Is it still Labour policy to renationalise the railways?

[coppercapped]

Which councils control buses?

My local operator is Reading Buses which has been tolerably successful in maintaining bus usage - in 2019 bus usage per head of population in the Local Authority area was third in the country (outside London) of 138 journeys per year. Only Brighton and Nottingham had higher numbers.

The average annual use of buses across the country is 45 journeys per head per local authority area.

These data are from the DfT's annual bus transport statistics.

Reading Buses is the trading name of Reading Transport Ltd. which is wholly owned by Reading Borough Council.

Reading's council has been subjected to the same cutbacks as any other local council - it is not a given that because councils' funding has been cut then the bus services will worsen. Of course there is always room for improvement - but that is the case for all things everywhere.

 

[Cardiff123]

Devolution will prevent a common system across the UK (as it has with Covid).

Yes, and that is still often forgotten. This thread, as with many others, needs an "in England" added to the end of the title. In 2018, Welsh Labour committed to keeping the operator of Wales' trains in private hands until 2033, albeit as a concession, and of course the SNP decides what happens in Scotland.

Yes, the Labour party is a UK political party, but Welsh and Scottish Labour often have different policies to UK Labour's policies, and in devolved policy areas, UK Labour policy only applies to England.

 

[thenorthern]

True. Scotland is the big issue here. If that does become independent then something will have to be done or we will have a non-functional democracy in what remains of the UK.

Labour would have won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 without Scotland although their majority would have been smaller particularly in 2005.

 

[Meerkat]

Is it overly pedantic of me to say the railways aren’t ‘effectively nationalised’ at the moment?
Its private companies being paid to provide the level of service deemed necessary by the government- pretty much the same as before but more expensive.
Is even LNER “nationalised” in the traditional meaning of the term? Aren’t the management contracted in?

 

[radamfi]

Is it overly pedantic of me to say the railways aren’t ‘effectively nationalised’ at the moment?
Its private companies being paid to provide the level of service deemed necessary by the government- pretty much the same as before but more expensive.
Is even LNER “nationalised” in the traditional meaning of the term? Aren’t the management contracted in?

London buses are considered to be "nationalised" even though similar management contracts are used. Similarly, when franchising is proposed for buses outside London, they call it "nationalisation".

 

[DB]

Is it overly pedantic of me to say the railways aren’t ‘effectively nationalised’ at the moment?
Its private companies being paid to provide the level of service deemed necessary by the government- pretty much the same as before but more expensive.
Is even LNER “nationalised” in the traditional meaning of the term? Aren’t the management contracted in?

Depends how you define nationalisation. Currently they are paying a third party to run them on their behalf to their specifications - not that much different to BR, although BR had more autonomy. LNER and Northern are run by the operator of last resort, which reports directly to the DfT - it would be hard to argue that that isn't nationalisation.

You could make the same argument about pretty much any area of public service, including healthcare. The current way of doing a lot of, for good or bad, is to contract out the actual delivery to a third party, but the government retains control and sets the aims and expected outcomes.

 

[Meerkat]

Depends how you define nationalisation. Currently they are paying a third party to run them on their behalf to their specifications - not that much different to BR, although BR had more autonomy. LNER and Northern are run by the operator of last resort, which reports directly to the DfT - it would be hard to argue that that isn't nationalisation.

You could make the same argument about pretty much any area of public service, including healthcare. The current way of doing a lot of, for good or bad, is to contract out the actual delivery to a third party, but the government retains control and sets the aims and expected outcomes.

BR didn’t run to DfT specs or contracts - I am assuming LNER is operating the same as a franchise except for the flexibility over how much is paid to the Treasury??? And OLR management is tendered out to the consultancies isn’t it?

 

[DB]

BR didn’t run to DfT specs or contracts - I am assuming LNER is operating the same as a franchise except for the flexibility over how much is paid to the Treasury??? And OLR management is tendered out to the consultancies isn’t it?

But the model which BR operated under is pretty much dead - most of the public sector now works to a greater or lesser degrees under a system of franchises and outsourcing, with the relevant government department calling the shots - that's what nationalisation has become.

 

[Meerkat]

But the model which BR operated under is pretty much dead - most of the public sector now works to a greater or lesser degrees under a system of franchises and outsourcing, with the relevant government department calling the shots - that's what nationalisation has become.

That’s very much not what the Labour Party currently thinks of as nationalisation though is it? As per their repeated characterisation of the ’privatisation’ of the NHS.

 

[DB]

That’s very much not what the Labour Party currently thinks of as nationalisation though is it? As per their repeated characterisation of the ’privatisation’ of the NHS.

