What are your views on the manifestos (transport) for the General Election?

tspaul26 · 23 Apr 2017

Pinza-C55 said:
That's true but of course since nationalisation there has effectively been one period of Labour government if you count Blair/Brown administrations as being the same thing. Blair wasn't even a luke warm Socialist and he wasn't known for keeping his promises. My point is that >now< if Corbyn or anyone else claims they can nationalise the railways when we are in the EU then they are lying.

I suppose it depends on what we mean by 'nationalisation'. EU law does not prohibit state ownership of the 'national' operator - it prohibits an absolute state monopoly on the provision of rail services. The Portuguese rail network being a case in point.

My understanding is that there were limited private operations even under the former British Railways/British Rail.

It is also worth noting that English common law has traditionally been hostile to monopolies, so it would be wrong to see this as some alien legal concept.

RailUK Forums

Pinza-C55 · 23 Apr 2017

tspaul26 said:
I suppose it depends on what we mean by 'nationalisation'. EU law does not prohibit state ownership of the 'national' operator - it prohibits an absolute state monopoly on the provision of rail services. The Portuguese rail network being a case in point.

My understanding is that there were limited private operations even under the former British Railways/British Rail.

It is also worth noting that English common law has traditionally been hostile to monopolies, so it would be wrong to see this as some alien legal concept.

The highlighted bit is my understanding of what nationalisation was and should be. Under British Rail there were very very limited private operations but they were trivial in comparison to the current mess.

thenorthern · 24 Apr 2017

Pinza-C55 said:
That's true but of course since nationalisation there has effectively been one period of Labour government if you count Blair/Brown administrations as being the same thing. Blair wasn't even a luke warm Socialist and he wasn't known for keeping his promises. My point is that >now< if Corbyn or anyone else claims they can nationalise the railways when we are in the EU then they are lying.

It was mentioned when Ed Millipede was Labour leader although he backtracked at the 2015 election because he knew that nationalisation wasn't the answer. Funny though that Labour seem to like discussing it when they aren't in power because its when your not in power you don't have to put your policy into practice.

Andy Burnham when he was running for Labour leader said that he would re-nationalise the railways but I think that was just to try and stop the rising support for Jeremy Corbyn.

LNW-GW Joint · 24 Apr 2017

thenorthern said:
It was mentioned when Ed Millipede was Labour leader although he backtracked at the 2015 election because he knew that nationalisation wasn't the answer. Funny though that Labour seem to like discussing it when they aren't in power because its when your not in power you don't have to put your policy into practice.

Andy Burnham when he was running for Labour leader said that he would re-nationalise the railways but I think that was just to try and stop the rising support for Jeremy Corbyn.

It's the (shadow) Chancellor that usually puts the boot in on nationalisation (Brown, Balls etc).
However, John McDonnell seems to have a different view of economics to his predecessors.
In a funding row between health, education, defence and railways, the railways will always lose, because it is at least half-capable of funding itself.

doubletrackemble · 28 Apr 2017

The Labour pledge states 'we will bring our railways into public ownership', which need not mean 'full nationalisation'. Are there in reality many practical measures they could introduce towards public ownership without fully nationalising?

edwin_m · 28 Apr 2017

doubletrackemble said:
The Labour pledge states 'we will bring our railways into public ownership', which need not mean 'full nationalisation'. Are there in reality many practical measures they could introduce towards public ownership without fully nationalising?

The railways, being owned by Network Rail, are already in public ownership. The trains may be a different matter.

thenorthern · 28 Apr 2017

doubletrackemble said:
The Labour pledge states 'we will bring our railways into public ownership', which need not mean 'full nationalisation'. Are there in reality many practical measures they could introduce towards public ownership without fully nationalising?

Ed Millipede in 2015 pledged to have a state owned operator that would bid the same as private companies and be awarded the franchise if it represented the best value for money. This was a compromise from Labour earlier calling to re-nationalise the railways conveniently when the Conservatives were in power.

