Help for my GCSE report on Privatisation or Nationalisation

I'm meant to be doing a report of Privatisation or Nationalised.
I need help between for and against Privatisation.

What have you got so far? That may encourage people as they’ll know where to start..

At what academic level is the report expected? GCSE, A-level, tertiary education? Who makes up the primary audience? What is their level of understanding?
How long should it be? Is it an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each structure? From what viewpoint? Is it only concerned with the railways in the UK or are other industries to be included? Is any historical background needed? Does it consider funding? A host of questions...?

Good luck!

And in what environment? (School? Uni? Think Tank?) For whom?

Just railways or other industries (which?) also? British (only) or globally? Academic of practical? Political theory or historic experience?

For an unusual, historic view take a look at https://www.jstor.org/stable/2139861?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents , and follow up on the references (many now free on the internet)...

School. British Rail. GCSE

itznonbine said:

I'm meant to be doing a report of Privatisation or Nationalised.
I need help between for and against Privatisation.

Click to expand...

Have you read the numerous threads on this forum on the subject?

I'd recommend getting hold of 'The Railway Dilemma' by Sim Harris. It gives a reasonable account of the history and the issues faced by nationalisation in the 1940s and privatisation in the 1990s, and the consequences of both.

My main advice: beware correlation vs causation, as half the arguments out there fall into that trap.

You have picked a huge subject which is really complex so don't forget to keep it to the level you need as you could easily right a masters or doctorate dissertation on this!

Based on experience in both education, consulting and as a professional assessor, the approach I would take is to describe the advantages and disadvantages of each with examples from the area you have chosen, British Rail, in a very matter of fact way and then weigh up the evidence and come up with your conclusion.

One thing you will need to be careful of in this area is emotion - people get very passionate about this subject and therefore opinion gets confused with fact

AndrewP said:

You have picked a huge subject which is really complex so don't forget to keep it to the level you need as you could easily right a masters or doctorate dissertation on this!

Click to expand...

Probably a good idea to watch out for spelling mistakes as well, even if only GCSE.

itznonbine said:

School. British Rail. GCSE

Click to expand...

Hmm! Tricky...

It's a huge field for what, by definition, will be a short(ish!) document.

Nevertheless, the question of whether the railways should be nationalised or privatised is an area of debate where politics plays an unusually important role - so beware that many statements and positions are strongly influenced by the proposer's position on the political spectrum.

There is also the implicit question, mostly unanswered, of the form of privatisation or nationalisation which is being discussed or promoted. In the case of the railways those functioning purely as a private industry are really only to be found in the freight railways in the USA and the iron ore railways in Australia. Almost all other railways around the world are state-owned or operated in one form or another - and that includes the railways in this country.

Have you been given any background in economics theories? If you have some knowledge then it will help to analyse and judge the various claims of all the interested parties.

A report at GCSE level isn't going to be at any great depth, but you will need some pros and cons for each side, maybe with some international comparisons.
It isn't black and white, either, as there are several different organisation models which could be used with different levels of ownership, both public and private.
Today's railway is not fully privatised, in fact not even half-privatised, even if the public thinks it is.
But it is relatively open to newcomers, and is to a degree competitive.
Don't be fooled into thinking that European railways are nationalised, while ours aren't.
They are nearly all partially privatised, but there are widely differing degrees of private (or non-state) ownership, control and operation.
Railways in Japan (mostly passenger) and the USA (mostly freight) are pretty much fully privatised, but are strictly regulated.

The politicians tend to talk about public control rather then public ownership, and the government already exerts far more control than most people think it does.
The choice in the future may not be entirely in the government's gift anyway, as it depends what kind of regulation of the transport industry it signs up to.
That is to do with wider international competition issues and things like allowing fair access to the UK rail network.
It also affects things like "buy British trains" and allowing foreign operators on our network.
It might well change after we leave the EU, but it might still not allow 100% public ownership and in-house operation as under BR.

Today we have a public-private partnership on the railways, and the future may look very similar, even if the boundary between them is shifted.
Today's railway structure is enshrined in the Railways Act 1993 and subsequent legislation, and also by the various EU Railway Packages we adopted along the way.
Then there are some UK railways that are not financed and regulated in the same way as the others - HS1, HS2 and Heathrow Express for instance.
One size doesn't fit all.
There isn't a one-word answer, I'm afraid.
I hope I've not put you off...

