Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Is Labour's railway plan an election winner? Watch

Announcements
  • View Poll Results: Is Labour's railway plan an election winner?
    Yes
    13
    40.63%
    No
    19
    59.38%

    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    I think that this will be more popular with people who do not regularly travel by train.

    Milliband has been lured into a false sense of security over this policy because in many ways the East Coast line is the premier line.

    There are really two issues. The first is whether the relatively few contractors will be willing to bid against his state owned entity. If they say the process is rigged, there will be a heavy political price.

    Secondly, he will not remember the days when the Transport Secretary used to have explain away every late train or curled sandwich any MP chose to raise.
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    I still don't quite understand why that means I have to pay for them? private businesses are essential for our economy, sure, but that wouldn't justify a public bailout if they fail, and it's the same sentiment here
    It is the state's responsibility to maintain infrastructure. The railways are part of our infrastructure, just like roads, schools and hospitals. I presume you don't oppose state funding of the above services?

    I don't think you realise how fundamental railways are to our economy. They are not just any old private business, like a supermarket or a bank.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    It is the state's responsibility to maintain infrastructure. The railways are part of our infrastructure, just like roads, schools and hospitals. I presume you don't oppose state funding of the above services?

    I don't think you realise how fundamental railways are to our economy. They are not just any old private business, like a supermarket or a bank.
    I am, actually
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    I am, actually
    You oppose state funding of roads? I can sympathise (sort of) with not wanting the state to fund schools and hospitals (though I don't agree with that position myself), but zero state funding of roads is totally unfeasible. Roads are hideously expensive to build and you'll never acquire sufficient private funding for them.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    You oppose state funding of roads? I can sympathise (sort of) with not wanting the state to fund schools and hospitals (though I don't agree with that position myself), but zero state funding of roads is totally unfeasible. Roads are hideously expensive to build and you'll never acquire sufficient private funding for them.
    if expensive private schools can exist, how can private roads not exist?
    Offline

    5
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    if expensive private schools can exist, how can private roads not exist?
    People will voluntarily pay for their children to attend private schools. They won't voluntarily pay for the huge costs of building and maintaining the road network. Only taxation can fund road building. Even the USA would never not build roads using anything other than public funds.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by #Ridwan)
    People will voluntarily pay for their children to attend private schools. They won't voluntarily pay for the huge costs of building and maintaining the road network. Only taxation can fund road building. Even the USA would never not build roads using anything other than public funds.
    ever heard of toll roads?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    ever heard of toll roads?
    You really think every road should be a toll road?
    Shall I give you some time to think of the consequences of that?
    I shall start you off with one - the cost of pretty much every physical item you buy would go up to pay for the massively increased costs involved with transporting the item.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by SocialistIC)
    It is quite popular - even fairly right-wing people like Peter Hitchens believe in re-nationalisation of the railways - so it may well be an election winner. I'd personally prefer worker-ownership to state-ownership.
    One can dream :moon:

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    ever heard of toll roads?
    I would hate to live in your desired society.

    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    I still don't quite understand why that means I have to pay for them? private businesses are essential for our economy, sure, but that wouldn't justify a public bailout if they fail, and it's the same sentiment here
    They do if them failing would smash the game board.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    You really think every road should be a toll road?
    Shall I give you some time to think of the consequences of that?
    I shall start you off with one - the cost of pretty much every physical item you buy would go up to pay for the massively increased costs involved with transporting the item.
    oh and I suppose these roads are built for free in this society, because the government has a magic money-making tree and they're absolute angels so they've decided to built them as a charity for us. wow.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    One can dream :moon:



    I would hate to live in your desired society.



    They do if them failing would smash the game board.
    "they do"? they do what?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by zippity.doodah)
    oh and I suppose these roads are built for free in this society, because the government has a magic money-making tree and they're absolute angels so they've decided to built them as a charity for us. wow.
    What does this even mean? I can't understand what you're saying at all, it doesn't even work as a reply to the person before you!?

    Guys, stop replying to this person, he is probably trying to repeat something his dad said.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    It will go some way to getting people to think about it but it won't let us see a raft of votes coming in.

    The party needs to commit to more...
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Creat0r)
    What does this even mean? I can't understand what you're saying at all, it doesn't even work as a reply to the person before you!?

