4 ms·

The Tories have renationalised many of the train companies, and are currently toying with nationalising the General Practice (GP) service in the UK - which most

The Tories have renationalised many of the train companies, and are currently toying with nationalising the General Practice (GP) service in the UK - which most of the public would not realise was private sector (albeit GPs have strict rules against private practice, unlike dentists). There are some obvious reasons to want to renationalise critical infrastructure like water and power, particularly given the absolutely piss-poor job done by the private contractors. And in many areas - like the trains - the "private enterprises" running the services turn out to be commercial arms of other European public sector bodies anyway, and are not private sector in any meaningful sense. I don't think this is Left vs Right any more. If the Tories want red-wall voters and broad appeal, they have to move a lot more than Labour needs to stay in the middle ground. Left vs Right does not capture the complexity of what's happening here.

samwillis 5y ago
Quite true, although I wouldn't say that they nationalist the train companies willingly or that it was planned, it was a result of them going bust.
- ealexhudson 5y ago
  Mostly agreed - they went bust and/or withdrew from contracts, and yes pandemic was an issue, but these companies were also getting huge amounts of public money (Gov was typically buying the trains), and the infrastructure/rail element has been properly nationalised for a few years now. The idea that competition can have any real meaning on a highly constrained and contended single resource - like railways - is a bit laughable, so the market doesn't really offer much opportunity for optimization. Equally though, the old British Rail was nothing to get excited about. We just don't seem to have a decent economic model for running loss-making services with positive general externalities for the benefit of society.
  - lbriner 5y ago
    The private model does work elsewhere in the world but I'm not sure whether we completely understand the differences and what makes these other countries work so well. On the other hand, we tend to have rose-tinted memories of how cheap everything was in the old days, which I don't think is true. For the level of subsidy that our railways have, they are probably not actually that bad. Many people have said before that even places like France might do well on the high speed lines but their secondary routes can be as rough as ours and they get much more investment.
  - pydry 5y ago
    >The idea that competition can have any real meaning on a highly constrained and contended single resource - like railways - is a bit laughable, so the market doesn't really offer much opportunity for optimization Of course not. The Tories always meant for it to be a vehicle through which they and their mates could extract rents. That's always the point of privatization.
arethuza 5y ago
Worth noting that water in Scotland was never privatised - domestic properties pay for it (and waster water treatment) by fixed charges linked to council tax band: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water "Scottish Water has been ranked the best UK water company and utility for customer service"
- smackay 5y ago
  After the ScotWind giveaway, it's widely expected that water will be next.

samwillis 5y ago

Quite true, although I wouldn't say that they nationalist the train companies willingly or that it was planned, it was a result of them going bust.

ealexhudson 5y ago
Mostly agreed - they went bust and/or withdrew from contracts, and yes pandemic was an issue, but these companies were also getting huge amounts of public money (Gov was typically buying the trains), and the infrastructure/rail element has been properly nationalised for a few years now. The idea that competition can have any real meaning on a highly constrained and contended single resource - like railways - is a bit laughable, so the market doesn't really offer much opportunity for optimization. Equally though, the old British Rail was nothing to get excited about. We just don't seem to have a decent economic model for running loss-making services with positive general externalities for the benefit of society.
- lbriner 5y ago
  The private model does work elsewhere in the world but I'm not sure whether we completely understand the differences and what makes these other countries work so well. On the other hand, we tend to have rose-tinted memories of how cheap everything was in the old days, which I don't think is true. For the level of subsidy that our railways have, they are probably not actually that bad. Many people have said before that even places like France might do well on the high speed lines but their secondary routes can be as rough as ours and they get much more investment.
- pydry 5y ago
  >The idea that competition can have any real meaning on a highly constrained and contended single resource - like railways - is a bit laughable, so the market doesn't really offer much opportunity for optimization Of course not. The Tories always meant for it to be a vehicle through which they and their mates could extract rents. That's always the point of privatization.

arethuza 5y ago

Worth noting that water in Scotland was never privatised - domestic properties pay for it (and waster water treatment) by fixed charges linked to council tax band: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Water "Scottish Water has been ranked the best UK water company and utility for customer service"

smackay 5y ago
After the ScotWind giveaway, it's widely expected that water will be next.