Avoid Christian Wolmer if you want a balanced view!

gazthomas said:

Avoid Christian Wolmer if you want a balanced view!

Click to expand...

Avoid the whole of "Rail" magazine if you want a balanced view!!! Seriously however - the national press is a disaster on this subject. I've worked for nationalised and private industries and the civil service and the popular press is more or less wrong in everything it ever says about anything in my experience (on both wings of the political spectrum).
I would recommend that you bear in mind the difference between efficiency (doing something productively - or cheaply perhaps) and effectiveness (doing it completely and correctly). The two are often mutually exclusive. Also be aware of invalid comparisons. Operating subsidy to BR against operating subsidy to train operating companies (which ignores the gigantic direct subsidy paymemnt to Network rail).
Another thing to bear in mind is different external factors ..... the electricity industry in the 50s, 60s and 70s faced very different challenges from those of today for example.

One other thing - before you reorganise in any way there should always be a consideration of the "do nothing" option. Simply renationalising the railways would have its own cost - whatever the long term effects would be.

This reminds me of my GCSEs, when I tried to do an appraisal of the pros and cons of the Monarchy. A difficult argument to win, whichever way you look at it

itznonbine said:

I'm meant to be doing a report of Privatisation or Nationalised.
I need help between for and against Privatisation.

Click to expand...

hi there.
from which subject is this supposed to apply?

what are you studying.politics or business studies?
i guess from a business perspective:

in favour of privatisation:
1)competition to increase speed/frequency/comfort of service
2)incentive to develop better tools to reduce running costs of service/rolling stock(ie more efficient engines/electrification,new procedures to increase durability of components and reduce wear and tear on infrastructure,standardisation of fleets for easier/cheaper servicing etc..also changes to working practices...this one is unpopular!)

negatives..basically the same as above as it is driven by a requirement to reduce costs/increase profitability for shareholders,rather than the well being of the passenger

in favour of nationalisation:
1)better integrated overall transport connections going from route to route
2)less profit motive,a well ordered system should be seen as a vital element of the economy of the entire country
3)should be cheaper fares because of 2)

negatives:
1)overall transport system monopolised.operator or union uses position to capitalise on their situation for the benefit of their members,not the passenger.
2)less motive to develop new procedures as there is seen to be a state subsidy which will always be there.
3)lack of competition breeds complacency,and tendency towards status quo,because it's always been like that,and nobody can touch us as we're essential.

you want an IT equivalent of what goes on,then AMD v Intel in the processor market is a good analogy(and this is private but basically changed hands from duopoly to monopoly back to duopoly again in the last 10-15 years)
15 years ago amd athlon 64 was king.the price was good versus intel

then intel came out with the core i series and obliterated AMD's profitability,r+d budget(except for playstation which saved them)

then last year AMD came out with ryzen series CPU which gave intel a real headache...and their response was put half as many cores again into their CPU for the same price..but still cant touch AMD on graphics....so we have some good competition again.we are getting a significant raising of standards because there is someone snapping at the heels of the top dog.

FWIW i agree with lord adonis' on this one with respect to the railways.If there is an ex BR syndicate that will put in some bids for franchises and make them work,then that is ultimately a benefit to the passenger if they can pull it off, but it would mean they have to provide a cheaper,more reliable service than their competitors in the private sector.
If that means buying all the old HST's,modifying them for PRM and going open access like easyjet did for the airlines to begin with then I see that as a very good thing.
I would certainly be up for london to edinburgh £20 each way on the day..as a national stopper service that takes half as long again as an express azuma (£5advance) and pay for my food/drinks

A big subject for a relatively short (at your level) report! A subject which has been under discussion for almost as long as railways have.(See Regulation of Railways Act 1844, which provided for state acquisition of railways)
I would hope that your teacher(s) have given advice on your report should contain - in terms of length, approach, contents, etc. (Note hooverboy's post)

A point I have made before is that the railways were privatised in the 1990s for fundamentally the same reason they were nationalised in the 1940s - the prejudices and and fundamental policies of the party then in power (and the current opposition's nationalisation policy starts from the same place) - and these have driven .
And underlying any national policy has been what are perhaps the two fundamental railway questions: are the railways for the public (or national) good, or a source of private profit; and should they be a national. integrated system, or a fragmented one, formed of separate, independent, competing entities each doing its own thing.