But is that really any more than political rhetoric? Because it's exactly the model pursued by Blair! Of course the current party will claim that they are different to Blair, but how far is this actually believable?

 

[Meerkat]

But is that really any more than political rhetoric? Because it's exactly the model pursued by Blair! Of course the current party will claim that they are different to Blair, but how far is this actually believable?

Was McCluskey pulling the strings back then?

 

[Cardiff123]

Depends how you define nationalisation. Currently they are paying a third party to run them on their behalf to their specifications - not that much different to BR, although BR had more autonomy. LNER and Northern are run by the operator of last resort, which reports directly to the DfT - it would be hard to argue that that isn't nationalisation.

You could make the same argument about pretty much any area of public service, including healthcare. The current way of doing a lot of, for good or bad, is to contract out the actual delivery to a third party, but the government retains control and sets the aims and expected outcomes.

It's important to point out, once again, you're describing the situation with the NHS in England. In Wales where there is a Labour government in charge of the NHS, there's no outsourcing or private sector involvement in running services. Services are run and managed by 7 local health boards in Wales, with no NHS trusts or GPs commissioning private services.

I'm not aware of how the NHS is run in Scotland.

 

[thenorthern]

It's important to point out, once again, you're describing the situation with the NHS in England. In Wales where there is a Labour government in charge of the NHS, there's no outsourcing or private sector involvement in running services. Services are run and managed by 7 local health boards in Wales, with no NHS trusts or GPs commissioning private services.

I'm not aware of how the NHS is run in Scotland.

In Wales there are a couple of PFI contracts still active that Labour signed to privatise the NHS there.

 

[317 forever]

Labour would have won in 1997, 2001 and 2005 without Scotland although their majority would have been smaller particularly in 2005.

In 1997 and 2001 yes. However in 2005 their majority of 66 was assisted by 41 Scottish seats. None of these were lost in 2010 but 40 were in 2015. So, had the 2015 Scottish collapse happened in 2005, they would have lost their majority altogether, but been the largest party in a hung Parliament.

Coming back to possible rail nationalisation, and Network Rail is a public company, rail operations have gone over to EMAs, and so really only the train owners (ROSCOs) are commercially run. Admittedly there can still be competition between TOCs for rail fares, such as between Avanti and LNWR.

So, even without formal nationalisation, rail is already largely nationalised in all but name.

How far Labour go as regards whether to take operations in-house may depend on the performance of the individual TOCs in question. Although this government has already renationalised East Coast and Northern, Labour could be even less lenient but could still give the most efficient TOCs the opportunity to continue running.

 

[thenorthern]

In 1997 and 2001 yes. However in 2005 their majority of 66 was assisted by 41 Scottish seats. None of these were lost in 2010 but 40 were in 2015. So, had the 2015 Scottish collapse happened in 2005, they would have lost their majority altogether, but been the largest party in a hung Parliament.

Not quite, at the time in 2005 there were 529 seats in England so 265 seats were needed for a majority in England. Labour got 286 seats so a majority although in 2005 the Conservatives got the most votes in England.

 

[317 forever]

Not quite, at the time in 2005 there were 529 seats in England so 265 seats were needed for a majority in England. Labour got 286 seats so a majority although in 2005 the Conservatives got the most votes in England.

Oh yes, if we look at all the UK but without Scotland, Labour would have won 316 seats out of 587 so yes a majority after all.

So if anything, to regain office Labour probably need the UK to lose Scotland even more than the Conservatives do.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

They've cut subsidised buses massively, reducing some areas to a service only one or two days a week, or completely isolating some areas. If you want to be pedantic about my choice of words then fine, but the point is council budget issues have been taken out on buses at every turn.

It is during discussions such as the basis of this thread that the old saying readily springs to mind...."Use it or lose it".

 

[DorkingMain]

It is during discussions such as the basis of this thread that the old saying readily springs to mind...."Use it or lose it".

The thing is a lot of people do use these bus services. But the main people who rely on bus services are not the ones with deep pockets who can afford a car. They're usually the unemployed, disabled, elderly, very poor etc. And given concessions and other pass schemes give a pittance back to the operator, it's little wonder that the operator throws in the towel when they have a bus full of pensioners and get 40p each for carrying them.

 

[thenorthern]

Oh yes, if we look at all the UK but without Scotland, Labour would have won 316 seats out of 587 so yes a majority after all.

So if anything, to regain office Labour probably need the UK to lose Scotland even more than the Conservatives do.

Scotland's probably not Labour's biggest priority at the moment, they need to regain seats in the Midlands. The Midlands though shows everything that is wrong with Labour's Brexit policy.

