Political discussion regarding Labour's rail nationalisation promise

[RPI]

Moderator note: Split from

Labour promises rail nationalisation within five years of coming to power

Front page on several of tomorrows papers https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/apr/24/labour-promises-rail-nationalisation-within-five-years-of-coming-to-power This is in advance of key speech by Lousie Haigh tomorrow Labour will fully nationalise the train network within five years of...

www.railforums.co.uk

Just like they promised to stop the implementation of the Beeching report in 1964, but actually went on to implement more of it than the previous Tory government.

The more people that wake up to the fact that Tories/labour are two cheeks of the same backside, the better.

 

[irish_rail]

Just like they promised to stop the implementation of the Beeching report in 1964, but actually went on to implement more of it than the previous Tory government.

The more people that wake up to the fact that Tories/labour are two cheeks of the same backside the better.

So who do you propose people vote for? Reform? Cos with that attitude, that's who's sweeping up the votes. We need to be pragmatic. Labour, not perfect, but alot better than the current lot!

 

[geoffk]

So who do you propose people vote for? Reform? Cos with that attitude, that's who's sweeping up the votes. We need to be pragmatic. Labour, not perfect, but alot better than the current lot!

Tactical voting has to be way forward for those whose priority is to vote out the Tories, in the absence of a fairer voting system, i.e. PR. Of the two main parties, Labour is the only one which might consider PR - unless they win with a big majority next time, in which case it will be quietly forgotten.

 

[class26]

So who do you propose people vote for? Reform? Cos with that attitude, that's who's sweeping up the votes. We need to be pragmatic. Labour, not perfect, but alot better than the current lot!

It`s impossible to say they are a lot better, words in opposition are cheap, actions will be decisive

 

[Topological]

Just like they promised to stop the implementation of the Beeching report in 1964, but actually went on to implement more of it than the previous Tory government.

The more people that wake up to the fact that Tories/labour are two cheeks of the same backside the better.

The harsh truth is that of the two it is the Tories who are truest to their professed core. The Tories are biased to the rich, but do not try to say otherwise. People then wonder why you see the political disaffection in the Red Wall (for example).

It is sad that there has not been a party really emerge to take over the part of the political spectrum Labour should occupy, but I suppose that is because there is no votes in full nationalisation, higher income tax and strongly enhancing workers rights.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It is sad that there has not been a party really emerge to take over the part of the political spectrum Labour should occupy, but I suppose that is because there is no votes in full nationalisation, higher income tax and strongly enhancing workers rights.

The Greens probably do part of it. But in reality extremist parties pretty much never get elected in the UK (don't forget the present further-right-than-usual Tories weren't elected in that form, they've evolved that way while already in power). And that includes Labour when it's been further left.

The vote is pretty much just about which side of the centre it should be.

 

[Krokodil]

It`s impossible to say they are a lot better, words in opposition are cheap, actions will be decisive

They can't be any worse than the current mob.

 

[JamieL]

... I suppose that is because there is no votes in full nationalisation, higher income tax and strongly enhancing workers rights.

Scotland has higher income tax and nationalisation (railways and water for example) - both attract voters. I appreciate English and Scottish politics are very different given the dominance of the home counties and the prevalent attitudes in those areas, but it would be nice to see a UK party try.

 

[physics34]

Just like they promised to stop the implementation of the Beeching report in 1964, but actually went on to implement more of it than the previous Tory government.

The more people that wake up to the fact that Tories/labour are two cheeks of the same backside the better.

I think its quite clear they need to be leaning towards the centre ground to get into power.... im sure they have better intentions than the Tories currently do. It always has to be remembered around the time of the beeching report that Car was king and the railways were in a poor state. Investment was going towards motorways.

 

[Topological]

Scotland has higher income tax and nationalisation (railways and water for example) - both attract voters. I appreciate English and Scottish politics are very different given the dominance of the home counties and the prevalent attitudes in those areas, but it would be nice to see a UK party try.

Scottish Nationalism is the elephant in that room.

The Conservatives have a historic association with the Union of Scotland and England.

Either way, Scotland have not nationalised the full rail set up and nor is the Labour proposal to do so. The closest we get is Labour in Wales as they now operate some lines around Cardiff.

 

[JamieL]

Scottish Nationalism is the elephant in that room.

The Conservatives have a historic association with the Union of Scotland and England.

Either way, Scotland have not nationalised the full rail set up and nor is the Labour proposal to do so. The closest we get is Labour in Wales as they now operate some lines around Cardiff.

Nationalism exists across all UK politics. In Scotland it manifests itself as nationalisation of public facing services. In England it is orientated towards persecution of migrants (see the Rwanda policy). If we could see a Westminster party move away from the current approach and rechannel nationalism more along the Scottish line, it could be a game changer for public services.

 

[Topological]

Nationalism exists across all UK politics. In Scotland it manifests itself as nationalisation of public facing services. In England it is orientated towards persecution of migrants (see the Rwanda policy). If we could see a Westminster party move away from the current approach and rechannel nationalism more along the Scottish line, it could be a game changer for public services.