Books I would think worth consulting - if perhaps above your level - are the three on the history of British Railways since 1948 by T R (Terry) Gourvish (especially the first chapter of the 1948-73 one on nationalistaion, and Part 4 of the second (1974-97) on privatisation.

For a somewhat international perspective JRTR (Japan Railway and Transport Review) http://www.ejrcf.or.jp/jrtr/backissue/index_backissue.html has had in issues 29 and 34 (if not others) articles on British Railway Privatisation.

Hooverboy made this statement:

hooverboy said:

negatives..basically the same as above as it is driven by a requirement to reduce costs/increase profitability for shareholders,rather than the well being of the passenger

Click to expand...

Take this statement with a pinch of salt! Every successful company which deals directly with the end consumer pays great attention to the consumer's interests. It is very expensive in marketing terms to gain a new customer, whereas the cost of keeping an existing customer is much lower. Word-of-mouth is the best advertising medium.

It is very bad business to upset your customers.

coppercapped said:

It is very bad business to upset your customers.

Click to expand...

Quite true but the 'railway' is isolated from that. Essentially is it a 'Captive Market' No matter how much negative press the railway gets or how many times a train crashes. You will, without a doubt, get that train to work on Monday morning.

ComUtoR said:

Quite true but the 'railway' is isolated from that. Essentially is it a 'Captive Market' No matter how much negative press the railway gets or how many times a train crashes. You will, without a doubt, get that train to work on Monday morning.

Click to expand...

True for the schlepp to work.
But not true for the optional traveller.

coppercapped said:

True for the schlepp to work.
But not true for the optional traveller.

Click to expand...

I'm not sure. I would say the impact to the optional traveler is infinitesimal at best. I Drive trains and still detest them. Yet I will still choose a train where it will benefit me. Humans are just like that. We will generally take the easy path and in the terms of the railway I think we have accepted that trains are always late, trains break down constantly and the ticket cost has little to no 'value'.

I genuinely believe that if you put a poster up in the foyer saying 'this train will be 20 minutes late and might crash into a car at X level crossing' People will still just go 'meh' and board it anyway. Humans are oddly hardcoded that way. Granted there may be a few who hesitate or decide on another route but that will be a tiny fraction of the overall number.

Look at the history. Trains are notorious for running late. Day in and day out commuters still get that same train. Optional travelers still get that train that gets them to the airport with the minimal time possible. Tell someone it will cost £150 to get from London to Glasgow by train and take a couple of hours (but it might breakdown halfway) and tell them it will cost £151 by bus and take most of the day. It wouldn't surprise you that many still see saving a Quid and getting there quicker is well worth it. Tell them it crashed the previous day and they will look at you and say 'well, that was yesterday and lightning never strikes twice'

Seriously, people are weird like that.

Either way, the impact is pennies.

coppercapped said:

Hooverboy made this statement:
Take this statement with a pinch of salt! Every successful company which deals directly with the end consumer pays great attention to the consumer's interests. It is very expensive in marketing terms to gain a new customer, whereas the cost of keeping an existing customer is much lower. Word-of-mouth is the best advertising medium.

It is very bad business to upset your customers.

Click to expand...

But - and it is perhaps a point that the OP should consider for his report (getting back on topic) - in the current setup, who are who's customers? While passengers may be thought of as the railways'a customers (and for the railway as a whole, they are), for the individual TOC's the DfT is far more important, as the body which gives them their contract (franchise), and which (if they upset it enough) will take it away, putting them out of business. Passengers are little more than cargo, in many ways - not exactly participating in a free market. And all the other players in the industry are no more than sub-contractors, in the grand scheme of things.

And another point for the OP, to what extent are the issues between a 'private' and a 'nationalised' (or publicly or state owned) railway a reflection of their structures? Would a single 'British Rail plc', or local authority (public) 'TOCs', give different answers.
As food for thought, look at http://www.passengertransport.co.uk/2018/06/so-whats-this-franchising-for/ .

Thought - for an organisation to be successful, it needs to be run by people who know what they have to do (how can you succeed if you don't know what success is?), and who have the knowledge and capability to do it.

If GCSE is anything like Scottish Standard Grades / National 5, then your 'report' should look something like this in terms of paragraphing:

Intro - Outline the issue. At your level, it shouldnt be longer than 3 or 4 sentences.
Nationalisation - 2 paragraphs in favour (with a balancing analytical comment towards a downside to each 'pro' at the end of each paragraph)
Privatisation - 2 paragraphs in favour (with a balancing analytical comment towards a downside to each 'pro' at the end of each paragraph)
Conclusion - Your own opinion on which of the two is better


An example of a brief outline of each paragraph should look like this:

Nationalisation
1)
Pro: Profit generated goes straight back into the rail industry
Balance: Money for further investment has to come from the government, which may 'eat up' budgets from other government non railway related projects.
2)
Pro: Nationalisation is normally 'not for profit', so passenger prices needn't be as expensive, as there is less pressure to generate money to sustain the industry
Balance: Not for profit operations require heavy subsidy, so industrial austerity measures may be required, which would render the 'pro' counter productive

Then follow the same structure for the two 'Privatisation' paragraphs, and you're all set.

Just remember that spelling and grammar is more important than the content you include - which is what you will primarily be judged on at GCSE level.

Good luck

Clansman said:

Just remember that spelling and grammar is more important than the content you include - which is what you will primarily be judged on at GCSE level.

Click to expand...

Far from the case with spelling, punctuation and grammar marks are given separately - even in quality of written communication questions, the new GCSEs move focus onto content and the 'big ideas'

With regards to the OPs question - what subject is the report for?

coppercapped said:

True for the schlepp to work.
But not true for the optional traveller.

Click to expand...

Also not true in large parts of the country where there are viable commuting alternatives such as car or bus (ie places where there isn't the same extensive/regular rail network as found in the major cities).

Clansman said:

If GCSE is anything like Scottish Standard Grades / National 5, then your 'report' should look something like this in terms of paragraphing:

Intro - Outline the issue. At your level, it shouldnt be longer than 3 or 4 sentences.
Nationalisation - 2 paragraphs in favour (with a balancing analytical comment towards a downside to each 'pro' at the end of each paragraph)
Privatisation - 2 paragraphs in favour (with a balancing analytical comment towards a downside to each 'pro' at the end of each paragraph)
Conclusion - Your own opinion on which of the two is better


An example of a brief outline of each paragraph should look like this:

Nationalisation
1)
Pro: Profit generated goes straight back into the rail industry
Balance: Money for further investment has to come from the government, which may 'eat up' budgets from other government non railway related projects.
2)
Pro: Nationalisation is normally 'not for profit', so passenger prices needn't be as expensive, as there is less pressure to generate money to sustain the industry
Balance: Not for profit operations require heavy subsidy, so industrial austerity measures may be required, which would render the 'pro' counter productive

Then follow the same structure for the two 'Privatisation' paragraphs, and you're all set.

Just remember that spelling and grammar is more important than the content you include - which is what you will primarily be judged on at GCSE level.

Good luck

Click to expand...

If you use this approach you will probably be describing generic concepts. The current UK debate is comparing the actual state, which is partial privatisation i.e. the track, structures and some stations are nationalised as is Network Rail, albeit with a plethora of private suppliers, with a nationalised state which presumably would look something like BR did up to 1995.

My personal view is that the UK network and operations are actually so controlled by government agencies that it is quasi-nationalised anyway. Even government uses private advisers and service providers.

For me, a true privatised railway would have a financial structure similar to a heritage line i.e. it would own or lease absolutely everything.

Of course cynically as I get older, I'm of the view that virtually everyone has an agenda and biased opinion and to actually find an unbiased opinion and the truth for that matter is extremely difficult.

When you are younger things tend to be more Black and White as you get older it becomes more Grey.

47802 said:

Of course cynically as I get older, I'm of the view that virtually everyone has an agenda and biased opinion and to actually find an unbiased opinion and the truth for that matter is extremely difficult.

When you are younger things tend to be more Black and White as you get older it becomes more Grey.

Click to expand...

When you are at school, you learn what words are supposed to mean, when at university and in business you learn what they actually mean, or rather that reality often cannot be described by single words.

Its a bit like the word "Brexit", which is a simplifying of "Britain exit from Europe". It is actually UK (includes Northern Ireland) "adjustment to" its relationships with the European Union. I use the word "adjustment" because it has never seemed to me to be intended to be "exit from all" due to things like the agencies.

You've picked a topic that could easily get a PHD student into trouble with the word count....

You'll need to demonstrate both sides of the argument, show through your bibliography you've researched the topic from a number of eminent sources, & come to some reasonable conclusion (doesn't really matter which side you take as long as you can argue your points from the evidence).

As has been said before, your style & presentation is very important

Good luck.