Can the Labour party re-invent Socialism ?

[0007]

All rail routes are expensive because they're a phenomenally expensive way to move people about. Tickets in other countries are cheaper because their governments subsidise them more, but the costs are still just as high.
Correct.

Rail's a decent bulk freight network. But long distance passenger haulage is an abuse of a practical idea for moving bulk materials.
Absolutely - the railways were invented for moving bulk minerals. Pasengers were an add-on which have never been profitable.


Apart from a residual strategic freight network I'd like to see the long distance tracks ripped up and tarmacced over for road vehicles and the urban tracks made into roads.
That was investigated and seriously discussed before and after WW2 but the arguments and calulations were never very convincing. That opportunity has now been more or less lost because most of the useful closed track mileage has been sold off or built on. They would have been very useful now for things such as HS2 instead of spending money we haven't got and upsetting loads of people.

UK Governments have only been seriously interested in the railways during World War I & World War II. Ernest Marples – Minister of Transport during the Beeching era successfully got much of the railway network closed but fell short of his aim of closing most of it. Strangely enough Marples owned Marples-Ridgeway construction company which had large interests in the building of our motorway network. Thatcher didn't like trains so it's no surprise that the railways continued to struggle post-World War II. The only politicians that put serious money into the railways was the post World War II Labour government: unfortunately they understood little about it and left it to the railway management "experts" who were equally shortsighted and squandered vast amounts of money on ineffective equipment and outdated strategies. This also continued afterwards with lots of money propping up the soon to become redundant coal industry.

The only way to regard railways is as a social service like the National health – they will both eat money.

 

[Atilla]

All rail routes are expensive because they're a phenomenally expensive way to move people about. Tickets in other countries are cheaper because their governments subsidise them more, but the costs are still just as high.

Rail's a decent bulk freight network. But long distance passenger haulage is an abuse of a practical idea for moving bulk materials. Apart from a residual strategic freight network I'd like to see the long distance tracks ripped up and tarmacced over for road vehicles and the urban tracks made into roads.

True, but then all train companies receive subsidies. Including UK ones private ones.

Scrapping railways and building roads was also tried under Thatcher with company cars and tax allowances which failed miserably.

Here is write up on the East / West Coast mainline train operators.

When it comes to subsidies, what goes in one end can often seem to come straight out of the other, from taxpayers straight into the pockets of shareholders. For example, between 1997 and 2012 on the West Coast Mainline, Virgin Trains paid out a total of £500 million in dividends, having received a direct subsidy of £2.5 billion.

But there is light at the end of the tunnel and we don’t have to look very far to find it. The inability of two train operators to continue operating the East Coast mainline meant the Government had to step in. A publicly owned operating company, Directly Operated Railways or East Coast took over the route.

Since then East Coast has received £0.46 of government funding per passenger mile, compared to £4.57 on West Coast. At the same time, East Coast returns the highest level of premium back to the Government. Since 2009, it has returned over £1 billion to the Government. This is more than Virgin on West Coast and more than National Express paid while it was running the East Coast service. It also receives far less in indirect subsidy through Network Grant than West Coast.

East Coast also shows that performance and customer service can be improved by a publicly owned railway; it has been the recipient of 35 industry awards and in a recent Passenger Focus survey East Coast has a passenger satisfaction rating of 92 per cent, higher than the 89 per cent for all long distance operators and the highest customer satisfaction rating of any operator ever holding the East Coast franchise. It has just recorded the highest level of ‘employee engagement’ in franchise history, at 71 per cent and sickness absence has been reduced by a third since 2009.

The fact that East Coast has returned over £1 billion for the taxpayer is good news for the public - and those that travel on this part of the network. The trouble is that the rest of us are often subject to substandard service and rocketing prices. The only sustainable alternative is a completely joined up, public system. It’s easy and cheap to do; as each franchise expires the route could be returned to the public.


Full article http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/uk/why-are-uk-rail-fares-so-expensive-9678640.html

 

[tomorton]

I'm not saying long distance rail services are better provided by public or private sector operators, I'm saying there shouldn't be any.

 

[Atilla]

I'm saying we should open the debate again for the part nationalisation of some rail, energy and telephone companies/operators to compete with the private sector and let consumers decide based on cost and service.

Should make everyone happy.

