Why is there now an obsession with re-nationalisation?

[underbank]

Suggest a model for privatised roads. I think you will find that there isn’t one that works here

Pretty sure there are some stretches of road where the maintenance is contracted out to private firms, so that's a start, but still financed wholly by public funds. Then there are the various toll bridges and roads.

 

[HH]

Inter Alia, re-Nationalising Rail will not suddenly make Red Star profitable. The problem with RS was that under an ever-shrinking network, it stopped being a "one-stop" solution. You needed resource to get it to and pick up from the station. Greyhound Bus in the US has seen a similar decimation in it's goods traffic since they embarked on a policy of constant cuts in order to remain in the Black.

 

[AndrewE]

Some might say it's questionable that there is one that works for rail.

Anyway, what studies have been done to suggest there isn't a model for privatised roads to work ? One could bundle all roads up into regional groups and run them as private monopolies, paid for by all local residents. Such a system has been used for water distribution for decades.

And that's working well isn't it?
It's even topical... https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...thames-water-over-lack-of-effort-to-cut-bills

 

[yorksrob]

Well we don’t really know how beneficial it is, do we Rob? It’s quite a few years since the rails were in private hands.

I do like the way your Rhubarb Triangle accent sounds with your tongue in your cheek though...

Well, we do have the trains in private(-ish) hands though. In terms of my examples of potential road privatisation schemes (above) we could adopt the last one, keep the roads in public ownership and just privatise the companies selling road capacity. This would ensure that motorists still get to benefit from competition !

 

[yorksrob]

And that's working well isn't it?
It's even topical... https://www.theguardian.com/money/2...thames-water-over-lack-of-effort-to-cut-bills

Well, it's private enterprise, so it must be a better system shurely !

 

[AndrewE]

Well, it's private enterprise, so it must be a better system shurely !

It shertainly is... Trebles all round!

 

[yorksrob]

It shertainly is... Trebles all round!

 

[Meerkat]

I am not convinced road charging will ever be viable on a widespread scale.
Ignoring the gigantic technical issues the civil liberties angle makes me shudder.

 

[AndrewE]

I am not convinced road charging will ever be viable on a widespread scale.
Ignoring the gigantic technical issues the civil liberties angle makes me shudder.

Exactly. Charge enough tax on road fuels (including electricity) to cover all the costs of congestion and pollution that society currently picks up and that would make public transport (or cycling) the obvious choice.

 

[Meerkat]

Surely the costs of congestion are mainly borne by other road users and the road user themself?
Taxing car travel is electoral suicide

 

[Jonny]

Surely the costs of congestion are mainly borne by other road users and the road user themself?
Taxing car travel is electoral suicide

Unfortunately so...

well unless you wish to appeal exclusively to constituencies with low car ownership.

 

[yorksrob]

I am not convinced road charging will ever be viable on a widespread scale.
Ignoring the gigantic technical issues the civil liberties angle makes me shudder.

I take it you never use a bank card or a mobile phone then.

 

[yorksrob]

Surely the costs of congestion are mainly borne by other road users and the road user themself?
Taxing car travel is electoral suicide

Clearly not. All residents are affected by pollution and congestion. They all bear the cost.

 

[underbank]

Clearly not. All residents are affected by pollution and congestion. They all bear the cost.

But they all enjoy the benefits too! Even if you dont drive, you get your food, shopping etc via road, lorries use roads, buses/taxis use roads, emergency services use roads, teachers & nurses use roads. It's a far bigger issue and far too simplistic to ban/blame car drivers. A road network without private cars would still be congested and polluting unless you want to go back to where we all lived our lives within a mile of home, i.e. shops on street corners, farms in every village, schools and doctors surgeries everwhere with their staff living within walking distance - no I don't think voters want that!

 

[mmh]

XC made a huge loss at privatisation, and the operators (VT and later Arriva) have managed to eliminate those losses, but it has taken 20 years.

