• Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Article in the Spectator yesterday - "It's time we stopped subsidising the railways"

Status
Not open for further replies.

WoodHillsian

Member
Joined
21 Apr 2019
Messages
11
Location
South Wales Valleys
mod note - thread moved to the Speculative section of the forum as it is ostensibly just that - a speculative idea!

By Ross Clark in the Spectator - in their blog not the magazine - some interesting/questionable figures in this article.


Rail travel has never been cheap, but should we really each be paying £500 a year even if we never set foot on a train? That, according to figures released by the Office of Rail and Road today, is astonishing sum that each household had to contribute to government subsidies for running the railways in the year to March 2022: a total of £13.3 billion.

That is just the subsidy for running existing services; it doesn’t include the billions being spent on HS2. Not that this largesse has, of course, prevented rail workers from demanding above-inflation pay rises, and striking when they are denied them. If they were working in any other hopelessly unprofitable industry they would long since have been put out of a job.

It is time the government stopped sitting on the fence and told the rail industry that the party is over

Surely, one of the main reasons for privatising the railways was to relieve taxpayers of the financial burden of running them. Instead, the subsidies have grown and grown. True, the year 2021-22 began with the tail end of a Covid lockdown which severely suppressed travel, but other private industries had to put up with loans and furlough payments – employees didn’t carry on being paid the full whack whether they were providing a service or not. Moreover, the rail industry was swallowing large subsidies even before the pandemic: £6.5 billion in 2019/20.

The rail industry hasn’t really been privatised at all. It remains underwritten by the taxpayer. Nor is there much in the way of competition: local monopolies are guaranteed by the franchising system. The only difference is that the system is rigged so as to allow the private companies owning the franchises to make a profit, even if their underlying operation is making a thumping loss. This, in turn, has served to embolden unions in making pay demands, driving up subsidy even more.

This really cannot go on. Much as I like travelling by train, we cannot have a rail system which continues to impose a hefty tax burden on people who never do – a group which is disproportionately represented by poor people who live outside London and the South East. By contrast, bus services (which are used more by low-income groups) are increasingly expected to wash their face. In the last year prior to the pandemic, buses received a rather more modest £2 billion in annual public subsidy, a sum which had been falling consistently for the previous decade.

Rail subsidies were £6.5 billion in 2019/20 – and rising. In other words, more than three times as much subsidy was going into trains than buses. This was in spite of the fact that more than twice as many journeys were made by bus as by train (4.32 billion compared with 1.74 billion)

So far, the government has tried to stay out of the rail strikes, taking the line that the dispute is a private matter between unions, employees and their private sector employers. Sorry, but it isn’t – not with £13.3 billion of taxpayers’ money going into the industry. It is time the government stopped sitting on the fence and told the rail industry that the party is over – it is going to have to cut its costs dramatically. It should announce the phasing-out of rail subsidies – and let the industry work out how it is going to balance its books.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

mandub

Member
Joined
4 Mar 2013
Messages
183
This really cannot go on. Much as I like travelling by train...we cannot have a rail system which continues to impose a hefty tax burden on people who never do


I guess this is the crux of much of the debates on here and elsewhere.

Yes we can carry on like this, it's a model of funding used in many other countries.
It's up to "us" whether we want to or not, or to what extent.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,476
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
The Spectator is a far-right, pro-capitalism publication. This isn't surprising at all.

The final sentence is simply wrong. What we shouldn't do is just throw things at the industry. We should move towards an integrated public transport system based on solid criteria like the Swiss, including regional buses*, trains and even domestic ferries and in some cases socially necessary air. This might actually mean some losses of stations and lines, but would bring increased usage - and it's that that's the key to making things more economic as well as more inclusive.

* Urban buses are best within the remit of integrated urban transport authorities like TfL etc.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,684
Location
London
Standard boilerplate union bashing, to be expected from The Spectator, of course.

The Spectator is a far-right, pro-capitalism publication

I’m not sure “far-right” is quite fair. Firmly right of centre, certainly.
 