    Guys, stop replying to this person, he is probably trying to repeat something his dad said.
    1) I was sarcastically implying that *somebody* has to pay for these roads, as he was saying that there was a matter of cost involved in deliveries, and I was telling him, basically that these roads aren't built for free. therefore, either we all have to pay, or the people who are using the roads are going to have to pay, and I think it';s more reasonable to side with the latter because why would you charge people to use roads they don't want to use?
    2) if you're saying that people's politics depend on their parents then what does that say about your own political beliefs? and for the record, I don't even know what my dad believes politically because he rarely speaks about it
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Creat0r)
    What does this even mean? I can't understand what you're saying at all, it doesn't even work as a reply to the person before you!?

    Guys, stop replying to this person, he is probably trying to repeat something his dad said.
    I think the point he was making is that individuals and businesses already pay via the tax system.

    Personally I'd only support toll roads in counties with big cities (say the core 8 and capitals), and only if it their was significant local rail investment.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:


    Nationalisation is poison.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    I think it depends.

    Where I am (South London) the train fares are horrendous, yes. But we have seen an absolutely insane amount of investment.

    I can't imagine we'd ever see the amount of investment under nationalisation.

    We have a never-ending stream of new trains for years now (even some of the newer ones get upgraded), all extremely long and fast (both at accelerating and braking), all the platforms upgraded and made longer, a lot of trains have wifi now/on-board electrical sockets, all the signalling upgraded so the trains are extremely frequent at some stations.

    Don't get me wrong, it's still inadequate for the demand but some stations are having more platforms built and yes, we have even more new trains coming in a few years time (Thameslink Programme). And going to be even more frequent (70-80+ an hour).

    All we need is a 24 hour service, the mainline has it but a lot doesn't which makes it awkward. But this is slowly going in the right direction. For example, on Sundays now, they run a near normal service on some lines. In other words, TOCs respond better to consumer demand.

    I know some of the above is joint-funding but I just don't think we'd see it under nationalisation. We'd needed all this upgrading for a long time and while it is inadequate, least they're trying their best to fix it now.

    And this was in the last few years. We've probably seen more investment in this period then in the last 20-40 years.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)


    Nationalisation is poison.
    Not quite fair.

    The railways didn't die because they were nationalised. They were nationalised because they were dying. They were a classic example of the "picking losers" theory of nationalisation (British Shipbuilders, British Leyland etc).

    The interesting question is at what point could it have been privatised successfully if Maggie had given a damn about railways?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by nulli tertius)
    Not quite fair.

    The railways didn't die because they were nationalised. They were nationalised because they were dying. They were a classic example of the "picking losers" theory of nationalisation (British Shipbuilders, British Leyland etc).

    The interesting question is at what point could it have been privatised successfully if Maggie had given a damn about railways?
    They seem to have been strongly growing right up to the war, emergency nationalisation, and the Big 4 cartelisation that followed, thereafter at least stable until British Rail comes along.

    I don't think there's any strong correlation between industries that were nationalised and industries that were dying. The car industry, for instance, is very healthy. Nationalisation destroyed the British marques that were nationalised, not the car industry.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Observatory)
    They seem to have been strongly growing right up to the war, emergency nationalisation, and the Big 4 cartelisation that followed, thereafter at least stable until British Rail comes along.

    I don't think there's any strong correlation between industries that were nationalised and industries that were dying. The car industry, for instance, is very healthy. Nationalisation destroyed the British marques that were nationalised, not the car industry.
    BL was nationalised because it was an economic basket case and to avoid making politically harsh decisions about its future not the other way around.

    The Big Four had serious problems before the war. The "glamour" fast passenger services hid a multitude of problems. By the outbreak of WWII only the GWR was paying dividends and then out of reserves rather than current profits. By the end of the war the track and equipment were worn out.

    In many ways the railways after WWII were in the same position as the mines after WWI. If they hadn't been nationalised they would have needed wholesale recapitalisation. My guess is no-one would have bothered and preferred to invest in road and air services (of course non-urban buses, road haulage, canals and civil aviation were also nationalised so we don't really know what a post-war private sector transport sector would have looked like).
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Will you be richer or poorer than your parents?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.