I don't think that is true, XC's government subsidy isn't ununsually large, but along with almost every operator it is still subsidisedl.

 

[mmh]

Clearly not. All residents are affected by pollution and congestion. They all bear the cost.

No, all residents aren't!

 

[yorksrob]

But they all enjoy the benefits too! Even if you dont drive, you get your food, shopping etc via road, lorries use roads, buses/taxis use roads, emergency services use roads, teachers & nurses use roads. It's a far bigger issue and far too simplistic to ban/blame car drivers. A road network without private cars would still be congested and polluting unless you want to go back to where we all lived our lives within a mile of home, i.e. shops on street corners, farms in every village, schools and doctors surgeries everwhere with their staff living within walking distance - no I don't think voters want that!

Indeed they do. Just as they all enjoy the benefits of rail transport, in terms of reduced congestion, lorries off the roads etc, even if they don't travel on it as passengers. Also, we all enjoy the benefits of water/electricity supply, so why is it only as road users we are denied the 'benefits' of privatisation ?

No, all residents aren't!

Even if you live in the middle of nowhere, you will still at some stage be confronted with traffic congestion and air pollution.

 

[The Ham]

But they all enjoy the benefits too! Even if you dont drive, you get your food, shopping etc via road, lorries use roads, buses/taxis use roads, emergency services use roads, teachers & nurses use roads. It's a far bigger issue and far too simplistic to ban/blame car drivers. A road network without private cars would still be congested and polluting unless you want to go back to where we all lived our lives within a mile of home, i.e. shops on street corners, farms in every village, schools and doctors surgeries everwhere with their staff living within walking distance - no I don't think voters want that!

There are however cases where more local provision would appear to make sense yet it doesn't happen.

For instance the village of Hook in Hampshire probably had a population of 9,000 (and if it doesn't it soon will), with infant and junior schools with 4 form entry, yet the nearest secondary school is about 3 miles away.

Due to budget cuts Hampshire County Council are looking to cut the school buses:

https://www.itv.com/news/meridian/2...-route-in-protest-of-plans-to-cut-school-bus/

However it wasn't that long ago that the secondary school was enlarged at a cost of £7.6 million. If that money was spent on a local school instead, although probably not quite enough to build a school big enough for everyone the extra savings from removing the school buses (circa £250,000 per year and rising) would have probably made up the shortfall with (say) 10 years.

However that would have left the old school with spare space, as Hook contributes 1/3 of the pupils on its role, which would have allowed it to provide 6th form education (currently most children within the borough travel outside of the borough for their sixth form education).

However, like most things there's little joined up thinking in government, which is why I'm not sure that nationalisation is necessarily going to be as good as some how it will be.

 

[The Ham]

Pretty sure there are some stretches of road where the maintenance is contracted out to private firms, so that's a start, but still financed wholly by public funds. Then there are the various toll bridges and roads.

Yes there is, the A417/A419

Here's some details
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/information_relating_to_the_pfi

 

[R G NOW.]

I always thought that the rhubarb triangle is the section of lines outside Bristol temple meads, from Dr days to Feeder bridge and Bristol east junctions?.

That is my thinking anyway.

 

[R G NOW.]

But they all enjoy the benefits too! Even if you dont drive, you get your food, shopping etc via road, lorries use roads, buses/taxis use roads, emergency services use roads, teachers & nurses use roads. It's a far bigger issue and far too simplistic to ban/blame car drivers. A road network without private cars would still be congested and polluting unless you want to go back to where we all lived our lives within a mile of home, i.e. shops on street corners, farms in every village, schools and doctors surgeries everwhere with their staff living within walking distance - no I don't think voters want that!

Are you all aware that Tesco puts some of our foodstuffs onto rail though, We have the long trains with c02 rail on the sides running through Gloucester.

 

[AndrewE]

I always thought that the rhubarb triangle is the section of lines outside Bristol temple meads, from Dr days to Feeder bridge and Bristol east junctions?.

That is my thinking anyway.

