Westminster Politics

[Rolandofgilead]

"Labour is also not planning to nationalise rail freight companies or rolling stock companies."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68889345

They have to do this to make any sort of difference.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/publica...t-why-its-time-to-take-control-of-uk-rolling/

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog...-first-step-of-many-labour-will-need-to-take/

Hmmm OK.

 

[Matt Varnish]

I broadly agree, however I do wonder if the Tories have fecked themselves demographically for a generation.

Broadly speaking, the average voter adopts more right wing positions as they get older, while they accumulate wealth, aquire property and form a family. They have "assets" to conserve. For 20 & 30 year olds currently, budgets are tight, home ownership is often a dream and starting a family is being delayed because of the associated costs. For this generation, this will be the Tories legacy, while the older right wing voters slowly die off.

Labour will of course have no short term fix, but I can't help but think there will be everlasting resentment to the Tories for the above, much like there is for Thatcher. In 10, 20 years time people won't remember the confected culture war issue of today. They will remember how the Tories made their life much more difficult.

My experience during canvasing in the local elections last year is that a large amount of 20 - 30 somethings can't be arsed to vote, until it's an App on their iPhone.
The turnout at those elections was well under 30%, of course you can expect more for a GE, but I suspect the overwhelming majority of voters will be over 40

 

[Matt Varnish]

I could not agree more, I'm in my 50s also a home owner with children and savings, I find the older I get the more I move to the left, for exactly the same reasons. Like many others, I've watched as the Tories have wrecked this country, schools, NHS, legal aid, immigration, Brexit, social services, councils, etc the list goes on and on, there's very little in the UK that isn't broken and people are being conned into more and more division with the spiteful and hateful politics of fear.

Feck that.

There was me thinking Blair was Labour

 

[Berbasbullet]

There was me thinking Blair was Labour

How did Blair wreck the country?

 

[RedSky]

Labour have pledged to renationlise the railway system within 5 years.

Did this just get announced? I literally saw it scrolling on the news.

5 years is the interesting number there as it gives them a get out clause if they havent delivered it by next election.

Personally I have zero trust in anything Labour say anyway due to their obscene amount of UTurns on policies. In theory, yeah brilliant policy, but have no confidence Labour will deliver it at all.

 

[Matt Varnish]

How did Blair wreck the country?

You need me to tell you that, you are either very young or very short on memory.
Took us into an illegal war
Increased taxation that still has repercussions today.
Encouraged young girls to get pregnant to get a home
Allowed immigration to soar
He made massive promises and failed to deliver on virtually all of them, and miserably so.
He started the "Woke" society we all live in today.
New Labour were basically tories wearing red ties!

 

[Matt Varnish]

Labour have pledged to renationlise the railway system within 5 years.

Did this just get announced? I literally saw it scrolling on the news.

The utilities would be a better priority

 

[Frosty]

You need me to tell you that, you are either very young or very short on memory.
Took us into an illegal war
Increased taxation that still has repercussions today.
Encouraged young girls to get pregnant to get a home
Allowed immigration to soar
He made massive promises and failed to deliver on virtually all of them, and miserably so.
He started the "Woke" society we all live in today.
New Labour were basically tories wearing red ties!

So both New Labour and the current Tory government have fuelled the current woke society?

 

[Drainy]

The utilities would be a better priority

But also mechanically more difficult and expensive

 

[DanH]

"Labour is also not planning to nationalise rail freight companies or rolling stock companies."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68889345

They have to do this to make any sort of difference.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/publica...t-why-its-time-to-take-control-of-uk-rolling/

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog...-first-step-of-many-labour-will-need-to-take/

I think there is a difference between a policy not going far enough and not making any sort of difference. Nationalisation should have a positive impact on the average commuter.

 

[The Boy]

There was me thinking Blair was Labour

Not a Blair fan, but he is not the problem right now at all.

 

[Maticmaker]

but have no confidence Labour will deliver it at all.

Unless Starmer gets a large majority a Labour government wont be able to deliver anything of note. Even with a large majority he will have to be ruthless with party discipline and it will take at least two terms to start to move the dial.

I think there is a difference between a policy not going far enough and not making any sort of difference. Nationalisation should have a positive impact on the average commuter.

Key point - how many average commuters will be voting Labour if it's going to take 5 years?

 

[Sweet Square]

This is one renationalisation that even an ultra-cautious Labour had to embrace: voters like it, there is no upfront outlay, and the Conservative government has already done most of the work to get there.

Ownership aside, Labour’s plans for a separate arm’s-length body to run the railway are very much on the track laid out by the Conservatives – underlined by the endorsement of Keith Williams, who drew up essentially the same scheme for Boris Johnson and Grant Shapps.

