Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Yes they do but that's not ever happened here and isn't likely to hence my point. The arguments you raise applied just as much in the past as they do now and look what happened to our infrastructure. Unless you believe our glorious leaders have seen the light it'll just happen all over again but with the huge additional costs of nationalising it first.
|
It's a long time since British Rail and it was a different time. Trains are used more now rather than being an afterthought. It's not as if the current operators are doing so well either.
Besides it would be a government owned but separate organisation that will run it. Just like SNCF does in France or even TFL in London. TFL do a pretty good job running the oldest metro system in the world and one of the busiest and certainly better than the private operators for the commuter trains going into London. The East Coast Mainline was a success for the period it was publicly owned:
http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/m...ayer-235m.html
The best argument is the franchise system is simply a nonsense. It doesn't encourage long-term thinking from the operators so that still needs to be done by the government. You then get tenders going to the highest bidder who need to milk the line to return a profit to their shareholders. Their only incentive in terms of punctuality and quality is to do just enough to keep the line since competition is non-existent.
Without real competition the rational behind privatisation fails. It's only a religious devotion in the concept that meant it was privatised in the first place but people have become so obsessed with the battle between privatisation and nationalisation they don't take a pragmatic approach to it and decide what makes sense for which industry. Thatcherites think everything is improved by privatisation and Corbynites would nationalise Greggs if they could.
