Jeremy Corbyn

Sure, you can look that far back- or you can look at a more modern example, east coast rail. Which I just had the misfortune to book a ticket with for a trip to London for the first time since it was reprivatised, and paid about 50% more for the exact same service.

For those claiming nationalised industries don’t innovate – are you aware the post office invented one of the first computers in the 40s?

Yes, it’s frustrating isn’t it. The state is often the innovator – private sector tends to package things up.

MRI body scanners or GPS anyone?

Trains. We’ve discussed before. Our service in this country is indeed poor (it was when state run too), it would be worse if nationalised / taken back into state ownership. Unions walking all over a Labour Government, picking needless fights with a Tory one etc etc.

Was east coast worse when nationalised?

Was the East Coast service worse when run by the state? By what metric/measurement?

Our railways are already under state ownership

it would be worse if nationalised / taken back into state ownership.

Proof?

it would be worse if nationalised / taken back into state ownership.

An truly incredible opinion coming from someone who lives in a country with such a fantastic and fully nationalised rail system, which is now running a couple of UK lines at a profit and effectively subsidising their own service.

jambalaya I have too have lived in both countries and used trains extesively all over both, the simple fact is that despite covering twice the land mass and having a trade union that makes the RMT look like the WI, SNCF works out significanty cheaper per km (and often much faster) when you factor/average out the uk’s ridiculous ‘airline ticket/earlybird/stupicdly high for last minute travel’ system, and my opinion is that SNCF is simply superior in all aspects.

A long time since I was over there but I would have made a simliar same comparison between uk TOC’s and Ferrovie Dello Stato 20 years ago too.

Quite liking the labour manifesto, now I’m deeply confused

jonnyboi – Member

Quite liking the labour manifesto, now I’m deeply confused

It’s ok to be confused: if you lived in scandinavia it would look like a very ‘vanilla’ manifesto, firmly in the middle ground politically. Corbyn would be like the ‘Hilary Benn’ or even Ken Clark of parliament if he went to Finland tomorrow. We have one of the most RW press/media in Europe so what you are told from all corners is quite possibly at odds with your actual sense of right and wrong. Actually these are just like comparable and more popular policies all over the developed world (with the exception of the USA), not just with people who don’t think they like Labour.

chestrockwell – Member

Was east coast worse when nationalised?

Remember, it’s only OK to have publically owned infrastructure if it’s a foreign government that owns it. We stupid British couldn’t possibly do it as well as the famously efficient French.

@julian I commuted up to London every day for 25 years fyi, an expensive and generally crap experience. A good friend was involved in the Clapham disaster (not hurt physically) and the vast majority of those recommendations where ignored by Labour and Tory governments. For whatever reason our railways are poor

Quite liking the labour manifesto, now I’m deeply confused

That’s the point of it isn’t it – they can spout populist policies in a book of dreams with no fear that they will ever have to implement it

they can spout populist policies in a book of dreams with no fear that they will ever have to implement it

Why are we talking about Brexit again?

I have no issue with services being bought under public ownership. Using the trains as an example; if someone’s going to turn a profit for providing a shit service better UK PLC than Branson or some French outfit. Having not read the manifesto, I’d like to know how he proposes to pay for it.

wrecker – Member

Having not read the manifesto, I’d like to know how he proposes to pay for it.

East Coast, while under public ownership, made us money. I think we can afford that.

A few hundred trains is going to cost, and not all lines will be as profitable as the South coast which would likely subsidise the less busy/profitable ones. Where’s the money going to come from?

wrecker – Member

A few hundred trains is going to cost

Why would they be buying a few hundred trains?

East Coast, while under public ownership, made us money

And we don’t make money off the franchise fees?

Why would they be buying a few hundred trains?

How do you nationalise the service without the government taking ownership of the rolling stock?

How do you nationalise the service without the government taking ownership of the trains?

In stages, using your brain to work out when already signed contracts end and taking them back into public ownership at the end. Lease existing rolling stock and transfer when appropriate.

