How will Corbyn fund nationalising the Railways, higher taxes?

[Isitmebut]

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???

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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

Ah. You're talking shit then...

All hail to the great communist Corbyn. The guy who wants to scrap the cap on benefits (who is going to pay for that?) and introduce a maximum wage, doing the gov out of millions. Then again, a man who supported the IRA and employs Criminals has zero percent of my respect.

GiddyOnZackHunt ... with yours, oh yes.

The facts, as the OP suggested, EVERY Corbyn spun policy is likely to be the road to higher taxes; any privatization, unlimited benefits, balancing the UK budget etc etc etc.

'the fact is .......

As I said I can't stand the guy and I would never vote for him. However, he is right about railways. The government are already heavily subsidizing rail travel. Why are we subsidizing a private company that is able to turn a profit? If these companies are able to make a profit it should be repaid to the UK government or the subsidy should be reduced.

I would like to see the subsidy stay the same with money used to finish upgrading rolling stock and the high speed projects.

For me it simply comes down to the point of the railways should be to move people around. They shouldn't make a profit. They should be community resources that charge a minimal amount to aid people to get to work/school/wherever.

I'm no Corbyn or Labour fan but I'm very pissed off with having to pay £100 to get to London.

Maybe one day people will realise that not all profit can be bad as NO private sector company (with the likes of pension funds as shareholders) is ever going to risk a PENNY of investment, if they don't see the potential of a return.

Governments running commercial businesses will ALWAYS have the voter pressure of increasing non business spending on departments running services/benefits/welfare, rather than running loss making companies in a lack of investment-trade union demands-economic conditions, downward spiral.

Governments cannot always make 'popular' decisions based on what the people 'think', especially as rumour has it, they can be fickle.

This years 'we want not profit making railways', can in a few years time become 'why are we spending money propping up a loss making business we shouldn't be in, when cutting/not increasing spending on services?'

Just look at one of the threads on here, suggesting 'no investment in HS2 could mean free school dinners' - nuff said?

Governments are in the business of running taxes, pensions, welfare, benefits and services - but they can spread themselves too thin in businesses they have bad records in as not their sole focus/priority - especially ones with £1.6 tril of national debt and the Base Rate/interest rates funding it, at a near 300-years low, so can only really go one way from here.

In conclusion; allow the private sector to make the investment, run it, take the risks, but have the 'profits' monitored - rather than have the government go into a risky business they will have to pump how many £billions into, on top of the £1.6 trillion national debt - and then compound those trading losses with higher interest rate servicing that debt, losses.

In conclusion? Sounds like you really didn't need us for this "debate". Maybe blogging is more your style?

Kerberos - The op always seems to do this, she has form for long political diatribes concluding she is right and only her opinion is the right one. You're right, I don't think debate is her aim.

Top prize for GiddyonZackHunt for best ever "talking shit" comedic timing.

isitme I think the issue the British government have had with running services is that look to appoint someone who is politically acceptable rather than someone with the experience to actually run things properly.

With British rail the unions were heavily entrenched and often would cause huge problems for management. My dad had a unionized workforce in Sweden at his company (involved in the railway industry). He had been a union negotiator and was able to manage the union in his workplace. I accept it was easier for him to do it as an owner rather than manager. However I was exposed to the rail industry through my dads work. The senior management at British rail ran scared of the unions, often putting worker safety ahead of passenger safety.

While I think Corbyn is right that railways should be nationalized I don't think he is the person to do it because you would end up with a British rail similiar to the one that was dismantled.

Want2bSupermum .... The senior management at British rail ran scared of the unions,

While I not quite sure of your comment re State industry bosses appointed for political reasons rather than experience, I very much agree with the rest of your post.

There is no doubt that the trade unions up to the mid 1980's (when legislation was passed to stop it) ready to strike at the drop of a cloth cap, not only intimidated company management with their threats, they thought that they ran the private sector companies - right up until the factories closed.

For an insight of a time when trade unions thought they ran the UK, not just factories, read this link below;

news.bbc.co.uk/local/liverpool/hi/people_and_places/history/newsid_8401000/8401200.stm

“British Leyland's Speke factory symbolised all that was wrong with UK car manufacturing in the dark days of the 1970s, a million miles away from the high performing plants of today at Ellesmere Port and Halewood.”

“In 1978 British Leyland's Speke Number Two plant was under threat of closure, afflicted by a series of crippling strikes, low sales of the TR7 it manufactured, and a history of poor industrial relations coupled with inefficiencies.”

“In 1970 British Leyland, who had taken over Triumph, spent £10.5 million building Speke Number Two plant, it was one of the most modern and best equipped plants in Europe designed to build 100,000 vehicles a year all under one roof.”

“When BBC Nationwide visited in February 1978 the plant only had a few months of life left.”

Which underlines your Corbyn point, put in place by the trade unions/hard left, and just 'told' by the trade unions that they want Trident so back down - so a Trident nuclear deterrent (thank god) remains a Labour policy.

How many more Corbyn promises to the Labour Movement to get elected, will get neutered by the trade unions in the next few days?

Want2bSupermum .... the point is that the less than moderate trade unions finally worked out that private sector companies/factories close, the public sector services can not - like the London Tube, bringing London to a halt as the train unions decided that ticket offices closing was 'unsafe'.

It wasn't a members thing, most ticket office workers wanted redundancy or to be found new jobs, but the trade unions clearly thought travellers could fall from the ticket machines floor, onto the lines on the floor below.

In Grangemouth Scotland recently didn't the trade unions make all sorts of threats but had to back down as the company announced closure plans?

Well a left wing government, appointed by left wing trade unions, asked to set left wing policies policies - can only result in a nationalised British Rail financial train crash.

Well my dads strategy with the unions was to go public with plans to lay off disabled people over early retirement of older employees. He couldn't move production quickly so had to neigotiate. His facility was in Sweden where unions remain strong but are driving out manual labour to Poland.

There are ways to deal with unions you just have to have nerves of steel to do it. My dad was at the point where he didn't have anything to lose. He had to lay off 20% of the workforce or his business was going to close. He had listened to the unions and workers and quickly realized the unions were not helping their members but themselves. My dad was shocked that they wanted to meet over dinner at an extremely expensive restaurant while my dad always held meetings in the company conference room and brought in catering of open faced sandwiches for a fraction of the cost. When members found out what was happening some left that union and all layoffs were from the remaining union employees.