Ahh is that the Andy that recently stated politics must undergo a radical change?
Many of us have been advocating his latest statements for many years..
Its like politicians are years behind public sentiment
And he is right. The thing is the railways are mostly publicly owned anyway. The tracks and stations are owned by nr – a not for profit company with the U.K. govt as it’s only shareholder. The tocs are now on management contracts rather than franchises which basically mean they are run by the department for transport.
So the only reason we don’t call it a nationalised railway is the political ideology of the government.
I think we’re getting comfortable with the idea of full nationalization of all critical infrastructure.
Why stop there, how about the energy ~~cartel~~ companies.
We’ve spent a shit tonne more money on them since they were private. I don’t think that’s smart or whatever, but it’s a fact. So if you can guarantee the same level of investment, even under the Tories, then go for it. But if not, the 2% or so TOCs scrape out seems an efficient way to make sure vital services are funded…
We can start by giving tfl the money it needs.
Privatisation has certainly failed, you can at least not deny that. Services are so poor and so expensive that people will do all they can to avoid taking the train, compare our services to Japan and it is like night and day. Prices keep rising but services are being cut, carriages are being removed and delays are increasing. What are people paying for these days? Disappointment is the only thing that springs to mind.
Why privatise something that should be non-competative anyway
Maybe convince your boss first.
What is the argument against nationalisation?
I completely support public ownership of the railways.
However, I think we need to recognise that tickets are expensive because the level of subsidy our railways receive is lower than in places like France, Germany and Italy.
Nationalisation isn’t some magic bullet, prices are heavily regulated already and unless the government of the day is willing to up the revenue investment, there’s no guarantee they become cheaper to customers.
Now, I could suggest supporting cheaper more capable public transport by taxing the ever loving shit out of drivers and air passengers, but I imagine many on this sub would object to that.
If only there had been a Labour leader calling for that recently that Burnham could have got behind.
I think Andy Burnham should take on Starmer for the leadership of the Labour party as Starmer has shown he’s a lying bastard that will promise anything to gain power and then go back on everything he says once he’s in power, plus Starmer now wants private sector to run everything and his main donors are in the private healthcare companies
12 comments
Ahh is that the Andy that recently stated politics must undergo a radical change?
Many of us have been advocating his latest statements for many years..
Its like politicians are years behind public sentiment
And he is right. The thing is the railways are mostly publicly owned anyway. The tracks and stations are owned by nr – a not for profit company with the U.K. govt as it’s only shareholder. The tocs are now on management contracts rather than franchises which basically mean they are run by the department for transport.
So the only reason we don’t call it a nationalised railway is the political ideology of the government.
I think we’re getting comfortable with the idea of full nationalization of all critical infrastructure.
Why stop there, how about the energy ~~cartel~~ companies.
We’ve spent a shit tonne more money on them since they were private. I don’t think that’s smart or whatever, but it’s a fact. So if you can guarantee the same level of investment, even under the Tories, then go for it. But if not, the 2% or so TOCs scrape out seems an efficient way to make sure vital services are funded…
We can start by giving tfl the money it needs.
Privatisation has certainly failed, you can at least not deny that. Services are so poor and so expensive that people will do all they can to avoid taking the train, compare our services to Japan and it is like night and day. Prices keep rising but services are being cut, carriages are being removed and delays are increasing. What are people paying for these days? Disappointment is the only thing that springs to mind.
Why privatise something that should be non-competative anyway
Maybe convince your boss first.
What is the argument against nationalisation?
I completely support public ownership of the railways.
However, I think we need to recognise that tickets are expensive because the level of subsidy our railways receive is lower than in places like France, Germany and Italy.
Nationalisation isn’t some magic bullet, prices are heavily regulated already and unless the government of the day is willing to up the revenue investment, there’s no guarantee they become cheaper to customers.
Now, I could suggest supporting cheaper more capable public transport by taxing the ever loving shit out of drivers and air passengers, but I imagine many on this sub would object to that.
If only there had been a Labour leader calling for that recently that Burnham could have got behind.
I think Andy Burnham should take on Starmer for the leadership of the Labour party as Starmer has shown he’s a lying bastard that will promise anything to gain power and then go back on everything he says once he’s in power, plus Starmer now wants private sector to run everything and his main donors are in the private healthcare companies