UK Politics Thread III: Thready McThreadface (+ Jo Cox)

[Questers]

why are they a disaster

as said they are a victorian relic. guys just built shit wherever they wanted it. as a result of this they are a mess of differing standards and types. some trains only work in certain places, certain places only accept certain trains, etc. we really needed a centralized building system but we didn't have one, like, at all.

Originally yes, but for the huge majority of the country, gauge was standardised years and years ago.

[Vassenor]

as said they are a victorian relic. guys just built shit wherever they wanted it. as a result of this they are a mess of differing standards and types. some trains only work in certain places, certain places only accept certain trains, etc. we really needed a centralized building system but we didn't have one, like, at all.

Originally yes, but for the huge majority of the country, gauge was standardised years and years ago.

There's a difference between track gauge and loading gauge. The W6a is supposedly the best compromise to allow trains to run over most of the network.

[Questers]

If the rail companies make a strong profit, the state takes the surplus -- but if they fail, the state makes up the shortfall.



According to the government... the rail industry received total income of £12.9bn in 2012-13 of which 31% was provided by government, 59% by passengers and 10% from other income including car parking and property rentals.

Looking at the expenditure, most government funding goes into infrastructure. Depreciation of rolling stock is the job of franchises, but depreciation of infrastructure is the job of the state.

Every single rail franchise in Great Britain is being kept afloat by the state. Not just physically, in terms of balance sheets, but firm in the knowledge that they won't ever go bankrupt, ever. They simply do not make enough revenue to cover their expenditure costs in all areas.

And yet, for their investments, they are making a lot of money. Some of them pay the state back their surplus -- others receive government funding for shortfalls.

The cost of rail travel is going up, not down.



Rail is more expensive in Britain than anywhere in Europe. It's similarly more expensive than developed asian countries like Singapore, South Korea and Japan.

In 2014, sixteen of Britains eighteen rail franchises reported profits - and all of those who posted profits received government subsidies.

This system has been a failure. Prices have gone up considerably. The state pays a significant amount of subsidy -- but private shareholders are taking profits anyway. It is not, however, as simple as saying 'oh the profits are large, confiscate them and re-invest them into lower prices.' They wouldn't go very far. The state needs to take control of the rail industry and plan it rationally, accounting for depreciation and rolling stock costs and infrastructure maintenance, invest in train technology and start building trains in this country again. This is doubly true if we believe, which we should, that we need to cut carbon emissions and reduce pollution in general. We have to call time on this idiotic, American concept that every family should own two cars and start rational and scientific urban, transport and national planning. It will preserve our wildlife and countryside, instead of running horrible looking spaghetti roads all over the place. It will decrease costs to the consumer and the commuter. And state-led investment will restore healthy employment and research and development into a crippled sector.

[The Nihilistic view]

The railway system in this country isn't broken. It isn't 100% quality, needless to say it functions well, generally on good time, efficiently- especially around London. Likewise, in comparison to other countries, such as in Europe, Britain's rail is safer & more comfortable.
https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j ... 1273,d.ZGg

That doesn't alter the fact that tickets are catastrophically expensive, to the extent that it is cheaper to travel from Essex to Sheffield via Berlin.

I just did a quick search and found tickets for £35 before railcards for said journey, young persons railcard just over £22. Plan better is the moral of the story, not like lectures are given on a whim.

[The Liberated Territories]

plan it rationally

lol

[Questers]

There is only one example of private rail transport working properly: that is Japan Rail, but Japan is another story.

[Questers]

Libertarians are people who:

• Have never used a working rail state owned system because they have only been on privatised British rail and think it is amazing,
• Think car ownership is a moral virtue,
• Don't believe in global warming.

[Lamadia]

Libertarians are people who:

• Have never used a working rail state owned system because they have only been on privatised British rail and think it is amazing,
• Think car ownership is a moral virtue beneficial, sensible & essential.
• Don't believe in global warming.for the most part believe in a scientific fact however dispute its use to undermine economic growth.

[The Liberated Territories]

Libertarians are people who:

• Have never used a working rail state owned system because they have only been on privatised British rail and think it is amazing,
• Think car ownership is a moral virtue,
• Don't believe in global warming.

I'm not British, but the entire privatization of the British rail was corrupt from the start - they (the government) wanted to separate the trains from the track and then decided to divvy it up between four large corporations. Hardly the free market at work.

Yet one can easily point at, e.g. Japan for a successful privatization and operation of railways.

The last two are strawmen with no evidence or substance.

