Nationalisation of the franchises and increasing integration of British Railways services makes sense and costs nothing if phased in with the ending of contracts. In the past decade the DfT has had to do so on several occasions when operating companies have handed back franchises early. When they did so, the arms-length management provided a better service at lower cost. Many of the franchise holders have extracted profits over the years, including French and German state owned companies.
It's a good policy and costs nothing.
The rolling stock companies should also be disbanded as they make huge returns on minimal risk. But that's a harder nut to crack and would cost a lot more so I understand why it's not part of this announcement.
Otoh, I think the government should set up.a state owned competitor and gradually ease them out over time.
AFZ
Agree overall - last para is murky water though. I - and I’ve no connection to any rail company - can see a reasonable argument for ROSCOs as private entities in the same way as happens in aviation though I suppose. Otherwise you don’t want a state owned competitor, you just need the state to buy (rather than lease) trains, which is what it happily did 1947-1990s.
However, as I say, some things have moved on, and I can see the point of the state not owning trains.
Agree overall - last para is murky water though. I - and I’ve no connection to any rail company - can see a reasonable argument for ROSCOs as private entities in the same way
as happens in aviation though I suppose.
Aviation leasing companies exist to capitalise on and balance multiple sources of demand from airlines operating in different markets with varying seasonal and temporary requirements. There's nothing really like that at the level of UK railways, especially if the franchisee system is rolled up. At that point the ROSCOs would be an additional layer of administration wrapped around a loan, and its not obvious that they'd have a cost of capital advantage, especially if the state is running the railways.
Agree overall - last para is murky water though. I - and I’ve no connection to any rail company - can see a reasonable argument for ROSCOs as private entities in the same way
as happens in aviation though I suppose.
Aviation leasing companies exist to capitalise on and balance multiple sources of demand from airlines operating in different markets with varying seasonal and temporary requirements. There's nothing really like that at the level of UK railways, especially if the franchisee system is rolled up. At that point the ROSCOs would be an additional layer of administration wrapped around a loan, and its not obvious that they'd have a cost of capital advantage, especially if the state is running the railways.
True, but if you’re the government (any colour) I can see the attraction in the additional layer of administration that isn’t the state.
Put it this way, as a deeply enthusiastic rail enthusiast I’m not totally convinced that, while it looks expensive to pay the hire fee, it’s not either cheaper or broadly comparable to buying once you factor in whole life costs.
If it’s comparable - big if - then for me it’s not an article of faith that the state should be doing it. Of course, if the proposition is that we bring back BREL then I’m on board, but ROSCOs seems to me arguing over something that in the great scheme of things doesn’t make much difference - you either pay a rental or take all the liabilities up front. Given the way trains are built these days you’d either have a state owned ROSCO that costs as much, or you leave it alone.
My feeling on private enterprise is that it works where there is genuine competition. If the state is a monopsony for the industry, or if the enterprise is providing monopoly services to the state then the efficiency gains from private enterprise don't happen, and the state should take it over.
Put it this way, as a deeply enthusiastic rail enthusiast I’m not totally convinced that, while it looks expensive to pay the hire fee, it’s not either cheaper or broadly comparable to buying once you factor in whole life costs.
If it's cheaper then the (presumably privately run) ROSCO is going to take a bath. If it's broadly comparable then they make little or no margin. As Dafyd's post suggests; it's not like they only hire out the train for 300 days out of 356 and you can make money renting out for the remaining 56 to someone else.
It's closer to Air Tanker than ILFC, and that's not a great comparison.
I haven't seen recent data on ROSCOs but historically since privatisation, they've had very big margins.
In one sense, I don't care if they're public or private but big returns on minimal risk is not a normally functioning market. If when you look at revenues in the industry that are ticket fares and subsidies from the government and a big cost is rent-seeking bodies that add no real value then, to me, the system is set up wrong to the detriment of the taxpayer and passengers. How expensive that is to fix depends on lots of factors but in the long-term fixing it should be a priority.
AFZ
P.s. I guess I need to go look for up to date info.
So the local elections are nearly upon us. Labour are set to do well. But are they going to? This will be as much a judgement on Lab as much as the Cons
So the local elections are nearly upon us. Labour are set to do well. But are they going to? This will be as much a judgement on Lab as much as the Cons
I've just read that my former MP, Dr Dan Poulter, has defected from the Tories to Labour.
