Politics Thread!

[pogo]

Yes, PR as in proportional representation: the referendum in 2011 that was rejected by a wide margin.

United Kingdom Alternative Vote referendum, 2011

They 'won' this argument: they got to put it to the people of the country. Problem is people said no and won't be amused if asked again, especially as, as a policy, it's entirely self-serving for the Lib Dems. It's hard to think of any other policy of theirs that made it to the statute books.

And while we're on self-serving policies, how about this from Labour.

Labour plan to part renationalise rail network.

"Ed Miliband and the rail unions have reached an agreement on this".

So it's for the benefit of the unions, who presumably feel they'll have a stronger hand in a part renationalised rail industry. There's no good economic or policy reason for it. Rail privatisation has been a stunning success. It's seen massive private investment, rail passenger numbers double, and where there have been problems it's been private companies not taxpayers footing the bill. It's a highly competitive industry, both between rail companies and with rail competing with bus, air and private transport.

If you're old enough you remember how bad it was state-owned. Grubby, inefficient, justifiably unpopular. And Labour want to take us back to that, because of some cosy deal with the rail unions? It's Clause IV all over again, and it will only end badly for the railways and for Labour.

[tufty]

Can we go back to Gove getting stuck in the bogs? I mean, finally a political story to put a smile on the faces of every man, woman and child in the country.

Shame he didn't end up being stuck for a couple of days, having to eat excrement to survive.

[tufty]

Oh, I missed this. Let's not talk about Gove eating excrement, let's talk about the excrement pogo's spouting (for a change)

Rail privatisation has been a stunning success. It's seen massive private investment, rail passenger numbers double, and where there have been problems it's been private companies not taxpayers footing the bill. It's a highly competitive industry, both between rail companies and with rail competing with bus, air and private transport.

Read this, pogo.

http://www.cresc.ac.uk/sites/default/fi ... 202013.pdf

The rail franchisees are getting massive, direct, subsidies, which are being handed direct to their shareholders as dividends. And that's only the start of it. Even Thatcher didn't want to privatise rail, and it wasn't because she was afraid to go up against ASLEF and the RMT.

[pogo]

Because that's what private companies do, they make profits. You can't ban them from doing so. Without the profit motive firms would not invest, and the only way to eliminate profits would be to renationalise. And you need subsidies as without them most services would be unprofitable and so would not run. Firms can make profits or losses. National Express lost $72m when they walked away from their ECML franchise.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8128430.stm

I notice the paper you linked to includes the following graph, but omitted the dates of nationalisation and denationalisation

Spoiler: show

It's not just true that passenger numbers have doubled since privatisation but they've reached levels not seen since the days when you went by train, horse, bicycle or foot. Privatisation has been a great success for the railways and even partial renationalisation would be a backwards step, with no benefits except to the labour unions.

[(o)(o)]

Because that's what private companies do, they make profits. You can't ban them from doing so. Without the profit motive firms would not invest, and the only way to eliminate profits would be to renationalise.

BULLSHIT. Not-for-profits receive funding.

Labour is saying let not-for-profits bid on railways.

Great!

[tufty]

Because that's what private companies do, they make profits. You can't ban them from doing so. Without the profit motive firms would not invest, and the only way to eliminate profits would be to renationalise.

There are no profits. The majority of private train operating companies are existing on subsidies, at an average of around 7 pence per passenger mile. Subsidies as a standard operating practice are not "it's been private companies not taxpayers footing the bill."

I'll say that again, in case you missed it.

There are no profits.

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... enger-mile

In 2012/13, three train operators had a negative subsidy per passenger mile, meaning that they paid government a larger premium than the effective subsidies they received via the Network Grant payment to Network Rail. These operators were First Capital Connect, South West Trains and Southern.

Northern Rail received the highest subsidy per passenger mile of 40.7 pence per mile in 2012 to 2013.

[Harlequin]

Yes, I am also having difficulty trying to square

… you need subsidies as without them most services would be unprofitable and so would not run.…

with

… it's been private companies not taxpayers footing the bill.…

Does this mean that the subsidies have only been from private companies and not from Government?

[pogo]

Subsidies still exist, to the track operator Network Rail, effectively nationalised as the government took over the track from the collapsed Railtrack.

And yes you need profits. A firm's value is meant to the discounted value of all future profits. A firm that cannot make profits is worthless, literally. No-one wants the shares as there's no dividend. It has no way to raise money for investment without revenue to pay it back. This also means firms bear any losses, as National Express did when they lost the ECML franchise. Not for profit firms work only in very few industries. Not in rail with its needs for investment and to bear large losses.