Given that Jeremy Corbyn is much more left wing I would think that he would want a full scale nationalisation but I wouldn't go as far as saying that he would want a return of the British Rail sandwich.

All this is speculation though for a Labour Party wish list, if they do win power though its likely that they won't re-nationalise the railways as like with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who didn't re-nationalise the railways in their 13 years in power despite pledging to. Secretly Labour know that nationalisation isn't in the best interests of passengers.

LNW-GW Joint · 28 Apr 2017

doubletrackemble said:
The Labour pledge states 'we will bring our railways into public ownership', which need not mean 'full nationalisation'. Are there in reality many practical measures they could introduce towards public ownership without fully nationalising?

Their previously stated policy was to keep the franchises in-house when they expired, without saying what that meant in organisational terms.
They would not touch open access or freight, or rolling stock, and would therefore retain ORR, the track access regime and a level playing field for new entrants.
But that was before Brexit.

Letting the franchises expire would take 7-15 years, as new franchises will be of that duration (South Western, West Midlands, West Coast/HS2, Wales & Borders etc).
A London Overground or Merseyrail solution is possible, with the government (TfL, Merseytravel) taking fare and revenue risk, leaving just the train operation in private hands.
They will not resurrect BR, Humpty was irretrievably broken.
No government will give control back to an arm's length body again and just say "break even".

route:oxford · 29 Apr 2017

thenorthern said:
All this is speculation though for a Labour Party wish list, if they do win power though its likely that they won't re-nationalise the railways as like with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who didn't re-nationalise the railways in their 13 years in power despite pledging to. Secretly Labour know that nationalisation isn't in the best interests of passengers.

Every time the Labour Party issue a 7 year franchise they know they are committing to the delivery of services right the way through part of their own and the next government's term. Even if they don't form the next government.

Similar for the Tories, from a slightly different perspective.

Just imagine what the NHS would be like if CCGs and Hospital Trusts had a 7 year funding commitment...

thenorthern · 29 Apr 2017

Theresa May has said that she is committed to HS2 in an interview with the Yorkshire Post today.

Xenophon PCDGS · 1 May 2017

I noticed that during one of the Sunday morning TV programmes, complaints by the media were voiced that owing to the lack of manifestos currently available, the television political "pundits" have been thwarted in their usual pseudo self-important manner of investigating in-depth what would be contained therein.

HH · 1 May 2017

thenorthern said:
Ed Millipede in 2015 pledged to have a state owned operator that would bid the same as private companies and be awarded the franchise if it represented the best value for money. This was a compromise from Labour earlier calling to re-nationalise the railways conveniently when the Conservatives were in power.

Given that Jeremy Corbyn is much more left wing I would think that he would want a full scale nationalisation but I wouldn't go as far as saying that he would want a return of the British Rail sandwich.

All this is speculation though for a Labour Party wish list, if they do win power though its likely that they won't re-nationalise the railways as like with Tony Blair and Gordon Brown who didn't re-nationalise the railways in their 13 years in power despite pledging to. Secretly Labour know that nationalisation isn't in the best interests of passengers.

Labour do, but Jeremy Corbyn? I doubt it; the man hasn't a shred of common sense; dogma is all.

Olaf · 6 May 2017

Talk of re-nationalisation is an exercise in wasted effort for the foreseeable future.

I do not expect any major policy statements specifically on Transport (other than the currently known, and headline leading HS2, & 'investment in infrastructure') as part of the June 8th GE.

My expectations are that the major announcements will come later in the year, certainly after the GE.

Jordeh · 10 May 2017

So the Labour party manifesto has supposedly been leaked

The Mirror said:
Publicly-owned bus companies will be established, and railways re-nationalised as each private franchise expires with a pledge to repeal the Railways Act 1993 under which the Conservatives privatised our railways.

Labour will then freeze rail fares, bring back conductors on driver-only trains and promise free wifi and good mobile reception across the network.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-manifesto-leaked-jeremy-corbyn-10396298

Nothing overly surprising there I guess, although I hadn't heard of repealing the Railways Act 1993 before. I'd be interested to know how plausible that is.