Full renationalisation might arguably include the rolling stock companies, or roscos, to ensure that Britain owns the trains rather than simply leases them – especially given the dividends that have exceeded the “profits leaking out to private operators” cited by Labour.

But that comes with expenditure that the party could not countenance in an election campaign. Instead, Labour have made clear that the roscos are onside.

It will also allow private “open access” train services, such as Lumo or Hull Trains, to continue, illustrating again that this renationalisation remains more pragmatic than dogmatic.

https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news...ish-railway-all-but-set-up-by-tory-government

Labour underlined that it would not extend renationalisation to the ownership of the actual trains, as urged by unions including the RMT, by publicising an endorsement by Mary Grant, the highly paid chief executive of the rolling stock leasing firm Porterbrook. She said it welcomed “the party’s commitment to leverage private capital to help deliver its long-term strategy for rolling stock”.

https://www.theguardian.com/politic...lisation-within-five-years-of-coming-to-power

.

 

[Berbasbullet]

You need me to tell you that, you are either very young or very short on memory.
Took us into an illegal war
Increased taxation that still has repercussions today.
Encouraged young girls to get pregnant to get a home
Allowed immigration to soar
He made massive promises and failed to deliver on virtually all of them, and miserably so.
He started the "Woke" society we all live in today.
New Labour were basically tories wearing red ties!

Interesting to hear your thoughts, I wasn’t fishing for an argument. Genuinely curious to hear your thoughts.

 

[The Boy]

Key point - how many average commuters will be voting Labour if it's going to take 5 years?

Not everything in politics should be about winning votes, also given the polls I would imagine far more commuters will be voting Labour than Tory

 

[11101]

"Labour is also not planning to nationalise rail freight companies or rolling stock companies."

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68889345

They have to do this to make any sort of difference.

https://www.rmt.org.uk/news/publica...t-why-its-time-to-take-control-of-uk-rolling/

https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog...-first-step-of-many-labour-will-need-to-take/

But that costs money. They can tell everybody they're renationalising something by simply letting the operator contracts expire, its free. Taking over the rolling stock means having to buy it.

 

[The Boy]

But that costs money. They can tell everybody they're renationalising something by simply letting the operator contracts expire, its free. Taking over the rolling stock means having to buy it.

One step at a time, the Tory government isn't exactly leaving the country rolling in cash

 

[Frosty]

But that costs money. They can tell everybody they're renationalising something by simply letting the operator contracts expire, its free. Taking over the rolling stock means having to buy it.

Saving money in the long run.

Richard Murphy, from the link I posted:

"Second, they are not planning to renationalise the rolling stock companies that have leeched money out of the system for decades. It would, apparently, be too costly to do that, which is nonsense since if a premium is paid now that will only and inevitably reflect the fact that this will be settled anyway over time through excessive payments over remains lives of leases. I am still baffled by where Labour gets its corporate finance advice from."

 

[Frosty]

Three companies own 87% of rolling stock, effectively creating a cartel. That needs to be broken up at the very least. Otherwise all public ownership of the franchises would do is funnel more public money to the ROSCO companies.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Three companies own 87% of rolling stock, effectively creating a cartel. That needs to be broken up at the very least. Otherwise all public ownership of the franchises would do is funnel more public money to the ROSCO companies.

Is Network rail, ie the infrastructure government owned already?

 

[Frosty]

Is Network rail, ie the infrastructure government owned already?

Yes, it has been run as a government body since 2014, with any debt accrued being added to the national debt.

 

[DanH]

Is there any reason why new stock wouldn't be possible to produce that is owned by the state, diluting the cartel over time?

 

[Paul the Wolf]

Yes, it has been run as a government body since 2014, with any debt accrued being added to the national debt.

So what exactly would be nationalised? The ROSCO's still own the rolling stock and lease them out to operating companies. Will they lease them to the government instead if the government aren't going to buy the rolling stock?

 

[11101]

Saving money in the long run.

Richard Murphy, from the link I posted:

"Second, they are not planning to renationalise the rolling stock companies that have leeched money out of the system for decades. It would, apparently, be too costly to do that, which is nonsense since if a premium is paid now that will only and inevitably reflect the fact that this will be settled anyway over time through excessive payments over remains lives of leases. I am still baffled by where Labour gets its corporate finance advice from."

Money now costs more than money spread out over years. Good job they're not getting their corporate finance advice from him! I saw an estimate of £10b to buy all the existing rolling stock off the lessors.

I'd like to think any future rolling stock would be purchased by the Government as a cheaper way to achieve the same goal. Or, they could properly privatise it so there is true competition rather than the government granted monopolies we have now.