 

[tomorton]

I think the public of every socialist country that isn't any more have already decided on state ownership.

 

[alexaherself]

I'm not saying long distance rail services are better provided by public or private sector operators, I'm saying there shouldn't be any.

I take your point, to some extent, and you've said some things on the previous page that I fully agree with, but I think there are also several issues this view doesn't address at all (just one minor example, and probably not the best: how are people with severe epilepsy, who rightly can't have a driving licence as they're potentially too dangerous to other road users, and people too disabled to drive, supposed to travel a few hundred miles? I don't think "by air and/or taxi" would be a satisfactory answer to this, at all?).

 

[0007]

I take your point, to some extent, and you've said some things on the previous page that I fully agree with, but I think there are also several issues this view doesn't address at all (just one minor example, and probably not the best: how are people with severe epilepsy, who rightly can't have a driving licence as they're potentially too dangerous to other road users, and people too disabled to drive, supposed to travel a few hundred miles? I don't think "by air and/or taxi" would be a satisfactory answer to this, at all?).

The solution would be (is already?) long-distance coaches. Not very satisfactory and much less safe - especially if expanded to replace rail. But nice and cheap and you get a seat.

 

[Pat494]

The solution would be (is already?) long-distance coaches. Not very satisfactory and much less safe - especially if expanded to replace rail. But nice and cheap and you get a seat.

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to have clean, on time, cheap railways.
I don't know where all the money goes.

 

[Mr. Charts]

T2W must be taken into the hands of the proletatarian membership immediately and all staff, admin and mods be sent for re education at corbyn camp. The shark owner is beyond redemption and must be recycled.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Only by such nationalisation and ownership by the people can true socialist democracy be achieved.

 

[Mr. Charts]

Any reactionary elements opposed to this will require purging and elimination.

 

[alexaherself]

Any reactionary elements opposed to this will require purging and elimination.

You can knock them off yourself, on behalf of the "central committee", perhaps with huge doses of sedatives and anaesthetics (if you still have them in stock)? :-0

 

[tomorton]

Surely it is not beyond the wit of man to have clean, on time, cheap railways.
I don't know where all the money goes.

Its not beyond our ability to organise it, its beyond our ability to pay for it.

 

[alexaherself]

I don't know where all the money goes.

Compared with the rail networks of many other countries (I think including "most European countries") they've been so underfunded here for so long, and so under-subsidised, for so many decades that there's now a huge, cumulative deficit in "previous spending" that makes it all the chaotic mess that it is. (This was also "Nick and Margaret's" conclusion, on the BBC programme I saw). I think Tom's right that we lack the ability to pay for it, rather than the ability to do it. Privatisation also clearly hasn't helped.

 

[tomorton]

I commented earlier that railways would never have been developed if cars had come first.

The measure of how sensible a long distance passenger railway service is can also be determined by how sensible it would be if trains had been invented after airliners. Once we had an air service linking the airports of all medium-large sized cities, who would have ever said - "I know - the best way to improve airline services would be to take the wings off the planes, build metal tracks between all the major cities and run the planes along the tracks".

He would have been certified instantly.

 

[Pat494]

I fear the political scene will get polarised to the extremes of Left and Right. Neither of whom are at all good for this country.

Jogging along in the centre is better all round except for the overpaid CEOs and the underpaid workers.

 

[hhiusa]

I fear the political scene will get polarised to the extremes of Left and Right. Neither of whom are at all good for this country.

Jogging along in the centre is better all round except for the overpaid CEOs and the underpaid workers.

That is ironic coming from someone who oozes socialism and left-wing propoganda with every post.

 

[Pat494]

If Cameron didn't waste so much money by buying 4 Trident submarines and 2 aircraft carriers ( just how many terrorists is he going to swat with them ? ) there would be plenty to upgrade the railways etc.

 

[tomorton]

I know politics is serious but I can't take Trident seriously after watching Yes Prime Minister.

 

[hhiusa]

If Cameron didn't waste so much money by buying 4 Trident submarines and 2 aircraft carriers ( just how many terrorists is he going to swat with them ? ) there would be plenty to upgrade the railways etc.

It is 874 miles (1,407 km) from end to end. Why do you need a better rail system? You could drive that in under a day. That is an extremely short plane flight. Since planes and cars already do the job just fine, why should spending on a rail ststem be any less frivolous?