I support rail renationalisation because state simulated capitalism doesn't work

Scroll to see replies

Those alternatives you mention only partially compete with rail. There are no viable and cost-effective alternatives to distance commuting, or business travel to early meetings for millions of journeys. In those areas, rail is effectively a monopoly and the current structure is that it is delivered by oligopolies. There are relatively few players in the TOC (Train Operating Company) franchise market in reality and they have (up to now) had a vendor's market in controlling and shaping their own contracts. In fact, when the government took back control of the East Coast franchise, it provided a better service and reduced the cost to the taxpayer. The overall system is still heavily taxpayer-subsidised and to some extent, the franchisees are simply farming taxes under privileged government licenses. Not unlike the sugar or cotton barons of the 18th century!

You say tax payer subsidised. Subsidised nowhere near the level that British Rail was.

As the taxpayer subsidy is cut, so the users of that service have to pay for that service.

Interestingly, you've failed to make the link between poorer service and the rail network reaching capacity on what is effectively Victorian infrastructure.projects like Hs2 will overcome and you're against that

Reply 21

Rakas21

The flaws with the current railway operation system are by design.

Franchise agreements actively prohibit competition, train operators are prohibited from purchasing extra trains themselves.

I say that we should bring the railways back into public ownership and then have open access operators register for 1 service per hour each day. That way the public can choose between getting the cramped train operated by the state at 00 or waiting 15 minutes for the Virgin train with wi-fi, extra carriages and leg room for an extra pound.

Reply 22

redferry

Original post by Moosferatu

Obviously hasn't used a Northern Rail train recently either.

East coast is by far and away the best rail service (with the possible exception of Chiltern) and it is still publicly owned.

Reply 23

mojojojo101

Original post by illegaltobepoor

I couldn't agree more. We live in a crony capitalist system where government chooses who is successful and who is not.

This. Capitalism has come to be dependant on a symbiotic relationship between government and big business that actively suppresses the freedom of the market in order to keep the capitalist overlords in their positions of power.

It's for this reason that supporters of free market principles should be identifying not as capitalists, but in fact the exact opposite.

Reply 24

Fullofsurprises

Original post by mojojojo101

Different forms of state capitalism are the dominant model in the world now. They enrich a tiny class of elite 'privileged state businesses' and marginalise everybody else. The Asian tiger economies like S. Korea were the original template and the model has been rolled out worldwide from there.

Most of the Train Operating Companies are heavily state subsidised operations, farming our taxes in different areas of public transport.

Reply 25

Fullofsurprises

Original post by Rakas21

The West Coast line almost does operate like that already - Virgin is the privileged service, whilst London Midland operate the cattle trucks.

It doesn't really make sense at all to have multiple companies on pseudo-private contracts running slices of the network. It would be better to have an efficiently run national company running the whole thing. This could be a worker-owned business like John Lewis, perhaps with a profit distribution scheme to the travelling public, who would obtain shares as part of their tickets on a loyalty card. Smart-card ownership is spreading widely.

Another alternative is simply to sell the whole network to a company that is actually capable of running things properly, eg, DeutscheBahn.

Reply 26

username1107539

I say the whole network should either be nationalised or given over to Virgin :redface:

Also, remember the days when British Rail was globally hailed as the most reliable rail service (admittedly in the 19th century, before Beeching got his hands on it) - who owned it then? Oh yes, it was entirely government-run... :smile:

Reply 27

illegaltobepoor

Original post by MatureStudent36

Not quite true. Virgin for example is successful because of its business model.

True but what I am pointing at is Government choosing organisations out of its benefit to the political party in power rather than the benefits to the nation as a whole.

Reply 28

The Socktor

Original post by redferry

East coast is by far and away the best rail service (with the possible exception of Chiltern) and it is still publicly owned.

