Active discussions

Help protect children from gaming harms.

Take our survey

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Politics
Original poster

How will Corbyn fund nationalising the Railways, higher taxes?

85 replies

Isitmebut · 23/09/2015 09:45

To my knowledge the old British Rail was not annually making money.

We currently have record investment going into the railways, but Mr Corbyn appears to believe that under State ownership, the UK with £1.6 trillion of National debt and an unfunded pension liability of around £1 trillion on top, can put onto the State/taxpayer the risks/costs of acquiring rail lines, funding all investment and running them - when the State has a piss poor record of this.

I can understand why Corbyn and the public sector trade unions might want to do this, as its jobs for the boys and (unlike factories that closed in the 1970's) every time you 'sit around a table' you always get what you want whether the company is making a honking great loss or not - but how is it in the interests of the taxpayer with such an open liability, when the UK has such a huge national debt and still spending more than we earn?

Corbyn says it is a popular policy, but when will we hear how ££££ financially viable it is???

OP posts:
Original poster
Isitmebut · 26/09/2015 00:51

There is only one thing worse than pants, and that is soiled pants.

How many non subsidized train lines do you prefer in yours?

OP posts:
GiddyOnZackHunt · 26/09/2015 00:44

But pants are a splendid invention. I like pants. Green pants. Red pants. Yellow submarine pants.

Original poster
Isitmebut · 26/09/2015 00:17

Cheaper fares AND more investment in faster trains/track OR Nationalisation is hardly a reality - especially in the short to medium term.

Anyone saying that all foreign investors want to do is rip us off for profit, is being a tad hysterical as there are several reason for any person or company to invest outside their domestic market.

There used to be an investment saying along the lines of 'get the currency right, and you're 70% there', which basically means that often currency moves can be larger than bond/stock returns - and that was in the days when bonds yielded several percent, hot hovering around 1-2% now.

In other words foreign companies can want invest in the UK for currency/earnings diversity, and when you consider how weak the Euro has been versus Sterling etc - when the likes of SNCF or bank Santander consolidate their total earning on their balance sheet - their UK earning could look very good, but how much of that is due to their exposure to Sterling, as well as possibly generally higher non subsidized services, or margin businesses, abroad.

One other thing springs to mind, for many years there used to be tax breaks for foreign companies buying UK ones if borrowing to invest, and that could still exist.

So I would concentrate of the UK's State record in running commercial businesses, especially British Rail as explained in the link on the previous page, which was worse than pants.

OP posts:
Onetitbile · 25/09/2015 18:47

I hear vegans are more prolific in their flatulence and their flatulence is more concentrated in methane, which -apparently-can be used as cheap fuel. Also it will elegantly confirm he is taking green issues seriously.

Want2bSupermum · 25/09/2015 15:22

No problem giddy.

I don't know why but I've always liked taking the train far more than taking the bus. It would be great if we could use the train more when back in the UK but it's so expensive.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 25/09/2015 11:09

want2 yes I think I did misunderstand. Sorry
wonky couldn't agree more about the short termism

wonkylegs · 25/09/2015 07:09

I'm not saying SCNF per se (who funnily enough are profitable outside of France just not within) but pointing out that MANY other countries state run companies ARE already making a profit from running UK services. When we (the UK public) are consistantly told there is no way we can have STATE run utilities/services because they are not profitable. If they are only profitable because the UK taxpayers subsidise them as is sometimes the case (some TOCs) then why are we paying out subsidies to foreign governments? This makes no logical sense unless your goal is to privatise at all costs.
I know all political parties have been guilty of cocking these things up, mainly because modern politics is about getting re-elected rather than what's necessarily the best thing for the country in the long run. To get it right would take a long time and may not make profit in an election cycle therefore it would be fucked about with because there wasn't immediate results. Long term investment and real appetite to get it right, rather than the expectation of results in 5mins could make it work because it clearly is already happening or those foreign state companies would not be investing heavily like they already do.

Want2bSupermum · 25/09/2015 00:33

I think you misunderstood my post. I am saying that we should be looking to emulate SNCF. They are not a well run entity. I think their management is weak and they have no real plan in place for managing the company into the future. Also, I don't think a nationalized railway in the UK should be looking to SNCF as a model to follow. I think we need to rethink how our railways should be operated and managed. The government leaders can then set expectations accordingly for management of the railways.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 25/09/2015 00:14

Want no but they have been part of a company that held a UK operating contract. So advocating private ownership and placing it in the hands of overseas state owned companies seems daft if you're against public ownership

Want2bSupermum · 24/09/2015 23:56

I don't think SNCF is the example we should be looking to follow.

Actually I think the issue is that trains are not efficient in terms of pricing but are environmentally friendly compared to everyone driving. I have long thought that all everyday public transportation (trains & buses not airplanes) should be free for residents and paid for by taxes on airplanes, cars and general taxation of individuals as companies. It would be very forward thinking of the UK to do this and put us as a leader.

Right now taking the train to London from Crewe costs more than driving. That isn't right. If we are going to have to subsidize this then best to cut corners where possible and removal of profit is an easy one to help cut costs.

GiddyOnZackHunt · 24/09/2015 23:51

*other foreign national rail contractors also exist

GiddyOnZackHunt · 24/09/2015 23:50

Mmm. And who operates our contracts? SNCF (or whatever it's called) the French operator. Nowt to stop them milking our commuters to pay their debts....

Original poster
Isitmebut · 24/09/2015 23:43

wonklylegs ... may I suggest that you do your own home work on the history of our State utilities eg. electricity, which when privatised were then bought by other companies or merged giving less choice, mostly on Labour's watch.

But back to railways, I heard years ago that the Japanese railways were so deeply in debt, it was hidden.

