Does Britain want to reverse the total disaster and rip-off that is railway privatisation?
Yes. Depending on which polling firm you believe, over between 60% and 85% of the British public want to take railways bck into public ownership.
Are rail fares too high?
Are ‘No Junk Mail signs’ ignored? For a country which has been eager to coax its population out of pollution-heavy cars and onto public transport, we have a strange way of going about it. Allowing fares to explode, service standards to decline and infrastructure to age- save for pet projects like Crossrail- is not the way to persuade people to leave the car at home. And as the cost of running a car also rises, transport is beginning to eat an alarming proportion of our incomes.
So this leads us to the big question. Will the Labour Party, which has been working very hard on policy formulation of late, commit to the two big policies on railways it has declared it is considering- renationalisation and a fares freeze? The public support is there, but with the Labour Party having inflicted eye-watering spending limits on itself (if it forms the next government) there is the question of funding. The cost of renationalisation is actually zero. This is because the rail operators actually operate franchises, with the right to operate clusters of railway lines only for a fixed period of time, after which the government holds an auction for a new farnchise. So the rail network could fall under public control simply by not renewing the franchises. Thereafter, it would be possible to freeze fares by allowing inflation to erode the renationalised operators’ profit margins until they reach breakeven levels. However, failure to renew the franchises is being treated as a cost to the Treasury, which is a peculiar way of looking at things. Is somebody’s failure to sell their car the same thing as spending the money they would get from the sale of the car?
There is no doubt about the political benefits of rail renationalisation, but what about the economics? Now that the British government is officially commited to full employment, the creation of jobs is a priority, particularly in our long-neglected manufacturing sectors. To achieve this, we do have to create industry-friendly conditions. That doesn’t mean cutting taxes to haven levels- that merely attracts corporate vultures- or slashing at pay and conditions (that encourages a deskilled, unengaged workforce) but it does mean we need to offer low costs where possible. Three of the most expensive aspects of operating in Britain are property, energy and transport. If we can provide these services to a hign standard and at a low cost, enhanced productivity and wellbeing will be well worth any public investment or subsidy put in.
Also, wouldn’t it be nice if we could all move around the country without having to worry that we can’t afford it?
I’d vote for that.