Also, all the countries with the best rail networks are coincidentally nationalised. :rolleyes:

Reply 29

redferry

Original post by The Socktor

Also, all the countries with the best rail networks are coincidentally nationalised. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to claim I know loads about railways in other countries! Except Italy, where it's pretty good but also comes complete with xenophobes occasionally :P

Reply 30

illegaltobepoor

Original post by mojojojo101

Well there is two sides on this really.

The view of Libertarians who favour unregulated Capitalism and the Socialists who completely hate Capitalism.

Socialism for the Rich and Crony Capitalism are basically the same thing. Both sides may argue day and night but it doesn't change this truth.

The reason why Libertarians won't identify themselves as full Socialists is because they prefer freedom within the market.

What needs to happen is both sides need to take 1 step together, find common ground and call this for what it is.

It is basically a feudalism system where successive Governments look after their friends in order to get back in power.

As a ex Nationalist I use to completely hate Socialists until one day I found out that I had huge similarities with them.
I dropped all my divisive class beliefs and reached over the fence. Some Socialists accepted this friendship and I have never looked back.

Reply 31

Rakas21

Original post by cah846

I say the whole network should either be nationalised or given over to Virgin :redface:

In the 19th century the railways were entirely privatized. It was around WW1 that the state took 120 private companies and stuck it's oar in.

Reply 32

cole-slaw

The nature of the rail network is such that full market solution is a logistical impossibility. The levels of cooperation and coordination that would be needed between operators would be unsustainable in a competitive setting and the system would simply grind to a halt.

What we have is this bizarre public-private hybrid system with heavily government regulated and subsidised franchises who run localised monopolies at a profit for their shareholders, and aren't really properly held accountable for the quality of service they provide.

Its kind of like the worst of both worlds. Profit without the profit motive, government expenditure without the oversight.

Reply 33

The Socktor

Original post by redferry

I'm not going to claim I know loads about railways in other countries! Except Italy, where it's pretty good but also comes complete with xenophobes occasionally :P

Well, I know that Switzerland's trains are famous for their reliability... and according Wikipedia, they're state-owned. Plus France, Spain and Japan all have a lot of high speed lines and again, have nationalised railways.

Reply 34

MatureStudent36

Original post by illegaltobepoor

True but what I am pointing at is Government choosing organisations out of its benefit to the political party in power rather than the benefits to the nation as a whole.

Got evidence of that that you can use as an example ?

Reply 35

MatureStudent36

Original post by The Socktor

Incorrect on all counts. They're not nationalised.

Reply 36

The Socktor

Original post by MatureStudent36

Incorrect on all counts. They're not nationalised.

http://www.sbb.ch/en/group/the-company/history.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNCF

http://www.renfe.com/EN/empresa/index.html

It appears I was wrong about Japan, though.

Reply 37

mojojojo101

Original post by Fullofsurprises

I'd disagree only slightly, in that its my belief that crony capitalism didn't conceptually start with the Tiger Economies, it's just that this is the point where the capitalist elite got much, much better at it.

Original post by illegaltobepoor

...

I should have been a little more specific. By the opposite of capitalist I meant that free market proponents should advertise themselves, not as socialists, but simply 'anti-capitalist'.

I don't support the concept of private ownership of the means of production (mop), I think it would be too easy for a society like that to regress back to what we have now, but I sympathise with free market capitalists who over the last few decades have seen their ideologies bastardised and misrepresented to a point in which the state-business symbiote and the capitalist elite are now so inescapably intertwined with the word capitalism in practice that many see them as, wrongly, wishing to conserve this dynamic.

I strongly disagree with the market libertarian / anarcho-capitalist regarding the MOP but I would stand shoulder to shoulder with them in the fight against the statist oppressor.

Reply 38

Rakas21

Original post by The Socktor

Well something like 80% of delays are caused by Network Rail and that's state owned so for the most part those points are moot. The only thing the private sector does here is run the operations, the government won't even let operators like First put on extra services.

Reply 39

Captain Haddock

Original post by The Socktor

I've had the pleasure of experiencing the state-operated railways of France, Spain and Switzerland for myself and they all make even Virgin look terrible.