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

yourFuture
Badges: 0
Rep:
?
#1
Report Thread starter 4 years ago
#1
The whole point of capitalism is to create competition and through competing a better standard is produced. It is fairly obvious that with trains there is no competition in play you don't get a choice of trains you get one route, one train.
Some may argue that there is competition because train companies bid for contracts with the government. This is nonsense, this isn't capitalism. The government aren't the consumers, and so doing this to try and simulate some form of competition is a joke.
So that gives us two options we either create a true free market whereby the government has nothing to do with rail, or we can nationalise it.
2
reply
username33685
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#2
Report 4 years ago
#2
(Original post by yourFuture)
The whole point of capitalism is to create competition and through competing a better standard is produced. It is fairly obvious that with trains there is no competition in play you don't get a choice of trains you get one route, one train.
Some may argue that there is competition because train companies bid for contracts with the government. This is nonsense, this isn't capitalism. The government aren't the consumers, and so doing this to try and simulate some form of competition is a joke.
So that gives us two options we either create a true free market whereby the government has nothing to do with rail, or we can nationalise it.
There is a form of competition with rail transport - you can take the bus, car, plane in some cases... There may be problems with the current system, but that is no reason to go back to the days of lower investment, poor punctuality and fewer services from when the railways were run by the government : an article from the Guardian no less supporting rail privatisation
0
reply
Cylos
Badges: 4
Rep:
?
#3
Report 4 years ago
#3
(Original post by rich2606)
There is a form of competition with rail transport - you can take the bus, car, plane in some cases... There may be problems with the current system, but that is no reason to go back to the days of lower investment, poor punctuality and fewer services from when the railways were run by the government : an article from the Guardian no less supporting rail privatisation
To be fair the article is by Ian Birrell, who is right-wing and was Cameron's speech writer during the 2010 election campaign.
1
reply
Moosferatu
Badges: 19
Rep:
?
#4
Report 4 years ago
#4
(Original post by Cylos)
To be fair the article is by Ian Birrell, who is right-wing and was Cameron's speech writer during the 2010 election campaign.
Obviously hasn't used a Northern Rail train recently either.
0
reply
username33685
Badges: 11
Rep:
?
#5
Report 4 years ago
#5
(Original post by Cylos)
To be fair the article is by Ian Birrell, who is right-wing and was Cameron's speech writer during the 2010 election campaign.
Ha, ok. Whoops. Is there anything in the article that is questionable then?
0
reply
SocialistIC
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#6
Report 4 years ago
#6
(Original post by yourFuture)
The whole point of capitalism is to create competition and through competing a better standard is produced. It is fairly obvious that with trains there is no competition in play you don't get a choice of trains you get one route, one train.
Some may argue that there is competition because train companies bid for contracts with the government. This is nonsense, this isn't capitalism. The government aren't the consumers, and so doing this to try and simulate some form of competition is a joke.
So that gives us two options we either create a true free market whereby the government has nothing to do with rail, or we can nationalise it.
I think it should be run by neither the government or big businesses/corporations, I think it should be run by the workers and customers similar to Mondragon in Spain. Both nationalisation and privatisation have failed, let's try a different option.
0
reply
Captain Haddock
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#7
Report 4 years ago
#7
(Original post by SocialistIC)
I think it should be run by neither the government or big businesses/corporations, I think it should be run by the workers and customers similar to Mondragon in Spain. Both nationalisation and privatisation have failed, let's try a different option.
I'm a huge advocate of Mondragon-style market socialism, buuuuttt I just don't believe that the market is able to function properly when it comes to natural monopolies like the railways.
0
reply
SocialistIC
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#8
Report 4 years ago
#8
(Original post by Captain Haddock)
I'm a huge advocate of Mondragon-style market socialism, buuuuttt I just don't believe that the market is able to function properly when it comes to natural monopolies like the railways.
Maybe you're right. I'm assuming you would prefer just straight nationalisation? I think that maybe nationalisation with less prescriptiveness and a bit more worker control could help increase productivity and decrease alienation - maybe there doesn't need to be massive structural change creating a co-operative company but just certain changes. I don't know but it's definitely something worth thinking about as another option, especially as the OP said that there's only the two options: National ownership and Private ownership.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#9
Report 4 years ago
#9
Net state subsidies of £4 billion last year.
0
reply
Quady
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#10
Report 4 years ago
#10
(Original post by yourFuture)
you don't get a choice of trains you get one route, one train.
Eh?

So tonight I didn't have a choice of Virgin or Scotrail?

Sleeper ftw.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#11
Report 4 years ago
#11
(Original post by SocialistIC)
I think it should be run by neither the government or big businesses/corporations, I think it should be run by the workers and customers similar to Mondragon in Spain. Both nationalisation and privatisation have failed, let's try a different option.
Like a Cooperative?