Camden · 10 May 2017

That's convenient. Is it overly cynical of me to notice that this would give them advance knowledge of what seems popular and not so popular, and hence get an opportunity to release one for real in an edited form while disavowing the "leaked" one?...

Anyway. They can promise what they like really can't they??

rosschap · 10 May 2017

Agree with the poster above, Labour can at the moment promise what they like because they know they won't win the election anyway. I'm not saying I support the Conservatives, it just looks very unlikely they will win!

I am sure there will be debate about the real benefits of complete renationalisation. East Coast returned a nice profit to DfT. But promising guards on all DOO trains and better Wifi requires huge investment, so how do they propose to pay for it?

mirodo · 10 May 2017

Labour plans to renationalise the railways, according to draft copy of the manifesto leaked to the BBC.

General election 2017: Labour pledges in 'manifesto leak'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-39877439

Pilning · 10 May 2017

Presumably, Corbyn is not aware that the railway is already nationalised.
So, is he proposing to nationalise the train operators as well? In order to keep an even playing field, should he not also be proposing to nationalise airlines that fly internal UK routes and road hauliers that use state subsidised roads to undercut rail freight operators?

Suraggu · 10 May 2017

Pilning said:
Presumably, Corbyn is not aware that the railway is already nationalised.
So, is he proposing to nationalise the train operators as well? In order to keep an even playing field, should he not also be proposing to nationalise airlines that fly internal UK routes and road hauliers that use state subsidised roads to undercut rail freight operators?

Or the BBC as usual use the wrong kind of wording to report stories such as this.

thenorthern · 10 May 2017

Labour does indeed intend to again mislead voters about bringing the railways back into public ownership. Its mentioned in the draft manifesto that has been leaked.

Funny how they blame the Conservatives for it mentioning the Railways act 1993. Given that since then the Conservatives have been in power for 11 years but during that time there was another party who was also in power for 13 years who's leader pledged to re-nationalise the railways if they ever won power. Who could that be could that be Labour?

I wish as well that Corbyn and Co would stop implying that the services were better for passengers under British Rail as since privatisation rail passenger numbers have more than doubled, the amount of industrial action has reduced and its normally confined to one party of the country rather than a national strike, trains have got faster, trains have got more frequent, more trains are running on time, delay repay has been introduced and many other things.

Jordeh · 10 May 2017

Would love to hear their justification for putting conductors on all trains, despite some operating since the 1980s without them!

LNW-GW Joint · 11 May 2017

Jordeh said:
Would love to hear their justification for putting conductors on all trains, despite some operating since the 1980s without them!

I thought the DOO dispute was all about safety?

Previously, Labour has said it will not renationalise freight, rolling stock and open access.
That means keeping the level playing field, operator licensing, access regime and ORR regulation, which are all part of the 1993 Act.
I think "repeal of the 1993 Railways Act" means just the bits related to passenger service franchising.

Kite159 · 11 May 2017

One issue with renationalisation of the railways which I could see coming up is those lines which operate at a large subsidy or duplicate lines could be mentioned for closure by the new BR on grounds of reducing cost to the taxpayer.

Gareth Marston · 11 May 2017

Kite159 said:
One issue with renationalisation of the railways which I could see coming up is those lines which operate at a large subsidy or duplicate lines could be mentioned for closure by the new BR on grounds of reducing cost to the taxpayer.

Yet the taxpayer has poured extra £ Billions into the private sector for 20 years to keep them open.....

Gareth Marston · 11 May 2017

LNW-GW Joint said:
I thought the DOO dispute was all about safety?

Previously, Labour has said it will not renationalise freight, rolling stock and open access.
That means keeping the level playing field, operator licensing, access regime and ORR regulation, which are all part of the 1993 Act.
I think "repeal of the 1993 Railways Act" means just the bits related to passenger service franchising.

