Great British Rail

[Northern_Brewer]

I would much rather they were run not for profit to ensure maximum value for customers and investment in rolling stock.

Well Scotrail is certainly not run for profit, as the most subsidised rail company in the UK. But you're assuming it's a zero-sum game, when I gave an example above of how "maximum value" (and more reliable trains) came from a private company making borrowings that a nationalised company would not be allowed to do.

No I am not a communist far from it I believe in free competition.

So how much competition is there when the government runs things?

Problem is you very rarely have a choice of what train or bus company to use. There is no competition to keep them honest so for me not for profit or public ownership is a better option.

Well that's partly a question of capacity - there are routes in England where there is direct competition between companies. But the real problem in Scotland is that ticket sales account for just 22% of running costs so there's no way to have fair competition as Scotrail is so massively subsidised, in fact it's the most subsidised train operating company in the UK accounting for 16% of all TOC subsidies.

But actually the point of franchising was to try and introduce competition into a natural near-monopoly. Even if it's not practical for customers to choose different trains on the platform, there was still competition for the right to run the service in the first place. The problem was that as Holden described, it got too competitive (and government was being too restrictive) and there was <2% profit to be had, so companies weren't interested in the competition.

Your analogy of fish fingers or biros no issue with free market competition provided it's value for the taxpayer.

Sorry - no, you were very clear "Making profits from essential public services is morally wrong". Not much room for debate there. The fish fingers or biros can be provided more cheaply to the taxpayer if they're provided at cost, so surely that's what you want them to do?

Whereas I would recognise that it's just not very efficient to have everything provided by the state, just as there's some things that are best done only by the state (like operating nuclear weapons), for me it's just about finding the best option for each situation rather than being dogmatic about it.

And just to be clear - I just want what works best, regardless of whether it is done by the state or private sector or something in between. But what I would say is that I do have a massive bias towards things being decided locally, a lot of the problems from nationalisation and privatisation come from over-centralisation and remoteness from customers.

Scotrail may not be perfect, it may take £697m/year in subsidy, but at least that's Scotland's choice to do rather than spending the money on eg dualling the A9, which at the current rate of a mile per year may be done by 2090, when the Scotrail subsidy could have done it all in 5 years.

 

[old dog new tricks]

Well Scotrail is certainly not run for profit, as the most subsidised rail company in the UK. But you're assuming it's a zero-sum game, when I gave an example above of how "maximum value" (and more reliable trains) came from a private company making borrowings that a nationalised company would not be allowed to do.


So how much competition is there when the government runs things?

Well that's partly a question of capacity - there are routes in England where there is direct competition between companies. But the real problem in Scotland is that ticket sales account for just 22% of running costs so there's no way to have fair competition as Scotrail is so massively subsidised, in fact it's the most subsidised train operating company in the UK accounting for 16% of all TOC subsidies.

But actually the point of franchising was to try and introduce competition into a natural near-monopoly. Even if it's not practical for customers to choose different trains on the platform, there was still competition for the right to run the service in the first place. The problem was that as Holden described, it got too competitive (and government was being too restrictive) and there was <2% profit to be had, so companies weren't interested in the competition.

Sorry - no, you were very clear "Making profits from essential public services is morally wrong". Not much room for debate there. The fish fingers or biros can be provided more cheaply to the taxpayer if they're provided at cost, so surely that's what you want them to do?

Whereas I would recognise that it's just not very efficient to have everything provided by the state, just as there's some things that are best done only by the state (like operating nuclear weapons), for me it's just about finding the best option for each situation rather than being dogmatic about it.

And just to be clear - I just want what works best, regardless of whether it is done by the state or private sector or something in between. But what I would say is that I do have a massive bias towards things being decided locally, a lot of the problems from nationalisation and privatisation come from over-centralisation and remoteness from customers.

Scotrail may not be perfect, it may take £697m/year in subsidy, but at least that's Scotland's choice to do rather than spending the money on eg dualling the A9, which at the current rate of a mile per year may be done by 2090, when the Scotrail subsidy could have done it all in 5 years.

You are fully entitled to your opinion of course.
Yes public transport in Scotland is subsidised not disputing that at all I actually support that as many rural or smaller communities would never be able to afford to travel otherwise.
Do I think the government are the answer for everything absolutely not hence why I support not for profit.
As for your comments about operating nuclear weapons well at risk of breaching national security I would look into that statement as the storage, support, testing, maintenance, building and loading is all done by private sector at eye watering cost

 

[Kit-brewer]

I think that 'renationalise' is something we need to consider for certain industries. But they need to be operated as a private company, with an aim to be profitable.
We need a reliable rail network, water services, and energy supply and the NHS that is managed for the public good.
Having these industries in private hands leads to profiteering and potential service reduction. If they cam be managed at arms length by an organisation answerable to government then it might work better. Fragmented services mean doubled up provision where it isn't needed which increases cost, prices and eats into valuable human resources.
But we do need to ensure it is still managed as a business and not to return to the 70s of union power over service provision.

 

[old dog new tricks]

I think that 'renationalise' is something we need to consider for certain industries. But they need to be operated as a private company, with an aim to be profitable.
We need a reliable rail network, water services, and energy supply and the NHS that is managed for the public good.
Having these industries in private hands leads to profiteering and potential service reduction. If they cam be managed at arms length by an organisation answerable to government then it might work better. Fragmented services mean doubled up provision where it isn't needed which increases cost, prices and eats into valuable human resources.
But we do need to ensure it is still managed as a business and not to return to the 70s of union power over service provision.

The days of Union power are long gone even Labour will not restore these powers they have indicated this, I agree industry has a place but in a not for profit model, this is not a new concept and can work

 

[Kit-brewer]

The days of Union power are long gone even Labour will not restore these powers they have indicated this, I agree industry has a place but in a not for profit model, this is not a new concept and can work

By profitable, I mean making a reinvestment profit to ensure that the industry is kept up to date. So large infrastructure improvements can be self funded as much as possible.

 

[old dog new tricks]

By profitable, I mean making a reinvestment profit to ensure that the industry is kept up to date. So large infrastructure improvements can be self funded as much as possible.

yes that fits with a not for profit model i am for a private industry approach just not the huge dividends and bonuses

 

[jof]

Also include in that the training of a reasonable number of apprentices. Something that's been lacking for many years & something most UK firms won't do.