Remind me how that's working out again.

Privatisation seems to work the best IMHO. It does create completion, but I think the OP is pointing out that state intervention in private ventures throws a spanner in the works.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#12
Report 4 years ago
#12
(Original post by DaveSmith99)
Net state subsidies of £4 billion last year.
Cheap at half the price. Otherwise there's be incessant whinging from rail commuters about ticket increases.
0
reply
SocialistIC
Badges: 1
Rep:
?
#13
Report 4 years ago
#13
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Like a Cooperative?

Remind me how that's working out again.p

Privatisation seems to work the best IMHO. It does create completion, but I think the OP is pointing out that state intervention in private ventures throws a spanner in the works.
What do you mean remind you how that's working out? There are co-operatives all over the world many of which are turning over millions a year. They're an effective and ethical alternative to capitalism.
0
reply
felamaslen
Badges: 15
Rep:
?
#14
Report 4 years ago
#14
I think capitalism doesn't really work with the railways. If you let capitalism run loose on the railways, everybody would go by car, the railways would cease to make a profit and hence would cease to exist (or would become freight-only, like in the US [with few exceptions]). I'm usually fairly libertarian, but maybe a bit of statist force is necessary when it comes to things like this (just a little!). If state ownership of the infrastructure could be shown to improve fares and service quality, I would have nothing against it. The European railways are less expensive and run better (apparently), and yet are nationalised.

I agree that the current system is simulated capitalism, not true capitalism. It contains many elements of the worst from both the worlds of socialism and capitalism.
0
reply
DaveSmith99
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#15
Report 4 years ago
#15
(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Cheap at half the price. Otherwise there's be incessant whinging from rail commuters about ticket increases.
You mean the ticket prices that have rise about 250% since privatisation?

(Original post by MatureStudent36)
Like a Cooperative?

Remind me how that's working out again.

Pretty well actually, the John Lewis Partnership paid their staff 8 weeks pay as a bonus this year and had £10bn+ sales. In Scotland worker owned companies are better than their competitors at just about everything.

Sure the Co-op bank is a mess and needs to find a couple of billion from somewhere. Privately owned banks have never managed to get themselves into a mess like that, not once.
0
reply
NW86
Badges: 12
Rep:
?
#16
Report 4 years ago
#16
(Original post by yourFuture)
[COLOR=#141823]It is fairly obvious that with trains there is no competition in play you don't get a choice of trains you get one route, one train
While I don't disagree with your argument, that statement is false, there are many instances on the rail network in which you can pick then rail operator you use and the prices vary correspondingly.

Example. London Euston to Milton Keynes is operated by two different companies, London Midland and Virgin Rail, the virgin train is quicker is circa 20 minutes, but roughly 10 pounds more expensive than the LM.
0
reply
mojojojo101
Badges: 17
Rep:
?
#17
Report 4 years ago
#17
State sponsored capitalism never works, in any sector, because government and the free market are two diametrically opposed concepts.

Governments always want to make things better for themselves, so they piss about with the market, setting regulations and laws, each of which make the market less and less free. The right especially like to shout about how awesome free markets are, while also peddling policies that make the market less and less free (like immigration control).
0
reply
illegaltobepoor
Badges: 18
Rep:
?
#18
Report 4 years ago
#18
(Original post by yourFuture)
The whole point of capitalism is to create competition and through competing a better standard is produced. It is fairly obvious that with trains there is no competition in play you don't get a choice of trains you get one route, one train.
Some may argue that there is competition because train companies bid for contracts with the government. This is nonsense, this isn't capitalism. The government aren't the consumers, and so doing this to try and simulate some form of competition is a joke.
So that gives us two options we either create a true free market whereby the government has nothing to do with rail, or we can nationalise it.
I couldn't agree more. We live in a crony capitalist system where government chooses who is successful and who is not.
0
reply
MatureStudent36
Badges: 3
Rep:
?
#19
Report 4 years ago
#19
(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.
Not quite true. Virgin for example is successful because of its business model.
0
reply
Fullofsurprises
Badges: 20
Rep:
?
#20
Report 4 years ago
#20
(Original post by rich2606)
There is a form of competition with rail transport - you can take the bus, car, plane in some cases... There may be problems with the current system, but that is no reason to go back to the days of lower investment, poor punctuality and fewer services from when the railways were run by the government : an article from the Guardian no less supporting rail privatisation
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!
0
reply
X

Quick Reply

Attached files
Write a reply...
Reply
new posts
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise

Are you chained to your phone?

Yes (58)
19.46%
Yes, but I'm trying to cut back (119)
39.93%
Nope, not that interesting (121)
40.6%

Watched Threads

View All
Latest
My Feed

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.

Personalise