Take Staffordshire for example where in 2005 9 of the 12 seats were Labour, today all 12 are Conservative and it's the first time in history that all seats in Staffordshire are Conservative. Labour's rail travel pledges were largely meaningless as rail usage is low in the county and many parts of the county such as all of the Newcastle-under-Lyme and Staffordshire Moorlands constituencies have no railway stations whatsoever so nationalisation there is meaningless. Labour also claimed they would reopen closed lines however think about this for how many years have politicians wanted to see the Leicester to Burton and the Churnet Valley lines reopened? Voters know now it's not going to happen as it's being promised many times but not delivered.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Oh yes, if we look at all the UK but without Scotland, Labour would have won 316 seats out of 587 so yes a majority after all.

This does not explain the reason why a very large percentage of the electorate in Scotland deserted the Labour Party in droves, rather then making hypothetical statements. If Labour held sway in Scotland for so many previous General Elections, what were the main causes for the sudden recent desertions in recent times?

 

[DorkingMain]

This does not explain the reason why a very large percentage of the electorate in Scotland deserted the Labour Party in droves, rather then making hypothetical statements. If Labour held sway in Scotland for so many previous General Elections, what were the main causes for the sudden recent desertions in recent times?

Brexit, mainly.

 

[thenorthern]

This does not explain the reason why a very large percentage of the electorate in Scotland deserted the Labour Party in droves, rather then making hypothetical statements. If Labour held sway in Scotland for so many previous General Elections, what were the main causes for the sudden recent desertions in recent times?

The main cause was the Scottish Independence referendum however there are other things. The figures that Blair and Brown for that matter achieved in Scotland are Labour best results in Scotland ever in terms of seats. While the collapse of Labour in Scotland is mostly down to the fallout from the 2014 referendum it's important to remember that prior 2015 Labour in Scotland were having an unprecedented number of seats.

Brexit, mainly.

No it was fallout from the Independence Referendum and it's been happening since 2015.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Oh yes, if we look at all the UK but without Scotland, Labour would have won 316 seats out of 587 so yes a majority after all.

So if anything, to regain office Labour probably need the UK to lose Scotland even more than the Conservatives do.

With the SNP holding almost all Scottish seats, Scotland currently makes it harder for both Labour and the Tories to get a majority. Take Scotland out, and either party needs a smaller proportion of English and Welsh seats to win a majority.

But the flip side of that is that, in the event of no party having a majority, the SNP is likely to be the most important kingmakers, since they will almost certainly be by far the 3rd largest party in Parliament. And it's much more likely that they would tolerate a minority Labour Government than a minority Tory one.

No it was fallout from the Independence Referendum and it's been happening since 2015.

I suspect it was more than that because the SNP surge started before the 2014 referendum: They overtook Labour and became the majority Scottish Government at the 2011 Scottish Parliament elections.

 

[Chester1]

Yes, and that is still often forgotten. This thread, as with many others, needs an "in England" added to the end of the title. In 2018, Welsh Labour committed to keeping the operator of Wales' trains in private hands until 2033, albeit as a concession, and of course the SNP decides what happens in Scotland.

Yes, the Labour party is a UK political party, but Welsh and Scottish Labour often have different policies to UK Labour's policies, and in devolved policy areas, UK Labour policy only applies to England.

A nationalised operator would still run services in both Scotland and Wales i.e. current Avanti, LNER, Cross Country and GWR cross border services. I don't think a single operator for England + cross border services would be politically viable. TfN would want to take over Northern, probably starting a domino effect. Other regional transport bodies would also demand locally run concessions with central government funding. One national inter city operator and regional operators works for Germany and would probably work here. It would get messy dividing up some services e.g. would TPE be divided, merge with a TfN owned Northern or be fully taken over by national operator?

 

[Meerkat]

Let’s not replicate the NR problem by only having one operator!
Multiple operators gives proper benchmarking.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

Sir Keir‘s policy will not to really discuss manifestos or policy just yet. He will be patient and bide his time. I would think total complete nationalization will be very low down his agenda.

 

[thenorthern]

I think now Labour is probably going to go back to the policy of accepting privatisation. As Sir Robert Peel would put it privatisation is a "a final and irrevocable settlement" whereby regardless of what a party thinks it's accepted that is how things are done.

I think several other major Corbyn policies will also be binned and the party will revert to accepting things as they currently are. Some other policies that I think will be binned include the WASPI pledge, Abolishing Tuition Fees, nationalising other industries particularly British Telecom. I think as well Labour will now accept Brexit as a final and irrevocable settlement and not try and rejoin the EU.