As for money from franchises do you have the total figures?

ninfan – Member

How do you nationalise the service without the government taking ownership of the rolling stock?

In exactly the same way that the private operators run the service without taking ownership of the rolling stock, or the rail network.

Eh? How is that nationalised then? The assets remain in private ownership, with the government paying the profits to the owners for permission to use them.

Thanks not nationalisation, it’s closer to PFI.

You do it in stages ninfan. It really is that simple. It’s as simple as you objecting to everything corbyn does but loving any crap uttered by Trump or Tories.

How can you do it in stages? Above you suggested that you do it when contracts run out – but the contracts/franchises have nothing to do with the rolling stock (the TOC leases them off a ROSCO, who actually own them (not contracted, actually owned)

If you want to nationalise, your only option is to take ownership off the ROSCO, and to do that, you are going to have to buy the trains off them – and of course the ROSCO will have signed a long term loan with the bank (hundreds of millions in loans) to pay for the train, so you either have to cover any early settlement fees, or take on the debt and keep making the bank payments.

So given the near 5bn annual investment by the government compared with a much smaller private investment which makes more sense? I’ll leave the details to actual experts but a deal should be possible over a number of years that returns more control and return on investment.

An end to tuition fees and restoration of grants. For me this is the single best policy in the labour manifesto. There are many other good ones, but this ticks so many boxes I really think it will win a lot of votes. Not only does it promote social mobility, it helps lots of families who really do worry about their kids being saddled with ridiculous levels of debt, for no real guarantee of a decent job. I’ve got two kids who will be reaching university age in around 6-9 years time. If I have the means, I plan to pay the fees for them. I just don’t understand how it could possibly be a good thing for young people coming out of uni into an uncertain jobs market to be in massive debt. A removal of these fees potentially saves me something like £50k. Quite frankly that’s a no-brainer.

ninfan – Member

The assets remain in private ownership, with the government paying the profits to the owners for permission to use them.

Do you think the TOCs pay all of their profits to the ROSCOs?

It’s not how you’d build a national railway from scratch but you work with what you have- the rolling stock leasing does work reasonably well (and most of the issues with it come from weak regulation and the false competition among operators). It would continue to work just as well with operation in public hands- just as it did, in fact, with East Coast.

Did none you see the ex boss of East Coast when it public run on the news last night.

He agreed they’d done a good job and improved services whilst returning a sizeable chunk of cash back to the government. However he said they did despite being publicly owned not because of it, they ran the business as if it was private one and the private company who took on the contract are committed to returning more money over a longer period than they did.

Not a ringing endorsement of public ownership by someone who might actually know what they’re talking about.

Remember the innovation of the high speed train under BR? The one where the unions kicked off and refused to run it unless they remodelled the cab to include a second drivers seat when it wasn’t warranted meaning the driver was seated centrally anymore. That’s the sort of vested interest you get with public ownership.

However he said they did despite being publicly owned not because of it, they ran the business as if it was private one and the private company who took on the contract are committed to returning more money over a longer period than they did.

So it’s entirely possible to run the service in public hands, return profits and behave like a business?? Sounds like Plan A then, it also allows the government to determine if it makes a profit, what it investes in and how it then manages fares. Removing the “profit” should result in a better deal for passengers.

That’s the sort of vested interest you get with public ownership.

Or just piss poor management and leadership. Isn’t that just about what is going on with Southern?

It’s ok to be confused: if you lived in scandinavia it would look like a very ‘vanilla’ manifesto, firmly in the middle ground politically. Corbyn would be like the ‘Hilary Benn’ or even Ken Clark of parliament if he went to Finland tomorrow. We have one of the most RW press/media in Europe so what you are told from all corners is quite possibly at odds with your actual sense of right and wrong. Actually these are just like comparable and more popular policies all over the developed world (with the exception of the USA), not just with people who don’t think they like Labour.

Very true. A lot of people will like the policies and would be better with them in place but they are constantly told by press, tory government, ignorant friends, Facebook etc,. that they won’t stand up for all sorts of made up reasons.