The exile

Established Member
Joined
31 Mar 2010
Messages
2,872
Location
Somerset
What gets me is the blinkered”why pay £500 a year if you never even set foot on a train”. Because your doctor/ childminder / cleaner (add any other person whose presence you rely on) does - that’s (one reason) why.
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,869
Location
Southport
socially necessary air
There is no socially necessary domestic air travel, except to Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Isles of Scilly and Scottish and Channel Islands.
It wouldn't be anywhere near as bad if none of that subsidy directly reached private companies.
It doesn’t matter if it reaches private companies if they use it to run the service, but it definitely shouldn’t ever reach their shareholders, which is Mick Lynch’s biggest pandemic argument.
 

6Gman

Established Member
Joined
1 May 2012
Messages
8,474
There is no socially necessary domestic air travel, except to Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Isles of Scilly and Scottish and Channel Islands.

It doesn’t matter if it reaches private companies if they use it to run the service, but it definitely shouldn’t ever reach their shareholders, which is Mick Lynch’s biggest pandemic argument.
If the shareholders get no return why would they invest in the company?
 

507020

Established Member
Joined
23 May 2021
Messages
1,869
Location
Southport
If the shareholders get no return why would they invest in the company?
The shareholders aren’t providing the investment, the taxpayer is and yet they receive dividends paid for directly from public subsidy…
 

D1537

Member
Joined
11 Jul 2019
Messages
541
Rail travel has never been cheap, but should we really each be paying £500 a year even if we never set foot on a train?
That's how taxation works. All of us pay money into a tax system which subsidises services we may not personally use. Childless people pay for schools. People without cars pay for roads. And so on, and so on.
 

43066

Established Member
Joined
24 Nov 2019
Messages
9,684
Location
London
If the shareholders get no return why would they invest in the company?

Well quite. The whole “shareholders are evil” narrative gets rather tiresome. It’s economically illiterate and also overlooks the fact that shareholders include major institutional investors such as pension funds!
 

Horizon22

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Joined
8 Sep 2019
Messages
7,714
Location
London
It's a weird argument. Should someone be paying for schools if they don't have children? Should generally tax payers pay for welfare and benefits they may never use? Should I pay for the upkeep of motorways when I don't drive a car?

You can use that argument any which way - it's what taxation is. I imagine due to my wage and my lifestyle I give more in taxation than I take out, but that is teh way of things.
 

JamieL

Member
Joined
6 Aug 2022
Messages
545
Location
Bristol
It's time we stopped subsidising the Spectator. The healthy 0% VAT rate it enjoys is unsustainable in this cost of living crisis.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,546
The Spectator is a far-right, pro-capitalism publication. This isn't surprising at all.

The final sentence is simply wrong. What we shouldn't do is just throw things at the industry. We should move towards an integrated public transport system based on solid criteria like the Swiss, including regional buses*, trains and even domestic ferries and in some cases socially necessary air. This might actually mean some losses of stations and lines, but would bring increased usage - and it's that that's the key to making things more economic as well as more inclusive.

* Urban buses are best within the remit of integrated urban transport authorities like TfL etc.

It's not *far right* at all, not by a long chalk. If you think it's far right (which would be BNP or EDL supporting) you really need to give your head a wobble.

It's mainstream centre right - a quick look at its current writers shows you that. And you're more like to read an article penned by a centre left journo in the Spectator than you are a centre right one in the Guardian or New Statesman.
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,546
It's time we stopped subsidising the Spectator. The healthy 0% VAT rate it enjoys is unsustainable in this cost of living crisis.

Presumably the same goes for The Guardian, Mirror and New Statesman?
 

A0wen

On Moderation
Joined
19 Jan 2008
Messages
7,546
What gets me is the blinkered”why pay £500 a year if you never even set foot on a train”. Because your doctor/ childminder / cleaner (add any other person whose presence you rely on) does - that’s (one reason) why.

There is a difference - anyone can fall ill and need the services of a doctor - that's a risk which people are happy to manage.