I never voted for him but I've always thought he was a decent guy. He's a doctor and, quite a number years ago he wrote a critical article in, I think, the Guardian which criticised what was happening to the NHS. Good for him.
Well, sort of yes, but with that timing it doesn't really look like the last straw was a matter of principle, so much as the prospect of imminent defeat - leaning a sinking ship etc ...
I've just read that my former MP, Dr Dan Poulter, has defected from the Tories to Labour.
I never voted for him but I've always thought he was a decent guy. He's a doctor and, quite a number years ago he wrote a critical article in, I think, the Guardian which criticised what was happening to the NHS. Good for him.
I've just read that my former MP, Dr Dan Poulter, has defected from the Tories to Labour.
I never voted for him but I've always thought he was a decent guy. He's a doctor and, quite a number years ago he wrote a critical article in, I think, the Guardian which criticised what was happening to the NHS. Good for him.
I see that Labour have a candidate for this seat.
This. The local party will have already chosen their prospective candidate, as will most, if not all constituencies. I doubt he’ll find somewhere to stand as a candidate this close to an election. He’ll just have to wait for the first MP in the new parliament to fall off their perch and attempt to get selected at the by-election
He said he would not seek re-election to the House of Commons at the next general election. But, writing in the Observer, he says he envisages a role advising the Labour party on its policies on mental health while focusing more on his NHS work.
He's been a Tory MP for 14 years, so was fine with austerity, the hostile environment and has voted multiple times to create the situation he now decries.
He's been a Tory MP for 14 years, so was fine with austerity, the hostile environment and has voted multiple times to create the situation he now decries.
This.
About the only thing a Tory MP could have done at this point to *lower* my opinion of them is cut and run to the opposition with an apparently straight face.
Idiot. I actually find myself with more contempt for him than the ones still in the party and staring defeat in the face.
Yes, I do wonder about the timing - I suspect he chose it to do maximum damage.
As I say, I never voted for the man. But I did contact him on several occasions and found him helpful and courteous, as did my wife who once had a good conversation with him.
Yes, I do wonder about the timing - I suspect he chose it to do maximum damage.
As I say, I never voted for the man. But I did contact him on several occasions and found him helpful and courteous, as did my wife who once had a good conversation with him.
MPs usually are in person, it’s part of the skill set you need to get elected. The problem is when people mistake manners and charm for virtue. Or a smart suit for evidence of good character.
Any evidence of repentance? He's not saying that the policies he's supported for 15 years were, in hindsight, wrong and he's sorry for his support of them. He's saying that he still supports them, but that the current Tory government are going even further in failing to support public services.
Any evidence of repentance? He's not saying that the policies he's supported for 15 years were, in hindsight, wrong and he's sorry for his support of them.
Very much so; he's was also junior health minister when the Lansley reforms were pushed through (Health and Social Care Act of 2012), so bears direct responsibility for the current state of the health service.
Yes, I do wonder about the timing - I suspect he chose it to do maximum damage.
As I say, I never voted for the man. But I did contact him on several occasions and found him helpful and courteous, as did my wife who once had a good conversation with him.
MPs usually are in person, it’s part of the skill set you need to get elected. The problem is when people mistake manners and charm for virtue. Or a smart suit for evidence of good character.
Yes, we'd be better off considering this as just a different set of social skills, and not automatically attribute moral value to them.
The Observer understands that discussions between Poulter and senior Labour figures have been going on for many months at the highest levels about the timing and organisation of his likely defection, as well as advisory roles he could play in future in developing the party’s health policies, with the benefit of his firsthand inside knowledge.
I assume a set of contacts with the incoming government will prove handy if you end up working at a healthcare firm.
No, but rejoicing is completely mis-placed, and the statement from Wes Streeting about using him as an adviser is just vomitous. Aren't there enough people who actually demonstrably give a flying fuck about the NHS around to advise that quisling? He's another LINO (Labour in name only) neoliberal imposter.
Yes, I do wonder about the timing - I suspect he chose it to do maximum damage.
As I say, I never voted for the man. But I did contact him on several occasions and found him helpful and courteous, as did my wife who once had a good conversation with him.