If you like the polices (and more importantly the intent behind them to at least try and create a fairer society) then vote for them. They have set out how they will be paid for so people shouldn’t worry about that as even most politicians don’t really understand the real details on that if they were honest so as long as they have been validated by people who do understand then fine.

Remember, it’s only OK to have publically owned infrastructure if it’s a foreign government that owns it. We stupid British couldn’t possibly do it as well as the famously efficient French.

Great point.

And their energy too!

I think it’s a question of not wanting or wanting to make publicly owned stuff work. The Tories don’t as it goes against their ideology so they run things into the ground and then blame unions and inefficiency. It’s by design.

Who better to own a national enterprise than your own people? Why share the profits and benefits to the few? (Because again it’s Tory ideology looking after its elite and short-termism.)

Not long ago the banks fowled up and guess what we moved some if it to part and full public ownership to make it work again. Then when it was working we move back to the few. Madness.

European Law and the political agenda requires France and others to divest their remaining public stakes in energy and transport. Thats one of the reasons Corbyn wanted out of the EU, so he can nationalise things.

@rone banks where “nationalised” to avoid widespread economic disruption and chaos.

Again I am reminded that those traditional English patriots Lynton Crosby and Rupert Murdoch might have the best slogans for attracting the people who haven’t got the time or the inclination to read a manifesto properly, but the lefties have and always will have the best jokes.
Mark Steel on the policies of the 70’s

@rone banks where “nationalised” to avoid widespread economic disruption and chaos.

I’m fine with that. It demonstrates the market is not necessarily the best way of operating a large sector.

jambalaya – Member

@julian I commuted up to London every day for 25 years fyi, an expensive and generally crap experience. A good friend was involved in the Clapham disaster (not hurt physically) and the vast majority of those recommendations where ignored by Labour and Tory governments. For whatever reason our railways are poor

Poor quality swerve. Is that last line like the ‘many complex reasons’ TM has but can’t say for why nurses are using food banks? And how many of your 25 years commuting were under a nationalised BR? You’re not that old: 12-15 tops? And no comment on sncf at all? It is possible to run a far better nationalised service with far more powerful unions than we have over here.

As much as the Labour Manifesto sounds like we’d all be having so much of a better life once it’s implemented, sadly they haven’t truly considered how it would be funded. It would end up Back to the 70s. And that was horrible.

I would be adversely affected tax-wise and would be one of a huge number of people changing my working pattern and the net result would be less income for HMRC. I wouldn’t be avoiding tax, just not liable for so much. The whole thing would be awful. A flat rate of 25% across the board with a 10k personal allowance would raise more revenue and be fairer, with no get-outs.

Corbyn will sit alongside Farage in political history. Farage managed to transform national policy (like it or loathe it) as an outsider to the political elite. Corbyn as a lifetime politician will transform national politics through the break up of labour. A key flaw in Corbyns background is that the public has little time for career politicians as it’s obvious they don’t have any life experience. That’s why his manifesto looks like a 11 year olds Xmas list. Mum and dad can’t afford it and there’ll be tears.

Through Labour’s public and graphic disintegration their position is without challenge and I feel that’s got to be a bad thing. Every government needs an effective opposition and ours won’t for a very very long time to come.

European Law and the political agenda requires France and others to divest their remaining public stakes in energy and transport.

SOURCE PLEASE

And no comment on sncf at all? It is possible to run a far better nationalised service with far more powerful unions than we have over here.

You are aware that SNCF is based around 50 year old infrastructure?

It was completely destroyed in WW2 and then rebuilt in the 1950’s, like most of the European rail systems. Hence efficient routing, double decker trains etc.

We have something built by the Victorians.

I do agree that some kind of nationalised system would be a good idea, like how the East Coast line was run until recently. Sick of giving money to Branson and the other leeches.

Well if taking the trains is going to be free then I have no issue with it. Why would anyone?
Free education is a big winner in my book too. Still wouldn’t vote for jizza but these policies are pretty ok so far.

Free?