Given the fragmented structure of the industry those are the bits that would cost serious wedge to do - I can see some FOC's warming to a bung to bugger off given the collapse in coal traffic recently. But overall pragmatic approach to it without major upheaval.

yorksrob · 11 May 2017

One thing that I gleaned from Radio 4 this morning is that labour isn't proposing a 'big bang' disruption to the industry, like the original privatisation, rather it will cease to franchise out sections of the railway as current deals expire. Aside from whether one believes that public ownership is a good thing or not, this does at least seem like a sensible way of doing it.

Camden · 11 May 2017

Nothing sensible about Labour at the moment. They clearly haven't got a clue, and seem to believe that they can just enact whatever they like and it will all pan out in isolation and exactly as they want it to.

No mention of hyper-inflation risks, no mention as to how we go about forming this new type of society (of people paid to do jobs which don't need to be done) when the rest of the World works in a completely different way, and basically no sense that they have any kind of understanding of whole system. Their administration would very obviously become a calamity fairly early on. Most of their list would wind up being impossible as a result of the consequences of whatever half baked schemes they enacted first. Toying with the railways (which is all that amounts to) is nothing compared to the rest of their wishlist.

All of which leaves the Conservatives free to do pretty much whatever they like.

Xenophon PCDGS · 11 May 2017

Camden said:
Nothing sensible about Labour at the moment. They clearly haven't got a clue, and seem to believe that they can just enact whatever they like and it will all pan out in isolation and exactly as they want it to.

Hyperbole in Opposition without any accountability that the Government in power has is easy.

Convincing the electorate that you are a party fit to govern, with a strong leader, with 21st century policies aimed at the resolution of 21st century problems is another matter.

The Ham · 11 May 2017

Jordeh said:
So the Labour party manifesto has supposedly been leaked

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/labour-manifesto-leaked-jeremy-corbyn-10396298

Nothing overly surprising there I guess, although I hadn't heard of repealing the Railways Act 1993 before. I'd be interested to know how plausible that is.

The thing that I would like know how plausable is:

Labour will then freeze rail fares, bring back conductors on driver-only trains and promise free wifi and good mobile reception across the network.

(my bold)

In other words they are going to force companies to provide or have government provided mobile phone masts so that there is good mobile phone reception across the network (I assume including tunnels?!?).

That leads to the question, is that going to be for all networks, or if I am on Vodafone I'll be OK for some parts but I'll need to be on EE for other parts?

plcd1 · 11 May 2017

swt_passenger said:
1. Crossrail 2 is a TfL matter, it isn't a DfT driven project.

2. 5 tracks from Surbiton is the alternative option in the event Crossrail 2 doesn't happen, so IMHO it will never be announced unless/until Crossrail 2 is formally abandoned by TfL.

I doubt any of this is relevant to a general election manifesto at all though.

I believe Crossrail 2 is a jointly sponsored project with DfT and TfL as lead sponsors. TfL and the Mayor are entirely dependent on the DfT and Secretary of State agreement for the scheme to proceed through each of its stages. The project would be steaming ahead if TfL had sole responsibility and the funding mechanisms under its / Mayoral control. Instead it has crawled to a virtual halt because Grayling wants to investigate different funding mechanisms like Land Value Capture and he probably wants more private sector funding. I think CR2 has a less than 50% chance of happening while Grayling remains SoS. His political antipathy to devolution is the killer.

I doubt CR2 will feature in any national party manifesto although it may be a "local issue" that candidates say they will lobby for. I can see it being an issue in some SW London constituencies.

Returning to the key question about national manifestos I doubt transport or the railways will figure highly nor will there be any coherent detail behind whatever is said. This is no change from what has happened for the last umpteen decades because transport is never a voter priority. I can't even see the GTR shambles being much of an issue despite the chaos it has caused for many people although it may be cited by the Tories in support of tougher TU legislation.

What are your views on the manifestos (transport) for the General Election?

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Member