MPs usually are in person, it’s part of the skill set you need to get elected. The problem is when people mistake manners and charm for virtue. Or a smart suit for evidence of good character.
Indeed. Confidence tricksters, spivs and scammers are always incredibly charming
I must admit I find LINO almost as scary as RINO in the US. Both smack of Orwell.
The latter is almost always applied to lifelong Republicans who are willing to work with Democrats. Applying LINO to people who change party like other people replace a winter coat (and don't in any way change their views) is rather different. I wouldn't apply it to the likes of Streeting (much as I wish he would fuck off and don't think his views should be anywhere near party policy).
Party unity is a big factor. If you go against the party line you could have a few problems. Did he move because he had enough of trying to help keep the party together. I doubt it but it is possible. What I am asking is how he can feel at home in the Labour Party and what that says about Starmer and co
Expecting consistency from a party politician is basic democracy and not something that's tantamount to fascism.
Where did I say it was tantamount to fascism? Give me some credit.
So what exactly did you mean by "But it all smacks of 'Homage to Catalonia' " Or "Both smack of Orwell. "
I thought it was @Gamma Gamaliel 's usual schtick of insinuating that those to his left are Stalinists (because a lefty once said something mean to one of his Blairite mates), rather than fascists.
Expecting consistency from a party politician is basic democracy and not something that's tantamount to fascism.
Where did I say it was tantamount to fascism? Give me some credit.
So what exactly did you mean by "But it all smacks of 'Homage to Catalonia' " Or "Both smack of Orwell. "
I thought it was @Gamma Gamaliel 's usual schtick of insinuating that those to his left are Stalinists (because a lefty once said something mean to one of his Blairite mates), rather than fascists.
My run-ins with the hard left of the Labour Party have been mixed. Some pleasant. Others far less so. I can't share them here as some of it wouldn't be in the public domain.
And to describe my mates as 'Blairite' demonstrates exactly the kind of reductionist and factional thinking that I'm having a go at.
FWIW I've got friends right across the Labour spectrum.
My reference to 'Homage to Catalonia' is all about in-fighting on the Left which impeded the fight against Fascism.
I've always balanced out my comments about the Labour Party with positive observations which you've clearly chosen to ignore.
It's far easier to divide the world into nice neat categories such as Stalinists, Blairites and Fascists.
FWIW in the most egregious incident I'm thinking of I found the Labour Party's internal procedures to be both impressive and robust.
Much as you'll despise me for acknowledging as much, I'm also aware of an egregious incident within the Conservative ranks which was dealt with impressively and thoroughly by their internal procedures.
It's not that I have anything against the Labour left but I do react against it when people post as if the sun shines out of its arse and it can do no wrong.
I'm one of these annoying people cursed with the ability to see two (just two?) to every argument and if anything has a lot of support - be it Tolkein's writings or the Labour Party - I feel honour bound to take a contrary position.
It's how I'm wired.
If anything, I'd regard myself as a 'critical friend' of Labour and find myself willing them to get over their internal wrangling and ideological spats.
I was put off very hard left politics - by which I mean extra-Parliamentary left - at university. It's probably made me hyper-sensitive to anything that resembles that, and yes, I know there are nuances and shades on the Labour left.
In a similar way until very recently I had a gut-level aversion to certain forms of charismatic evangelical worship having been overly exposed to it in the past. Now, even though it's not to my taste it doesn't bring me out in hives. I can live and let live.
For the record, the incident I have in mind was very serious indeed. It certainly was nothing to do with lefties saying nasty things to my allegedly 'Blairite' mates. It was much, much worse than that and I had sleepless nights over it. I wouldn't wish it on any of you guys.
Suffice to say that the matter was resolved in the end although it wasn't at all pleasant an experience and I'll thank @Arethosemyfeet not to make light of it because I wouldn't wish it on him either for love nor money.
For all that he's a callow middle-class virtue signalling, bourgeois Hampstead socialist youth. 😉
Personal history aside, though meaning no disrespect, the Overton window has moved so far to the right since the 1970s, and certainly since the 1930s, that comparisons between Orwell and the current situation are impossible. Corbyn by historical standards was or is a centrist. All politics now dances more or less far to the right. There are no Stalinists in remotely mainstream politics.
Sure. All these things are relative and no, I am not saying there is an exact equivalent between 1930s or even 1970s politics and the present.
I also appreciate that you mean no disrespect.
If anything, @Telford has illustrated the broad point I'm trying to make. It's the 'No True Scotsman' thing. He's doing it now.
Poulter was never a 'True Conservative' because he voted for Blair. He can't have been a proper Conservative all along.
I'm half expecting someone to quip that if he'd voted for Blair he could never have been a 'True Labourite' either.
Yes, politicians can have an eye to the main chance. I've seen a spectacular turn-on-a-sixpence change of political allegiance at a local level that beggared belief.
A comparison with Orwell is no more hyperbolic than saying that something is 'Machiavellian' is to make a direct comparison with Renaissance Florentine politics.
I've already acknowledged that Wes Streeting makes comments one wouldn't ordinarily expect from a Labour politician.
I was never one of those who believed that Corbyn had horns growing out of his head. I always had reservations about his competence and his position on Europe and so on. I certainly had grave reservations about some of those attracted to his banner and much as you'll all hate me for saying so, blame them for driving some former Labour I activists I know out of politics.
Hand-waving and saying, 'Oh, they must have been Blairites and not proper Labour supporters in the first place ...' doesn't cut it with me, I'm afraid.
Neither does it mean I'm 'sold' on Starmer or Streeting. At least with Corbyn you knew what he stood for.
I dunno. Perhaps it's ever been thus and we see hints of this sort of thing in the NT too. Where's that verse about 'the reason they left us was because they were never really with us in the first place'?
You know the one I mean.
It probably comes with the territory in any political or ideological setting. 'He was never a proper Conservative ...', 'She was never really a Liberal ...', 'They weren't really Labour ...', 'You're only saying that because your friends were Blairites and you are accusing the Left of Stalinism which no longer exists ...'
Indeed. It's just struck me that my reference was not clear. I was referring to Streeting in using the term LINO. His obsession with privatisation is not where I would expect s Labour health secretary with any respect for public service to focus. The NHS is in need of restoration before any kind of radical surgery could possibly work. Likewise, the case for any such change actually improving services is yet to be made.
Everyone on here knows I lean left. No surprise there. It is not the moving to the right that annoys me about the current Labour front bench. Blair leaned right but he said so from the beginning. During his bid for leader he made it very clear. We knew what we were getting.
Starmer did not do that. He appealed to the left by saying he would carry on the way it had been going and that he and Corbyn were friend ls. Once in he moved strongly to the right, stabbed Corbyn in the back and got rid of those who would stand in his way. His leanings are not high on my list of objections.
Far, far more people have been driven out of the Labour Party by Starmer and his mates than by Corbyn supporters, and he's tarred many of them as anti-semites in the process.
I'm sorry you had a shitty experience, @Gamma Gamaliel. No large group of people can completely avoid the presence of shitheads. The difference is that the Labour left doesn't put them in the (Shadow) Cabinet.
Far, far more people have been driven out of the Labour Party by Starmer and his mates than by Corbyn supporters, and he's tarred many of them as anti-semites in the process.
.
That’s true, but a lot of those who have left only joined the party when Corbyn became leader
Comments
Agree overall - last para is murky water though. I - and I’ve no connection to any rail company - can see a reasonable argument for ROSCOs as private entities in the same way as happens in aviation though I suppose. Otherwise you don’t want a state owned competitor, you just need the state to buy (rather than lease) trains, which is what it happily did 1947-1990s.
However, as I say, some things have moved on, and I can see the point of the state not owning trains.
Completely agree with you overall though
Aviation leasing companies exist to capitalise on and balance multiple sources of demand from airlines operating in different markets with varying seasonal and temporary requirements. There's nothing really like that at the level of UK railways, especially if the franchisee system is rolled up. At that point the ROSCOs would be an additional layer of administration wrapped around a loan, and its not obvious that they'd have a cost of capital advantage, especially if the state is running the railways.
True, but if you’re the government (any colour) I can see the attraction in the additional layer of administration that isn’t the state.
Put it this way, as a deeply enthusiastic rail enthusiast I’m not totally convinced that, while it looks expensive to pay the hire fee, it’s not either cheaper or broadly comparable to buying once you factor in whole life costs.
If it’s comparable - big if - then for me it’s not an article of faith that the state should be doing it. Of course, if the proposition is that we bring back BREL then I’m on board, but ROSCOs seems to me arguing over something that in the great scheme of things doesn’t make much difference - you either pay a rental or take all the liabilities up front. Given the way trains are built these days you’d either have a state owned ROSCO that costs as much, or you leave it alone.
If it's cheaper then the (presumably privately run) ROSCO is going to take a bath. If it's broadly comparable then they make little or no margin. As Dafyd's post suggests; it's not like they only hire out the train for 300 days out of 356 and you can make money renting out for the remaining 56 to someone else.
It's closer to Air Tanker than ILFC, and that's not a great comparison.
In one sense, I don't care if they're public or private but big returns on minimal risk is not a normally functioning market. If when you look at revenues in the industry that are ticket fares and subsidies from the government and a big cost is rent-seeking bodies that add no real value then, to me, the system is set up wrong to the detriment of the taxpayer and passengers. How expensive that is to fix depends on lots of factors but in the long-term fixing it should be a priority.
AFZ
P.s. I guess I need to go look for up to date info.
Of course they will.
I never voted for him but I've always thought he was a decent guy. He's a doctor and, quite a number years ago he wrote a critical article in, I think, the Guardian which criticised what was happening to the NHS. Good for him.
I see that Labour have a candidate for this seat.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/27/top-tory-mp-defects-to-labour-in-fury-at-nhs-crisis
Dr Poulter says he won't be seeking re-election, so maybe imminent tory defeat (or annihilation) isn't his main reason for crossing the floor.
This. The local party will have already chosen their prospective candidate, as will most, if not all constituencies. I doubt he’ll find somewhere to stand as a candidate this close to an election. He’ll just have to wait for the first MP in the new parliament to fall off their perch and attempt to get selected at the by-election
He said he would not seek re-election to the House of Commons at the next general election. But, writing in the Observer, he says he envisages a role advising the Labour party on its policies on mental health while focusing more on his NHS work.
This.
About the only thing a Tory MP could have done at this point to *lower* my opinion of them is cut and run to the opposition with an apparently straight face.
Idiot. I actually find myself with more contempt for him than the ones still in the party and staring defeat in the face.
As I say, I never voted for the man. But I did contact him on several occasions and found him helpful and courteous, as did my wife who once had a good conversation with him.
😉
MPs usually are in person, it’s part of the skill set you need to get elected. The problem is when people mistake manners and charm for virtue. Or a smart suit for evidence of good character.
Very much so; he's was also junior health minister when the Lansley reforms were pushed through (Health and Social Care Act of 2012), so bears direct responsibility for the current state of the health service.
Yes, we'd be better off considering this as just a different set of social skills, and not automatically attribute moral value to them.
I assume a set of contacts with the incoming government will prove handy if you end up working at a healthcare firm.
But time will tell. I wouldn't presume to be able to read his mind and assess his motives.
Indeed. Confidence tricksters, spivs and scammers are always incredibly charming
The latter is almost always applied to lifelong Republicans who are willing to work with Democrats. Applying LINO to people who change party like other people replace a winter coat (and don't in any way change their views) is rather different. I wouldn't apply it to the likes of Streeting (much as I wish he would fuck off and don't think his views should be anywhere near party policy).
Expecting consistency from a party politician is basic democracy and not something that's tantamount to fascism.
Where did I say it was tantamount to fascism? Give me some credit.
So what exactly did you mean by "But it all smacks of 'Homage to Catalonia' " Or "Both smack of Orwell. "
I thought it was @Gamma Gamaliel 's usual schtick of insinuating that those to his left are Stalinists (because a lefty once said something mean to one of his Blairite mates), rather than fascists.
I get the impression that he was never a Conservative
My run-ins with the hard left of the Labour Party have been mixed. Some pleasant. Others far less so. I can't share them here as some of it wouldn't be in the public domain.
And to describe my mates as 'Blairite' demonstrates exactly the kind of reductionist and factional thinking that I'm having a go at.
FWIW I've got friends right across the Labour spectrum.
My reference to 'Homage to Catalonia' is all about in-fighting on the Left which impeded the fight against Fascism.
I've always balanced out my comments about the Labour Party with positive observations which you've clearly chosen to ignore.
It's far easier to divide the world into nice neat categories such as Stalinists, Blairites and Fascists.
