That's certainly a factor, but one of the things that often happens in the nationalisation debate is that it becomes an emotive, rather than rational debate. And that leads to a very human problem: comparing the BEST of one outcome with the WORST of another.
To explain... /1
To explain... /1
One of the obvious benefits of nationalisation is the removal of a layer of (in essence) CONTRACT management and PRIVATE profits from the process.
At worst, those things can cost A LOT. /2
At worst, those things can cost A LOT. /2
A good example of both those things at their most excessive: the Tube Maintenance PPP contracts. As @SirPeterHendy pointed out at the time, at one point Tube Lines had a whole FLOOR of lawyers dedicated to processing claims, and they were also generating meaty profits. /3
But the REALITY is that TODAY, the days of making easy money from the privatized railway are mostly gone. The early, SPECTACULARLY crap franchises that allowed this have mostly gone the way of history. /4
Indeed most Train Operating Companies (TOCs) still in the market now operate on proportionately slim profits. It's one of the reasons that Grayling's 'capping' of Thameslink's profits caused a snigger in railway circles...
...because they'll have to make some first /5
...because they'll have to make some first /5
And here's where we get back to comparing worst with best outcomes again - because a popular refrain among hardcore renationalistas is that they'll dump BACK into the railways the buckets of cash they assume are disappearing into fat cat pockets.
But that money isn't there /6
But that money isn't there /6
That's not to say there isn't WASTE. There is. But it's mostly operational waste (inefficiencies in the running) or caused by bad planning or decisions either by the TOC or the DfT.
That stuff ISN'T going to disappear simply because the people own the railway again. /7
That stuff ISN'T going to disappear simply because the people own the railway again. /7
Plus there's no guarantee that if publicly run railways managed to achieve those efficiencies, the Treasury wouldn't just pocket the difference anyway.
as @Captain_Deltic and @rail (the wisened old Gandalfs to my Frodo) will tell you that's EXACTLY what used to happen before /8
as @Captain_Deltic and @rail (the wisened old Gandalfs to my Frodo) will tell you that's EXACTLY what used to happen before /8
Now the best-to-worst thing works the other way too. It's arguably what got us into this situation to begin with. Because the 'big promise' of privitisation was ALWAYS that private sector efficiencies will deal with the INCREASED waste of nationalisation and bring investment /9
And you know what? To a certain extent it did. Privatisation resulted in the largest cash investment in the railways in modern HISTORY. That's a stone cold fact. And - at times and in some places - it has also run a mighty fine railway. /10
But it's entirely possible for privitisation to have been the right thing 25 years ago, and the wrong thing now. Just as it was possible for nationalisation to be wrong then and right now.
Because I hate to break it to you, but tempus fucking fugits. A lot. /11
Because I hate to break it to you, but tempus fucking fugits. A lot. /11
But comparing the BEST CASE for nationalisation with the WORST CASE for privitisation isn't helpful, even though it's depressingly common. As is the opposite. /12
What REALLY needs to be done is cold, rational assessment of the most PRAGMATIC outcomes of both, and what can be done to mitigate the problems of both, and the result put into place. /13
And what will that look like? As I said in the original thread, it'll be a railway that mixes public bits where public works, with private bits where that works
Both the true blues and the radical reds will hate it. But it'll get everyone to fucking work.
Both the true blues and the radical reds will hate it. But it'll get everyone to fucking work.