I fear that misses the point that in England there is no move for English independence from the union. Scotland has a very strong Scottish National Party, Wales less so.

However, now this is no longer part of the discussion of Labours plans to nationalise elements of the railways then I will leave the debate to others.

 

[domcoop7]

Scotland has higher income tax and nationalisation (railways and water for example) - both attract voters. I appreciate English and Scottish politics are very different given the dominance of the home counties and the prevalent attitudes in those areas, but it would be nice to see a UK party try.

I'm not sure there are too many UK politicians looking at Humza Yousef at the moment and thinking - "yes definitely - we should be more like that!"?

 

[JamieL]

I fear that misses the point that in England there is no move for English independence from the union. Scotland has a very strong Scottish National Party, Wales less so.

However, now this is no longer part of the discussion of Labours plans to nationalise elements of the railways then I will leave the debate to others.

This is missing the point I was making. Nationalism manifests in different ways. In Scotland the dominant trait of nationalism is for independence. In England the nationalism the dominant theme is unity through controlled borders. It is within the gift of politicians to reshape the political direction of nationalism. Sunak for example is spending £millions on the Rwanda scheme as it the nationalist tone he wishes to set. If this Labour scheme seeks to recast that nationalism from the current persecution of some immigrants into branded, part-nationalised railways, then that is surely better than at present?

 

[domcoop7]

This is missing the point I was making. Nationalism manifests in different ways. In Scotland the dominant trait of nationalism is for independence. In England the nationalism the dominant theme is unity through controlled borders. It is within the gift of politicians to reshape the political direction of nationalism. Sunak for example is spending £millions on the Rwanda scheme as it the nationalist tone he wishes to set. If this Labour scheme seeks to recast that nationalism from the current persecution of some immigrants into branded, part-nationalised railways, then that is surely better than at present?

I mean yes, he could create "Nationalism with English Characteristics", based on nationalisation of assets. It wouldn't be nationalism, though. And you're mixing up the "theme" of nationalism and "what politicians say will happen if you follow our policies" which are two different things.

The theme of nationalism... is nationalism. It is always a variant of we're better than everyone else and if it wasn't for those pesky kids (foreigners, whomever we define them as) we'd have a utopian state. The foreigners may be "the English" (if you're the SNP), "the Muslims" (if you're Narendra Modi), "Russians", "Jews", "Palestinians", etc., and there may or may not be perfectly valid and legitimate grievances against said foreigners. And it has the square root of zero to do with Labour's rail nationalisation plans.

 

[JamieL]

I mean yes, he could create "Nationalism with English Characteristics", based on nationalisation of assets. It wouldn't be nationalism, though. And you're mixing up the "theme" of nationalism and "what politicians say will happen if you follow our policies" which are two different things.

The theme of nationalism... is nationalism. It is always a variant of we're better than everyone else and if it wasn't for those pesky kids (foreigners, whomever we define them as) we'd have a utopian state. The foreigners may be "the English" (if you're the SNP), "the Muslims" (if you're Narendra Modi), "Russians", "Jews", "Palestinians", etc., and there may or may not be perfectly valid and legitimate grievances against said foreigners. And it has the square root of zero to do with Labour's rail nationalisation plans.

I disagree, it does. "Great British Railways" as a brand title itself leans towards nationalist lines.

 

[oldman]

It's not particularly nationalistic for a national railway system to use the name of the country. Of course there are Scottish and Welsh separatists who hate the B-word and may be annoyed that a union-supporting (in the constitutional sense!) British government should use it. And probably said British government knew they would be. Being British, I like the name.

 

[GRALISTAIR]

They can't be any worse than the current mob.

Indeed!

 

[75A]

The more people that wake up to the fact that Tories/labour are two cheeks of the same backside, the better.

I like the analagy.

 

[Bantamzen]

So who do you propose people vote for? Reform? Cos with that attitude, that's who's sweeping up the votes. We need to be pragmatic. Labour, not perfect, but alot better than the current lot!

Are they though? Because if their performance at local council level in my part of the world is anything to go by, people are going to be in for a serious shock. Useless, dysfunctional, delusional, incompetent is how I'd describe the Labour run council here. And looking at their policies for rail, it seems little more than do pretty much what the Tories are doing then doubtless blame them when it all falls apart. Five years from now I don't expect any significant improvements, regardless of which colour tie runs the country.

 

[norbitonflyer]

QUOTE "Then, as above, what would TfL taking over these routes actually achieve? Probably one for another thread, but it isn’t immediately obvious how GBR will change any of the above vis a vis TfL and the near-London suburban network".

One thing it would achieve is fares equity between north and south London. The "TOC tax" paid by SWR, Southern and SET's customers victims always existed but thanks to Khan's fares freeze not applying to NR fares can be as high as 45% - or 86% if you want to venture beyond the London terminal onto the Tube. (Most (but not all) NR fares in north London are now on the TfL scale)

But residents of all London boroughs are paying to subsidise the fares freeze

Abbey Wood (Zone 4) to Kings Cross/St Pancras
via Crossrail £4.40 peak/ £3.20 off peak
via Thameslink £5.10/£3.80 (15%/ 18% premium)
via London Bridge and Northern Line £7.00/£5.60 (59%/75%)

Zone 6 TfL eg Epping to any Zone 1 station £5.60/£3.60
Zone 6 NR eg Orpington to London terminals £8.10/£5.00 (45%/39%)
Zone 6 NR eg Orpington to any other Zone 1 £9.90/£6.70 (76%/86%)

 

[Gigabit]

Are they though? Because if their performance at local council level in my part of the world is anything to go by, people are going to be in for a serious shock. Useless, dysfunctional, delusional, incompetent is how I'd describe the Labour run council here. And looking at their policies for rail, it seems little more than do pretty much what the Tories are doing then doubtless blame them when it all falls apart. Five years from now I don't expect any significant improvements, regardless of which colour tie runs the country.

They’ve run Wandsworth Borough Council very competently.

 

[AdamWW]

But residents of all London boroughs are paying to subsidise the fares freeze

Abbey Wood (Zone 4) to Kings Cross/St Pancras
via Crossrail £4.40 peak/ £3.20 off peak
via Thameslink £5.10/£3.80 (15%/ 18% premium)
via London Bridge and Northern Line £7.00/£5.60 (59%/75%)

Zone 6 TfL eg Epping to any Zone 1 station £5.60/£3.60
Zone 6 NR eg Orpington to London terminals £8.10/£5.00 (45%/39%)
Zone 6 NR eg Orpington to any other Zone 1 £9.90/£6.70 (76%/86%)

Isn't this why Livingstone's Fares Fair was deemed illegal?

 

[DunsBus]

Isn't this why Livingstone's Fares Fair was deemed illegal?

And also, one of the reasons why the Metropolitan counties were abolished.
Taxpayers in these areas were paying through the nose to subsidise artificially cheap bus and rail fares. Those in Sunderland had an added grievance, paying towards a Metro system which at the time only served Tyneside.

 

[Bantamzen]

They’ve run Wandsworth Borough Council very competently.

Well here we've seen public transport get steadily worse under both local and Combined Authority Labour control. The bus station in Bradford remains closed, and councillors stay tight-lipped as to what is going to happen. Recent projects in both Leeds and Bradford to improve pedestrian access have descended into chaotic messes. Leeds Council can't seem to make up its mind about Leeds Bradford Airport, dithering on planning projects to expand it with a new parkway station and extended business park, whilst making life difficult for the airport to appease anti-airport protest groups, yet still wanting employment growth at the site. Meanwhile in South Yorkshire Doncaster Council want to spend £130 million on re-opening Doncaster Airport, whilst next door in Sheffield the Council has decided to ban aviation advertising on Council assets.

From what I've seen on Labour in power, they are a muddled mess at best, flip-flopping between policies and seemingly unable to stick to any one for any length of time. I just believe for a moment that they are any more capable than the current mob of idiots in charge. In short vote for who you will, just don't expect real, meaningful change.

 

[RPI]

So who do you propose people vote for? Reform? Cos with that attitude, that's who's sweeping up the votes. We need to be pragmatic. Labour, not perfect, but alot better than the current lot!

It doesn't matter who you vote for, you'll get the same old crap, they'll just be wearing a different coloured tie.

 

[Ashley Hill]

Tony Blair pledged to re-nationalise the railway in 1997 and I voted accordingly. What a wasted vote that was!

 

[JamieL]

Tony Blair pledged to re-nationalise the railway in 1997 and I voted accordingly. What a wasted vote that was!

Not in their 1997 manifesto they didn't.

Railways

The process of rail privatisation is now largely complete. It has made fortunes for a few, but has been a poor deal for the taxpayer. It has fragmented the network and now threatens services. Our task will be to improve the situation as we find it, not as we wish it to be. Our overriding goal must be to win more passengers and freight on to rail. The system must be run in the public interest with higher levels of investment and effective enforcement of train operators' service commitments. There must be convenient connections, through-ticketing and accurate travel information for the benefit of all passengers.

To achieve these aims, we will establish more effective and accountable regulation by the rail regulator; we will ensure that the public subsidy serves the public interest; and we will establish a new rail authority, combining functions currently carried out by the rail franchiser and the Department of Transport, to provide a clear, coherent and strategic programme for the development of the railways so that passenger expectations are met.

Available here in full:

1997 Labour Party Manifesto -

The full text of all Labour Party manifestos from 1900 to the present.

www.labour-party.org.uk

 

[Ashley Hill]

Not in their 1997 manifesto they didn't.



Available here in full:

1997 Labour Party Manifesto -

The full text of all Labour Party manifestos from 1900 to the present.

www.labour-party.org.uk

And where did that end?

 

[JamieL]

And where did that end?

In a better railway when they left Office than they inherited in 1997. Moreover, they set conditions for HS2 which, until abandoned for short term Sunak's political career, would have finally provided a long distance Intercity service of worth. No chance of that now of course - Tory politics has saddled us with Victorian railways fir the 21st century.