But lest look at one example across the channel SNCF;

Debt-ridden French railways are hit by strike
www.railnews.co.uk/news/2014/06/11-debtridden-french-railways-are-hit.html

”The industrial action comes just a week before the French parliament examines railway reforms, which could launch open access in France and also merge SNCF and RFF, which is heavily in debt. The French railway industry's total debts are now standing at more than €40 billion and there are fears that this total could double by 2025 unless the industry is restructured, but union leaders say the merger plans do not go deep enough and will fail to solve the debt problem.

And there we have a snapshot of our industrial/labour relations golden 1970's past, and apparently our future.

Happy daze.

OP posts:
GiddyOnZackHunt · 24/09/2015 23:19

Meh. We subsidise them in private hands so wtf is the problem with subsidising it in public hands?
Whilst we have the situation that privately owned companies can bid, win and walk away from contracts to provide critical infrastructure services to the general public, then we are in a stupidly vulnerable position. If you rely on a train operator to provide a service and they decide it's unprofitable and stop then who picks up the pieces? Why not plan rather than fire fight? Why be the safety net?
Or would you rather a private company bring more chaos to the network than the unions could only dream of?

Want2bSupermum · 24/09/2015 23:03

The railways in the UK have been mismanaged for decades with awful underfunding and terrible management.

I don't think they should have been sold off in the first place but now they are I think there should be a stop to the subsidies. To nationalize, I would stop the subsidies and give these companies the option to sell back to the UK for a pound. All of them would do it.

The pension liabilities are an issue and it would interesting to see what the investment committee are doing about it. I think it is a case of an uneven distribution of employees with many in retirement or close to it.

While I would never vote for this 'new' Labour I do think he has a point regarding railways.

wonkylegs · 24/09/2015 22:54

We is the UK state - as you know
There is no reason why these other countries can pull together effective management and we can't. I know we haven't necessarily done so at this point but thee is no logical reason it cannot be done.

wonkylegs · 24/09/2015 22:52

I'm not talking about east coast
I'm talking about the stakes in Abellio Greater Anglia, DB Schenker, Keolis (owned by SCNF), MTR( Hong Kong Govt) Velio Cargo (again SCNF), EDF, Aglican Water etc British former state owned entities now owned/run by other State owned companies just not British ones.

Original poster
Isitmebut · 24/09/2015 22:42

But re I was talking about why is it that if the German/Dutch/French etc state run companies can make our assets (rail/energy/water etc) run profitably why can't we.

But who is WE???

The State (who clearly can't run bathwater effectively), or the UK private shareholder run businesses that did such a good job, overseas companies bought them, as we buy overseas well run companies?

OP posts:
Original poster
Isitmebut · 24/09/2015 22:35

wonkylegs ... re your "instead of ranting off on a tanget you should possibly read what other people post."

Firstly giving the history of the UK State run railway is NOT ranting, and secondly, read the first line AGAIN of my last post, and then read the Hamatime post repeated below - and then either feel free to apologise or FRO.

The East Coast Mainline was profit making when in was in public hands.

OP posts:
wonkylegs · 24/09/2015 22:13

Isitme - instead of ranting off on a tanget you should possibly read what other people post. My post said nothing about HS2 (of which funnily enough I know an awful lot about) . I was talking about why is it that if the German/Dutch/French etc state run companies can make our assets (rail/energy/water etc) run profitably why can't we. It is not an inconceivable notion as you make out because state run companies are already doing it just not our state.

Original poster
Isitmebut · 24/09/2015 22:06

The state grabbing privately run businesses while MAKING profits, does not mean that those operations will stay profitable – in fact as the State ran British Rail record shows (and other industries that were nationalised to stay in business but all failed) – that the state running our railways ONLY stays open ANNUALLY sucking taxpayers money in, or with closures stemming some of the loses for a while.

Money with our record national Debt, we can ill afford.

British Rail
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Rail

Finances.

Despite being nationalised in 1947 "as one of the ‘commanding heights’ of the economy” British Rail was not profitable for many years, probably most or all with narrow income (according to different sources). In fact there were examples (even during the 1990s), according to newspapers, that public subsidy was counted as profit.

As early as 1961, British Railways were losing £300,000 every day. It was thought that most of the nationalised railways, excluding some freight services, may, like any other privatised business with no income in the UK, cease to operate .In fact the nationalisation saved private business, helping investors who often achieved income in previous decades (e.g. 1870-1912)

Other usual discussion arguments cites the role of British rail as a sole transport option for many rural areas. However, after "The Beeching Report" many connections to towns and villages were cut, (whilst car ownership was growing) and public transport was nothing or based on coaches. Despite increase in cars and also road fuel prices since the 1990s, British Rail remained unprofitable.

OP posts:
GiddyOnZackHunt · 24/09/2015 17:57

In which case it would be a new contract for a publicly owned operator :)

HamaTime · 24/09/2015 17:52

Rolling stock is normally leased I think

GiddyOnZackHunt · 24/09/2015 17:50

That's true Hama
Renationalisation seems to me to be a misnomer though. The infrastructure is already publicly run. The operating contracts are just that and will expire. The rolling stock presumably belongs to the operator but what do they do with it if they don't win the contract again?

Original poster
Isitmebut · 24/09/2015 17:47

wonkylegs ... HS2 is a drawing, not a railway, so nothing TO sell.

How much will HS2,3,4,5 cost?

How much will nationalising the current Victorian railways cost?

Whatever, we cannot afford it.
www.nationaldebtclock.co.uk/

Re other stock exchange listed companies, there can always be takeover bids - UK companies buy foreign ones all the time, it is two-way street.

OP posts: