Election 2019 - promises

WatcherZero · 23 Nov 2019

Conservatives now talking about bringing in a minimum service guarantee, Union and TOC will have to agree a level of service provision that will continue through the strike or the strike will be illegal. They are giving examples of between 20 and 33% minimum service level agreed with unions in other European countries.

RailUK Forums

GRALISTAIR · 23 Nov 2019

Chew-chew said:
The starting position for these Labour socialists is that state control of an industry/service will deliver a better service. There is little real logic behind this, other than a hatred of wealth creators and profit.
The reality is that state ownership of most industries will have little impact on their finances. Most rail services, for example, will still be loss making and require subsidy. Their plans fail to recognise that its an industry with very high costs, and that won’t change.

In my opinion this post hits the nail on the head.

kieron · 23 Nov 2019

Chew-chew said:
The reality is that state ownership of most industries will have little impact on their finances. Most rail services, for example, will still be loss making and require subsidy. Their plans fail to recognise that its an industry with very high costs, and that won’t change.

Has the Labour party proposed reducing the budget for rail? If not, I wouldn't worry too much about how much they'll save by taking franchises in house as they expire.

Personally, I'd hope nationalisation would lead to better decision making, as TOCs won't be constrained by promises they made a few years ago which everyone accepts they can't keep. They clearly work with the government to manage franchises now, so it's hard to point to any operational decision which would be made differently.

There are other problems which are caused by, or at least exacerbated by, the railway franchise system, such as not having enough on-board staff to meet the railway's needs, but there's nothing specific in the manifesto about that.

Robertj21a · 23 Nov 2019

WatcherZero said:
Conservatives now talking about bringing in a minimum service guarantee, Union and TOC will have to agree a level of service provision that will continue through the strike or the strike will be illegal. They are giving examples of between 20 and 33% minimum service level agreed with unions in other European countries.

A totally sensible proposal.

Robertj21a · 23 Nov 2019

squizzler said:
This. I would do the opposite and renationalise the lorries (yes, they were all nationalised for a bit). My new British Road Services could then be ordered to use rail for the trunk haul wherever reasonably practical.

No they weren't.

DynamicSpirit · 23 Nov 2019

squizzler said:
This. I would do the opposite and renationalise the lorries (yes, they were all nationalised for a bit). My new British Road Services could then be ordered to use rail for the trunk haul wherever reasonably practical.

If you want to disincentivise taking goods by road, you could do it a lot more simply by simply charging fuel duties (and/or road tax for lorries) at a level that genuinely reflects the amount of damage that lorries do to the environment, and to quality of life for people who live alongside or use the same roads [*]. That would allow the market to find the optimal solution for using rail vs road that balances environmental concerns with the need to transport goods. Much better than just going in and disrupting the industry by nationalising it all.

Of course more infrastructure to allow more goods to travel by rail would be important as well.

[*] Yes, I know that would cause prices of transported goods to rise, but that would be offset by increased tax revenues to the Government, which could be used to lower general taxation by the same amount so on average people wouldn't see a loss in standard of living.

Mountain Man · 23 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
A totally sensible proposal.

I suspect it will be a very popular policy.

nr758123 · 23 Nov 2019

WatcherZero said:
Conservatives now talking about bringing in a minimum service guarantee, Union and TOC will have to agree a level of service provision that will continue through the strike or the strike will be illegal. They are giving examples of between 20 and 33% minimum service level agreed with unions in other European countries.

Is this the same Conservative party who are supremely relaxed about Northern not providing anything like the contracted service in the North West, every Sunday?

Robertj21a · 23 Nov 2019

nr758123 said:
Is this the same Conservative party who are supremely relaxed about Northern not providing anything like the contracted service in the North West, every Sunday?

I guess Northern still operate far more than a very basic 25-33% service just about everywhere, so I fail to see your point.

Antman · 24 Nov 2019

Djgr said:
This is very confused thinking. Increasing income tax on the 5% of individuals who earn more than £85k per annum does not mean that living costs would automatically rise for everyone else. That is because generally we buy from businesses who pay corporation tax not income tax.

And do you think the business will soak up the tax ?
Do you think that increasing benefits and the amount of cash available at the lower end will do anything except stoke inflation? Just giving people money doesn’t solve their (relative) poverty in the long term, it just puts up prices. For all. McDonnell has never been able to add up. Labour have never made their own financial models work (new Labour was just a continuation of Tbe one conservative one).

But labour and it’s union paymasters don’t care about the country and keeping it going. It’s all about seizing power. Then not losing it. Ever.

lordbusiness · 24 Nov 2019

While I agree that the current franchising model is broken I don't think renationalisation is the the solution.

I await the William's report.....

As anyone thought what the owning groups will do if God forbid JC and Co get in?

There will have to be a transition period, it's not going to happen overnight. Any owning group is going to put on hold any improvements planned- why spend money on anything when you're going to lose it. This would extend to anything- station improvements, staff training, recruiting etc....

They are going to asset strip anything they can to minimise their loss and probably reduce the wage bill by cutting jobs.

There will be no financial incentive to improve services and facilties to increase passenger numbers in the transition period.

Even if the nationalisation is carried out by by waiting until franchises end the same thing is going to happen.

And don't get me started on why nationalised industries are never profitable.

DynamicSpirit · 24 Nov 2019

Justapunter said:
But labour and it’s union paymasters don’t care about the country and keeping it going. It’s all about seizing power. Then not losing it. Ever.

I'm in the Labour Party so have quite a bit of contact with people in Labour and I can promise you this statement is absolutely not true. People in the Labour Party care deeply about the country and about the welfare of people in it (Just as, I'm sure, many people in all parties do).

It is possible to disagree with the particular policies a party has without calling the sincerity of its members into question, you know!

DynamicSpirit · 24 Nov 2019

lordbusiness said:
There will have to be a transition period, it's not going to happen overnight. Any owning group is going to put on hold any improvements planned- why spend money on anything when you're going to lose it. This would extend to anything- station improvements, staff training, recruiting etc....

They are going to asset strip anything they can to minimise their loss and probably reduce the wage bill by cutting jobs.

There will be no financial incentive to improve services and facilties to increase passenger numbers in the transition period.

Those things tend to happen at the end of franchises anyway to some extent (although I think you're exaggerating a bit). Possibly you haven't noticed but a problem with the current franchising system is that every time a franchise ends, there's a period of a few years when the franchisee has little incentive to invest. So if Labour nationalise by just not renewing franchises - which seems to be their plan - that period won't be any different from normal. Except that it'll be (hopefully) the last time that this problem of no incentive to invest recurs.

There are some good arguments against re-nationalising the railways, but this is definitely not one of them.

jtuk · 24 Nov 2019

Mountain Man said:
I suspect it will be a very popular policy.

It's at least making me think about not automatically spoiling my ballot

Dave1987 · 24 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
A totally sensible proposal.

Won't make much of a difference. Work to rule is the mainstay of disputes now. Nothing the Tories can do about it and there is no one to blame any disruption on. It is electioneering at its finest by Shapps.

Dave1987 · 24 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
I guess Northern still operate far more than a very basic 25-33% service just about everywhere, so I fail to see your point.

Plus you would have to pay the staff who are legally bound to work unless you are stating that they should work for nothing if there is a strike? So you are going to end up with some staff being paid because they are forced to work by law and others not. So the only way to solve that would be for unions to strike for at least three or four days. All actions have consequences........ is that not the way free markets that Tories so love look at things?

Mountain Man · 24 Nov 2019

Dave1987 said:
Won't make much of a difference. Work to rule is the mainstay of disputes now. Nothing the Tories can do about it and there is no one to blame any disruption on. It is electioneering at its finest by Shapps.

Its a powerful message in a lot of relevant key marginals. The actual practicalities matter far less than the symbolism

nr758123 · 24 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
I guess Northern still operate far more than a very basic 25-33% service just about everywhere

Not so. To take an example fairly near me, the last Sunday service at Ashton-under-Lyne was on 29th September. Eight weeks and counting with a 0% service.

Robertj21a said:
so I fail to see your point.

No, I don’t suppose you would, because your agenda is a bit of good old-fashioned union bashing.

It’s the contrast between being willing to intervene when there’s an opportunity to blame the unions (and by association the Labour Party) for disruption, but not being willing to intervene when Northern ignore their franchise obligations every Sunday because of staff shortages.

Robertj21a · 24 Nov 2019

Dave1987 said:
Won't make much of a difference. Work to rule is the mainstay of disputes now. Nothing the Tories can do about it and there is no one to blame any disruption on. It is electioneering at its finest by Shapps.

I thought the RMT had just gone for strikes, not work to rule, throughout December on SWR ?

ComUtoR · 24 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
A totally sensible proposal.

Which is impossible to implement.

Who gets to decide who crosses the picket line and who doesn't ? How do you get someone to work during a strike if they have decided to er.. strike ?

Robertj21a · 24 Nov 2019

nr758123 said:
Not so. To take an example fairly near me, the last Sunday service at Ashton-under-Lyne was on 29th September. Eight weeks and counting with a 0% service.

No, I don’t suppose you would, because your agenda is a bit of good old-fashioned union bashing.

It’s the contrast between being willing to intervene when there’s an opportunity to blame the unions (and by association the Labour Party) for disruption, but not being willing to intervene when Northern ignore their franchise obligations every Sunday because of staff shortages.

I guessed it wouldn't take long for someone to try to stop debate again. I recognise that many on these forums are, naturally, railway staff and that, as a consequence, they will band together to silence anyone who dares to make a comment that doesn't suit their agenda.

It would be nice to think that it was possible to discuss Trade Unions (and the RMT in particular) in an objective manner. Clearly that's not acceptable to many.

Robertj21a · 24 Nov 2019

ComUtoR said:
Which is impossible to implement.

Who gets to decide who crosses the picket line and who doesn't ? How do you get someone to work during a strike if they have decided to er.. strike ?

How does it work across Europe, where the law requires it ?

Are you saying that staff will not comply with the law, or are you saying that the Trade Unions can't organise/instruct their members to comply ?

nr758123 · 24 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
I guessed it wouldn't take long for someone to try to stop debate again. I recognise that many on these forums are, naturally, railway staff and that, as a consequence, they will band together to silence anyone who dares to make a comment that doesn't suit their agenda.

It would be nice to think that it was possible to discuss Trade Unions (and the RMT in particular) in an objective manner. Clearly that's not acceptable to many.

I'm not and have never been railway staff, I'm not a member of the RMT, and I'm not trying to close down debate.

ComUtoR · 24 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
How does it work across Europe, where the law requires it ?

No idea. Maybe part of proposing something should include how the mechanics of it works.

Are you saying that staff will not comply with the law, or are you saying that the Trade Unions can't organise/instruct their members to comply ?

If I got balloted for a strike and ticked the yes box. I'm then not going to work on that day. Who could force me ? How does the TOC/Union decide who works that day and who doesn't ? It is contradictory for the Union to instruct its members to both strike and work at the same time.

Even if there was a law to state that x% of services must run then you are effectively forcing people to cross picket lines and to work when they have decided to strike. That will need all the laws regarding strikes to be re-written.

I can't see the Union agreeing to that.

Dave1987 · 24 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
How does it work across Europe, where the law requires it ?

Are you saying that staff will not comply with the law, or are you saying that the Trade Unions can't organise/instruct their members to comply ?

I can tell you right now that it would immediately cause even more hostility. The railway runs on goodwill of staff. Mr Shapps and yourself probably don’t know the meaning of a happy workforce. Would rather implement draconian laws rather than ensure staff don’t want to strike in the first place. Right now many TOCs are actually quite thankful to have their staff on side due to the complete failings of the franchise process under the Tories!

Goldfish62 · 24 Nov 2019

Robertj21a said:
How does it work across Europe, where the law requires it ?

Given the amount of blatant lies being told in the election campaign, do we actually know for a fact that there is such a system elsewhere in Europe?

Robertj21a · 24 Nov 2019

Dave1987 said:
I can tell you right now that it would immediately cause even more hostility. The railway runs on goodwill of staff. Mr Shapps and yourself probably don’t know the meaning of a happy workforce. Would rather implement draconian laws rather than ensure staff don’t want to strike in the first place. Right now many TOCs are actually quite thankful to have their staff on side due to the complete failings of the franchise process under the Tories!

I am more than used to having a very happy workforce. That's why I find the continual battles, usually involving the RMT, to be so frustrating.

WatcherZero · 24 Nov 2019

Belgium brought in the minimum service requirement at the start of this year and its been used twice since (June and July).

The way they work it is on the ballot paper the staff member is required to indicate if they would work or not during the strike, the Union is then responsible 72 hours in advance for organising the required number of people to be working that day on that line to operate the service.

The union and the TOC have a formal standing agreement of how many people in what roles are required at a minimum to safely operate the required service level on a line by line basis. Though complicated in the June beligium strike it was by a non-recognised conductors union, SACT, so they had to agree the staff provision at short notice before the first strike date.

Rail service levels were 60% during the first strike and 53% during the second.

Robertj21a · 24 Nov 2019

ComUtoR said:
No idea. Maybe part of proposing something should include how the mechanics of it works.

If I got balloted for a strike and ticked the yes box. I'm then not going to work on that day. Who could force me ? How does the TOC/Union decide who works that day and who doesn't ? It is contradictory for the Union to instruct its members to both strike and work at the same time.

Even if there was a law to state that x% of services must run then you are effectively forcing people to cross picket lines and to work when they have decided to strike. That will need all the laws regarding strikes to be re-written.

I can't see the Union agreeing to that.

I would have assumed that any Union would comply with the law, just like the rest of us do. If a Union is capable of instructing their members to go out on strike then it must also be possible for them to instruct them to work !.

How they implement the legal requirements is largely down to admin arrangements, and is up to them.

Goldfish62 · 24 Nov 2019

WatcherZero said:
Belgium brought in the minimum service requirement at the start of this year and its been used twice since.

The way they work it is on the ballot paper the staff member is required to indicate if they would work or not during the strike, the Union is then responsible 72 hours in advance for organising the required number of people to be working that day on that line to operate the service.

The union and the TOC have a formal standing agreement of how many people in what roles are required at a minimum to safely operate the required service level on a line by line basis.

Thanks.

Election 2019 - promises

Established Member

RailUK Forums

Established Member

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

On Moderation

Member

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member

On Moderation

Established Member