I'm still not sure why anyone thinks a state monopoly over the whole thing would be a good thing?
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
I'm still not sure why anyone thinks a state monopoly over the whole thing would be a good thing?
Some good points but I would disagree with the (implied) criticism of rolling stock/infrastructure projects suffering under governmental control, I can't think of many decent improvements we have had which have been on time, in cost and most especially co-ordinated well since it has moved into private hands.
I used East Coast Mainline frequently and it was a fantastic service. It's now been taken over and it's gone downhill rapidly in addition to seeing niceties such as free wifi scrapped, as why have something for free when you can squeeze more cash from your passengers.
Maybe it's all the state-owned railways outside the UK that offer a better and cheaper service.
Yep. Everywhere it's been privatised it's just more expensive and **** :/
Because the publicly-owned TfL works just fine?
Nationalizing the operating companies is the easy (and cheap) bit, just wait till the franchises run out.
The problem is the rolling stock, the trains and carriages etc.
They are owned by 3 companies who lease them to the operating companies, and make a very nice profit in doing so.
The government would have to pay cold hard cash to these companies to get the stock off them.
The problem is the rolling stock, the trains and carriages etc.
They are owned by 3 companies who lease them to the operating companies, and make a very nice profit in doing so.
The government would have to pay cold hard cash to these companies to get the stock off them.
Your criticism seems to be of privatisation approach taken rather than privatisation as such.
Rail could be done with competing providers on the same route, it just wasn't. There is nothing to stop an air travel style slot system being implemented apart from that it wasn't.
The energy piece also misses part of the point. There is scope for competition, because while transport costs are fixed, energy purchase and other running costs are not. This allows for competition based on things other than the price of the product.
The problem with nationalisation is always an abject failure in cost control, especially when you factor in a highly unionised workforce. There should be an absolute duty of any nationalised industry or public sector body to minimise costs and work efficiently, or maybe a customer union type structure that always takes precedence over the employee one in the event of the ability to withdraw custom being removed.
Oh there is competition in Germany....BUT all the core lines are provided by Deutsche Bahn. They are cheap, clean and generally reliable.
There are various private lines around, Köln to Hamburg for one.....but fundamentally anyone that needs to commute by train can use the state service.
The whole notion of 'competition' in UK rail is a total joke. If the customer doesn't have a choice, then there is no competition. Each operator pays for their license to run a monopoly. Obviously the rest of Europe can't believe how utterly daft the situation is, which is why they've bought the licenses themselves to take advantage of the free money the Tories are extracting from UK commuters and spreading around.
All of this makes me think that perhaps nationalisation is the worst possible system of running large scale infrastructure apart from all the others.
I also can't help but feel that the energy system operates as a cartel or oligopoly, rather than a decent functioning market.
As I said, my criticism is of the halfway house system of privatision, not of privatisation per se. What we have is absolute cobblers and it doesn't work.
Energy is a confusiopoly, it makes it very hard to work out what is the best deal for your usage and relies on confusion to spread market share around.
Nationalisation could work, but needs strict control to ensure it works for the benefit of the user and the taxpayer, rather than the staff and the unions.
Likewise a market can work, but it requires a suitable framework, and how that framework is structured depends on the nature of the product and the market.
But there is no meaningful competition - only a tiny number of massive companies can bid and the 'winner' gets to enjoy a natural monopoly for around a decade. It's a farce and the profits that are doled out to shareholders should be put back into the railways instead.
Rail and aviation are very different in terms of operation and passenger demands/needs. A commuter cannot realistically wait around for a cheap train or change the start and end points of their journey to get the best deal. They need to get from one particular station to another and arrive at a particular time, which eliminates virtually all choice.
Soldato
- Joined
- 7 Jul 2011
- Posts
- 4,418
- Location
- Cambridgeshire
I'm probably out of my depth here but my understanding would be that the EU would only mandate competition if the decision was made to invite private bids. In that case an OJEU compliant tender process would neèd to be run ensuring that the work went to the most economically advatangeous tender bid. Having said that the make or buy decision happens before this point, unless there are specific rules against nationalisation if a sovereign nation decides running the railway is the business of the state I can't imagine the EU can intervene. Happy to be corrected thought.
Even if a tender was run you could technically form a public interest company to bid on behalf of the state. Wouldn't be true nationmalisation as they would just hold the contract for x years. They'd also need to beat the rest of the bidders and couldn't be favoured in any way.
I think you ought to check again
As someone who has spent some time with her I can tell you now she is far more intelligent then people give her credit for.
Well it would seem, from the link I posted earlier today, that state owned rail companies don't necessarily break the rules though there is supposed to be some form of competition - the interpretation of this isn't necessarily clear - fact check suggests competitive tenders then also mentions that a more extreme interpretation is privatisation.
Do you also admire Russell Brand?
- Status