 

[Frosty]

So what exactly would be nationalised? The ROSCO's still own the rolling stock and lease them out to operating companies. Will they lease them to the government instead if the government aren't going to buy the rolling stock?

The train operating franchises would be nationalised. The government would be taking over the role of Govia, and leasing the stock from the ROSCO's in commercial deals, to then be used by the new public TOCs.

 

[Frosty]

Money now costs more than money spread out over years. Good job they're not getting their corporate finance advice from him! I saw an estimate of £10b to buy all the existing rolling stock off the lessors.

I'd like to think any future rolling stock would be purchased by the Government as a cheaper way to achieve the same goal. Or, they could properly privatise it so there is true competition rather than the government granted monopolies we have now.

We have literally just announced spending an extra £75bn on defence over the next six years: https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...et-to-increase-defence-spending-to-25-by-2030.

The money spent on the rolling stock would be paid for and then some when you are not held over the barrel by a cartel.

And you cannot get true privatisation in this sphere (another fallacy of the argument for competition) against established businesses (all foreign), when you need billions in start up costs just to get a share in the market which you have no guarantee of holding on to.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

The train operating franchises would be nationalised. The government would be taking over the role of Govia, and leasing the stock from the ROSCO's in commercial deals, to then be used by the new public TOCs.

Hmm. So the government are dependent on the ROSCO's and presumably have to employ all the staff currently employed by the operating companies.
As the consequences of freeports and not being in the CU or SM seem to have passed Starmer by, I'm not entirely convinced.

 

[Matt Varnish]

But also mechanically more difficult and expensive

You think it's going to be cheap prying the railways from those foreign investors ?

 

[Drainy]

You think it's going to be cheap prying the railways from those foreign investors ?

There are mechanisms for taking services back into public ownership in a way there isn't for the other industries

 

[Matt Varnish]

Is there any reason why new stock wouldn't be possible to produce that is owned by the state, diluting the cartel over time?

Time
Look at the way defence contracts are awarded and the money wasted there.

 

[horsechoker]

I can't wait for the stop the boats lot to manifest on the shores of England and scream at the sea

 

[Matt Varnish]

There are mechanisms for taking services back into public ownership in a way there isn't for the other industries

Affordability is the biggest problem, then there is the issue of maintaining the quality of the rolling stock.
For example, if the Gov paid £100bn for the railways, it would be further in debt by that amount, however it would also have assets of £100bn.
The problem comes when the rolling stock needs replacing, it costs, Network Rail loses money.
Some of the rolling stock and engines on the network is over 20yrs old, it needs a lot of maintaining and replacements are due.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

I can't wait for the stop the boats lot to manifest on the shores of England and scream at the sea

Farage goes there every day. The more he shouts , the more people come.

Has anybody told him that less than 0.5% of immigrants come by small boats?

 

[groovyalbert]

Yousaf now facing a no confidence vote, with Lib Dems supporting the Tory motion. Would assume the Greens would follow suit, and surely too big a opportunity for Labour not to.

 

[horsechoker]

Farage goes there every day. The more he shouts , the more people come.

When the boats don't stop his mob will claim we need a massive sea wall. Tory leader 2030 to have "build a wall" written on his podium

 

[Zen86]

Affordability is the biggest problem, then there is the issue of maintaining the quality of the rolling stock.
For example, if the Gov paid £100bn for the railways, it would be further in debt by that amount, however it would also have assets of £100bn.
The problem comes when the rolling stock needs replacing, it costs, Network Rail loses money.
Some of the rolling stock and engines on the network is over 20yrs old, it needs a lot of maintaining and replacements are due.

Don’t taxpayers basically pay for the infrastructure anyway? My understanding was the private sector mostly just operates the services and takes a profit, with minimal responsibility for the actual infrastructure.

 

[Paul the Wolf]

When the boats don't stop his mob will claim we need a massive sea wall. Tory leader 2030 to have "build a wall" written on his podium

The only way the boats will stop is if they open legal routes. Get a sensible political party going with "Open legal routes" on the podium.

 

[horsechoker]

The only way the boats will stop is if they open legal routes. Get a sensible political party going with "Open legal routes" on the podium.

That's too sensible

One of their tory donating mates who owns a construction firm will promise to build a wall, he'll get given the money and it will go mysteriously missing .

 

[The Boy]

Don’t taxpayers basically pay for the infrastructure anyway? My understanding was the private sector mostly just operates the services and takes a profit, with minimal responsibility for the actual infrastructure.

Tax payers pay for infrastructure, tracks, tunnels, stations, bridges etc because Network rail which owns it was taken back under the control of the Department of transport about ten years ago when it effectively went bust, so tax payers are responsible for any debts and any profits are invested back into the network, so your post is pretty much spot on!

 

[Sweet Square]