mere nationalising hasn't made trains run on time, fares go down, etc. Regional bodies having more power and influence (and money, probably with tax raising powers to actually control their supply!) would be a fantastic thing, but I think would be needed before nationalisation would significantly change the British rail scene at this point.
- NeedMoreTea 7y ago
  No, I wouldn't have sold off in the first place either. You;re entirely right on the politics though. Post war had the post war consensus, and until the demise of Heath, One Nation Conservatism. They hadn't discovered globalism and neoliberalism, would still see benefit in putting Britain first -- it was the Tories who nationalised Rolls Royce, who decided not to undo the NHS in 51, etc. When only one side thinks nationalised should exist at all, well, it gets doomed to fail. Water and a few other natural monopolies might survive as I suspect few on the right still claim those as successes. You might be right about regionalism being needed first, I'm not sure. Seems like we should try and regain both, and need both, so Liverpool and Manchester can work together and get a new railway, or compete and brief against each other and end up with the Manchester Ship Canal. Whitehall's only involvement in those essentially limited to saying "OK". The Whitehall conceived, planned and delayed "northern powerhouse", that has both Liverpool and Manchester mayors tearing their hair out at how little input their cities get just marks it as the usual, never fully delivered, centralised horseshit for the regions...

gsnedders 7y ago

I'm not going to claim there aren't ways nationalisation could play out well (and with a time machine I certainly wouldn't sell BR off), just… I'm dubious with the politically situation in this country that it would end well. Labour's railway plans essentially view nationalisation as the solution to all problems (though it might make people blame those actually making the decisions!), and it would likely take longer than one election cycle for people to realise mere nationalising hasn't made trains run on time, fares go down, etc. Regional bodies having more power and influence (and money, probably with tax raising powers to actually control their supply!) would be a fantastic thing, but I think would be needed before nationalisation would significantly change the British rail scene at this point.

NeedMoreTea 7y ago
No, I wouldn't have sold off in the first place either. You;re entirely right on the politics though. Post war had the post war consensus, and until the demise of Heath, One Nation Conservatism. They hadn't discovered globalism and neoliberalism, would still see benefit in putting Britain first -- it was the Tories who nationalised Rolls Royce, who decided not to undo the NHS in 51, etc. When only one side thinks nationalised should exist at all, well, it gets doomed to fail. Water and a few other natural monopolies might survive as I suspect few on the right still claim those as successes. You might be right about regionalism being needed first, I'm not sure. Seems like we should try and regain both, and need both, so Liverpool and Manchester can work together and get a new railway, or compete and brief against each other and end up with the Manchester Ship Canal. Whitehall's only involvement in those essentially limited to saying "OK". The Whitehall conceived, planned and delayed "northern powerhouse", that has both Liverpool and Manchester mayors tearing their hair out at how little input their cities get just marks it as the usual, never fully delivered, centralised horseshit for the regions...