4 ms·

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

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...

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...