[Harlequin]

Subsidies still exist, to the track operator Network Rail, effectively nationalised as the government took over the track from the collapsed Railtrack.

So when you wrote

… you need subsidies as without them most services would be unprofitable and so would not run.…

you meant that only Network Rail needs subsidies?

And is that rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile report from gov.uk wrong, then? Do operators such as Northern Rail no longer receive subsidies after all (whether or not via the taxpayers' money given to Network Rail)?

[pogo]

That's the way it seems to be structured at the moment. I don't know if this is political, e.g. the govt feeling it only should be paying for infrastructure not running trains, or practical as it must make it easier for train operators not being so directly reliant on subsidies. But the outcome is the payments to train operators match the receipts from them. Presumably some are in credit some in debit.



They've achieved it by lowering the access costs the train operators pay, to drive on rails, use stations etc. This makes sense: in motoring drivers don't pay charges for the road they use, it comes out of general taxation.

[Darkflame]

All I know of the rail networks is privatization either didnt help, or made worse, the rail services connecting to the Harwich ferry.
Last time I took a ferry, and about 10 years worth of ferry trips, it has always been the same crazy-stupid shit.
They close the ticket desk before the ONLY FERRY OF THAT DAY gets in.
For a whole year they had a broken automated machine too. Fortunately all the train ticket inspectors knew that, so let you pay on the train at the normal rate. But in theory they could have fined you for traveling without a ticket.
Now I havnt used the ferry in awhile now because of this stupidity (despite liking the ferry service itself).

Oh and ". It's a highly competitive industry, both between rail companies " - No. Between rail and other forms, sure, but unless two trains can take the same route, there is never a choice and therefor never competition between rail firms for the consumer.
[/rant off]

Thats not to say its necessarily going to be better nationalized. But the I don't see anything private companies can do that public cant, and when theres no real competition theres no selective criteria for evolutionary market improvements.
Choosing not to use a train at all doesn't help the rail service improve, and thats the only sort of competition I see here.

Privatization can bring initial investments, but the ratio of profit to cost I don't see can change much without cutting services that don't get many passengers. Other then trying to get everyone on the train to buy overpriced drinks, of course - but that seems futile in the big picture.
What inefficiencies are realistically left to ring out of the system?

[pogo]

Northern, First Trans-Pennine, Cross Country and East Coast all operate through our town. They don't all go the same places but they overlap with other services elsewhere. And even when you're not dealing with a single busy line you often have a choice: you can use the East Coast or West Coast mainline when going from London to Scotland for example. Even where that's not true rail competes with all other forms of transport. Fairly uniquely rail competes both with short distance travel such as private cars and local busses at the same time as it competes with long distance, often international, travel by plane.

Passenger numbers have doubled since privatisation. Where have they all come from? The population's not doubled, nor has the economy. They've been persuaded to switch from other forms of transport, as rail successfully competed for their custom.

[tufty]

Passenger numbers have doubled because the number of journeys made has increased massively. People commute more and further. Rail journeys as a percentage of the number of journeys are on a slowly declining curve; they were at 10% in 1982, closer to 5% now.

gotta go to work now, but I'll tear a hole in the rest of your bullshit later.

[(o)(o)]

Passenger numbers have doubled because the number of journeys made has increased massively. People commute more and further.

Nonsense.

People choose to use trains more because they are beautifully kept, on time, and represent exceptional value for money. Their popularity can be measured by the number of people who are so keen to travel by train, they would rather stand than drive to their destination.

[gravy]

EDIT! Sorry, I thought I was replying to an unironic Pogo post

Still some of the points still count

Something being used a lot isn't a measure of excellence, it's a measure of preference you ding dong.

Driving is just fucking horrible compared to twenty years ago. Even though there's not been a horrendous increase in population it only takes breaching a tipping point to overload road infrastructure and for driving to suck balls.

On top of that it's got a lot more expensive too. It's an increasingly unpleasant option.

I think that's been a factor for increased rail / public transport / cycling usage over the last decade as well as Tufty's points about people having to be more mobile to get work now that the concept of a job for life is cobblers.

Yes, an increase in rail usage. But because the trains are "beautifully kept"? Obviously not. You're make a train commute sound like something people would choose as a leisure activity rather than than out of necessity.

As for the wider picture? It's tricky, mass transit is the best way to move a lot people around efficiently but infrastructure investment is hugely expensive, wildly unpopular with NIMBYS and never usually beneficial with a governmental term.

And that's why it's been shovelled off into pretend businesses that are only able to exist on state handouts.

Really this shit should be run under the auspices of the state for the benefit of people who have to fucking to pay for it anyway.