Wikipedia:

In February 2010, Yorkshire Forced Rhubarb was awarded Protected Designation of Origin (PDO) status by the European Commission’s Protected Food Name scheme after being recommended by Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Defra).

and

The Rhubarb Triangle's geographical area in EU law is " from Ackworth Moor Top north along the A628 to Featherstone and Pontefract...

 

[yorksrob]

I always thought that the rhubarb triangle is the section of lines outside Bristol temple meads, from Dr days to Feeder bridge and Bristol east junctions?.

That is my thinking anyway.

It's an area between Leeds, Castleford and Wakefield which is well known for rhubarb production.

 

[R G NOW.]

Looks like I thought wrong then?.

 

[underbank]

However, like most things there's little joined up thinking in government, which is why I'm not sure that nationalisation is necessarily going to be as good as some how it will be.

Exactly! In our village, the council spent a whopping £300,000 renovating our small village library, with mood lighting, automatic doors, disabled toilets, outside decking area, etc. It's tiny, about the size of an average school classroom and was only built in the 70s'. Heaven knows why they chose to spend so much on it - it must have been really difficult to find ways to spend it all - they didn't even replace windows! Then, inevitably, within a year of it re-opening, the council decided to close it down. People who think state control is better are deluded. Yes, there are problems with privatisation, but mostly down to the state side of things being incompetent when negotiating contracts.

 

[AndrewE]

Exactly! In our village, the council spent a whopping £300,000 renovating our small village library, with mood lighting, automatic doors, disabled toilets, outside decking area, etc. It's tiny, about the size of an average school classroom and was only built in the 70s'. Heaven knows why they chose to spend so much on it - it must have been really difficult to find ways to spend it all - they didn't even replace windows! Then, inevitably, within a year of it re-opening, the council decided to close it down. People who think state control is better are deluded. Yes, there are problems with privatisation, but mostly down to the state side of things being incompetent when negotiating contracts.

Could it have been built with asbestos in it? If so, then they might have been acting more responsibly than any private owner would: It would have been left to decay or "go on fire," contaminating the local environment and making it a lot more difficult and expensive to dispose of.

 

[R G NOW.]

Exactly! In our village, the council spent a whopping £300,000 renovating our small village library, with mood lighting, automatic doors, disabled toilets, outside decking area, etc. It's tiny, about the size of an average school classroom and was only built in the 70s'. Heaven knows why they chose to spend so much on it - it must have been really difficult to find ways to spend it all - they didn't even replace windows! Then, inevitably, within a year of it re-opening, the council decided to close it down. People who think state control is better are deluded. Yes, there are problems with privatisation, but mostly down to the state side of things being incompetent when negotiating contracts.

What a waste?. You would of thought that they would of looked 10 - 15 years into the future before spending that sort of money.
And had there of been asbestos, that money I would assume would of paid to remove it.

 

[yorksrob]

Unfortunately whilst the local authority may have had plans to run the library service into the future, they often have to change their plans on the whim of what central government decides to cut from the budget.

It's notcso long thatcwe had Eric (too many lime) Pickles panting up to Mr Cameron, offering the first and biggest austerity cuts from local authorities.

 

[R G NOW.]

Unfortunately whilst the local authority may have had plans to run the library service into the future, they often have to change their plans on the whim of what central government decides to cut from the budget.

It's notcso long thatcwe had Eric (too many lime) Pickles panting up to Mr Cameron, offering the first and biggest austerity cuts from local authorities.

But they keep saying, that the cuts are now over, due to us coming out of the eu, but are they?. I keep hearing this on the news.

 

[yorksrob]

But they keep saying, that the cuts are now over, due to us coming out of the eu, but are they?. I keep hearing this on the news.

I would say that is unlikely.

Remember that the fare rises were supposed to re-balance subsidy/farebox revenue in the opposite ratio to what they were at the time the policy was instigated ?

That was achieved some time ago, yet the subsidy cuts are still required.