FWIW in the most egregious incident I'm thinking of I found the Labour Party's internal procedures to be both impressive and robust.
Much as you'll despise me for acknowledging as much, I'm also aware of an egregious incident within the Conservative ranks which was dealt with impressively and thoroughly by their internal procedures.
It's not that I have anything against the Labour left but I do react against it when people post as if the sun shines out of its arse and it can do no wrong.
That's what I rail against. Adolescent politics.
I'm one of these annoying people cursed with the ability to see two (just two?) to every argument and if anything has a lot of support - be it Tolkein's writings or the Labour Party - I feel honour bound to take a contrary position.
It's how I'm wired.
If anything, I'd regard myself as a 'critical friend' of Labour and find myself willing them to get over their internal wrangling and ideological spats.
I was put off very hard left politics - by which I mean extra-Parliamentary left - at university. It's probably made me hyper-sensitive to anything that resembles that, and yes, I know there are nuances and shades on the Labour left.
In a similar way until very recently I had a gut-level aversion to certain forms of charismatic evangelical worship having been overly exposed to it in the past. Now, even though it's not to my taste it doesn't bring me out in hives. I can live and let live.
For the record, the incident I have in mind was very serious indeed. It certainly was nothing to do with lefties saying nasty things to my allegedly 'Blairite' mates. It was much, much worse than that and I had sleepless nights over it. I wouldn't wish it on any of you guys.
Suffice to say that the matter was resolved in the end although it wasn't at all pleasant an experience and I'll thank @Arethosemyfeet not to make light of it because I wouldn't wish it on him either for love nor money.
For all that he's a callow middle-class virtue signalling, bourgeois Hampstead socialist youth. 😉
Serious shit happens anywhere, of course.
I also appreciate that you mean no disrespect.
If anything, @Telford has illustrated the broad point I'm trying to make. It's the 'No True Scotsman' thing. He's doing it now.
Poulter was never a 'True Conservative' because he voted for Blair. He can't have been a proper Conservative all along.
I'm half expecting someone to quip that if he'd voted for Blair he could never have been a 'True Labourite' either.
Yes, politicians can have an eye to the main chance. I've seen a spectacular turn-on-a-sixpence change of political allegiance at a local level that beggared belief.
A comparison with Orwell is no more hyperbolic than saying that something is 'Machiavellian' is to make a direct comparison with Renaissance Florentine politics.
I've already acknowledged that Wes Streeting makes comments one wouldn't ordinarily expect from a Labour politician.
I was never one of those who believed that Corbyn had horns growing out of his head. I always had reservations about his competence and his position on Europe and so on. I certainly had grave reservations about some of those attracted to his banner and much as you'll all hate me for saying so, blame them for driving some former Labour I activists I know out of politics.
Hand-waving and saying, 'Oh, they must have been Blairites and not proper Labour supporters in the first place ...' doesn't cut it with me, I'm afraid.
Neither does it mean I'm 'sold' on Starmer or Streeting. At least with Corbyn you knew what he stood for.
I dunno. Perhaps it's ever been thus and we see hints of this sort of thing in the NT too. Where's that verse about 'the reason they left us was because they were never really with us in the first place'?
You know the one I mean.
It probably comes with the territory in any political or ideological setting. 'He was never a proper Conservative ...', 'She was never really a Liberal ...', 'They weren't really Labour ...', 'You're only saying that because your friends were Blairites and you are accusing the Left of Stalinism which no longer exists ...'
And round and round it goes.
Starmer did not do that. He appealed to the left by saying he would carry on the way it had been going and that he and Corbyn were friend ls. Once in he moved strongly to the right, stabbed Corbyn in the back and got rid of those who would stand in his way. His leanings are not high on my list of objections.
I'm sorry you had a shitty experience, @Gamma Gamaliel. No large group of people can completely avoid the presence of shitheads. The difference is that the Labour left doesn't put them in the (Shadow) Cabinet.
That’s true, but a lot of those who have left only joined the party when Corbyn became leader
Okay forgive me, expecting consistency from a party politician is basic democracy and not adolescent politics.
Having low expectations is just grown up politics, and the lower your expectations the more grown up it is.
At which point it becomes pointless.
Yes, I'm sure offering nothing and insulting voters is nothing to do with why politics has shifted in a reactionary direction.