The decision to travel isn't and there are various ways to travel, most of which don't require you to pay for them if you don't use them.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
98,476
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
'Far-right' and 'pro-capitalist' are not the same thing.

As per the later reply, far-right was probably wrong, they're not racist. However they are right-wing, with a "small state" view that the capitalist market is the best solution to all our needs. In essence they tend to follow a line of view which is similar to that professed by the Republican Party/Grand Old Party (GOP) in the US, other than possibly with regard to guns.
 

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,694
As per the later reply, far-right was probably wrong, they're not racist. However they are right-wing, with a "small state" view that the capitalist market is the best solution to all our needs. .
My view is that history has confirmed that this is far more often true than not. The current issues in the rail industry are far more to do with the DfT over-prescribing requirements and being incapable of identifying over-confident franchise bids. That's a failure of the state, not the market.
 

eldomtom2

On Moderation
Joined
6 Oct 2018
Messages
1,570
My view is that history has confirmed that this is far more often true than not. The current issues in the rail industry are far more to do with the DfT over-prescribing requirements and being incapable of identifying over-confident franchise bids. That's a failure of the state, not the market.
There aren't really any free-market railways left to compare with anymore...
 

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,968
There is no socially necessary domestic air travel, except to Northern Ireland, the Isle of Man, Isles of Scilly and Scottish and Channel Islands.

So there is no socially necessary domestic air travel, apart from the socially necessary domestic air travel?

Those markets constitute rather large fraction of domestic air travel at this point.
 

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,337
Location
Isle of Man
The Spectator is a hard-right magazine which "inspired" most of Liz Truss' novel approach to economics. They can safely be ignored.

As always, it is interesting how the railway network is "subsidised" yet the road network is not.
 

TUC

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2010
Messages
3,694
There aren't really any free-market railways left to compare with anymore...
No, but I do notice in particular how multiple towns such as Halifax, Hartlepool and Hull have benefitted from open access services to London that a monopoly BR had claimed were not viable. Also how much competition has driven down fares on the ECML as opposed to the parts of the WCML with less competitio. Add in also that there were barely any Sunday morning North East-London Sunday morning services under BR, but they appeared soon after GNER took over.

I do think there are better market solutions than what has been used over the past 30 years. For example, rather than TOCs bidding for either least subsidy or greatest premium payment to the government, franchises for profitable lines could be on the basis of who agreed to take on the greatest number of loss making lines as part of the deal. That would produce a much greater incentive to increase customers and revenue.
 
Last edited:

Tetchytyke

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Sep 2013
Messages
13,337
Location
Isle of Man
It's mainstream centre right - a quick look at its current writers shows you that.

It's not mainstream and it's not centre-right. Hard libertarian may be the euphemism we can agree on.

It may not be overtly racist, but very few hard-right people are. But "immigration" is the dog whistle for these people, and The Spectator generally toots on it for all it is worth.
No, but I do notice in particular how multiple towns such as Halifax, Hartlepool and Hull have benefitted from open access services to London that a monopoly BR had claimed were not viable.
Would Open Access be viable if they had to pay the true cost of their track access?
 

nw1

Established Member
Joined
9 Aug 2013
Messages
7,413
Typical Taxpayers' Alliance right-wing tripe.

"I resent subsidising rail travel via tax. I don't care if this makes other peoples' lives very difficult due to drastic cuts and/or eye-watering fare rises, because owning my money is the most important thing to me, and I do not want to spend it on unimportant things like public transport".

Mind you, as others have said, what else do you expect from the Spectator. ;)
 
Last edited:

HSTEd

Veteran Member
Joined
14 Jul 2011
Messages
16,968
No, but I do notice in particular how multiple towns such as Halifax, Hartlepool and Hull have benefitted from open access services to London that a monopoly BR had claimed were not viable.
If those operators had to pay their actual costs, they would not be.

Unlike BR, they can pretend they are commercial operations whilst drinking deeply from the government's huge subsidies of NetworK Rail.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top