[Sadist France]

Libertarians are people who:

• Have never used a working rail state owned system because they have only been on privatised British rail and think it is amazing,
• Think car ownership is a moral virtue,
• Don't believe in global warming.

Thats a lot of straw you have right there

[Questers]

Libertarians are people who:

• Have never used a working rail state owned system because they have only been on privatised British rail and think it is amazing,
• Think car ownership is a moral virtue,
• Don't believe in global warming.

I'm not British, but the entire privatization of the British rail was corrupt from the start - they (the government) wanted to separate the trains from the track and then decided to divvy it up between four large corporations. Hardly the free market at work.

Yet one can easily point at, e.g. Japan for a successful privatization and operation of railways.

The last two are strawmen with no evidence or substance.

Yes, one can point easily at Japan (like I said.)

And... are there any others?

For instance, Singapore's frighteningly efficient mass transit system is owned and planned by the state. Private firms just operate the train networks themselves. At that point, it hardly matters. It's the same as our system, but rationally and intelligently planned. By the state.

They're not strawmen. The car thing was a bit facetious, but libertarians usually dispute global warming. Transferring from cars to rail is a major aim in order to reduce carbon emissions. That being said, I have to admit that Elon Musk is pretty incredible.

[Questers]

I already made a sourced post on how British rail transport is not a free market. Rail systems are generally not free markets. Even Japan Rail isn't a free market. They are privately owned, though. Some privately owned rail systems, like Japan's, have been successful. Others, like ours, have not.

After all, why bother responding to reasoned criticism when you can strikeout facetious comments instead.

This is why taking things seriously in Britain is a waste of time. It's all about The Press Effect.

[The Nihilistic view]

If the rail companies make a strong profit, the state takes the surplus -- but if they fail, the state makes up the shortfall.

(Image)

According to the government... the rail industry received total income of £12.9bn in 2012-13 of which 31% was provided by government, 59% by passengers and 10% from other income including car parking and property rentals.

Looking at the expenditure, most government funding goes into infrastructure. Depreciation of rolling stock is the job of franchises, but depreciation of infrastructure is the job of the state.

Every single rail franchise in Great Britain is being kept afloat by the state. Not just physically, in terms of balance sheets, but firm in the knowledge that they won't ever go bankrupt, ever. They simply do not make enough revenue to cover their expenditure costs in all areas.

And yet, for their investments, they are making a lot of money. Some of them pay the state back their surplus -- others receive government funding for shortfalls.

The cost of rail travel is going up, not down.

(Image)

Rail is more expensive in Britain than anywhere in Europe. It's similarly more expensive than developed asian countries like Singapore, South Korea and Japan.

In 2014, sixteen of Britains eighteen rail franchises reported profits - and all of those who posted profits received government subsidies.

This system has been a failure. Prices have gone up considerably. The state pays a significant amount of subsidy -- but private shareholders are taking profits anyway. It is not, however, as simple as saying 'oh the profits are large, confiscate them and re-invest them into lower prices.' They wouldn't go very far. The state needs to take control of the rail industry and plan it rationally, accounting for depreciation and rolling stock costs and infrastructure maintenance, invest in train technology and start building trains in this country again. This is doubly true if we believe, which we should, that we need to cut carbon emissions and reduce pollution in general. We have to call time on this idiotic, American concept that every family should own two cars and start rational and scientific urban, transport and national planning. It will preserve our wildlife and countryside, instead of running horrible looking spaghetti roads all over the place. It will decrease costs to the consumer and the commuter. And state-led investment will restore healthy employment and research and development into a crippled sector.

Depreciation of rolling stock will be a cost of the Rolling stock operating company not train operators. This is the main problem, the franchises make about 5% profit on average the rolling stock companies make something like 60%. This set up is the fault of the government and parliament, they set it up. It is an example of government failure. With longer franchise lengths, better competition rules and eliminating these rolling stock companies as the only way for franchises to get rolling stock.

https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-oper ... e-profits/
Profits at the end of the day
Taking these subsidies into account, last year train operating companies enjoyed, between them, a margin of £305 million (3.4%). Analysis from KPMG shows margins similar to this going right back to 1997.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2 ... price-hike
Passengers are also paying for the vast profits made by the rolling stock companies formed at privatisation. Just one, Angel Trains, made £372m in 2013 by its measure of underlying profitability.

One rolling stock provider (there are 3 major providers and a number of smaller ones) had a larger profit than the entire train operating industry over the period concerned.

The train operators don't make lots of money, they make less than 5% with the insecurity of relatively short term franchises providing little incentive to invest. That is the area to target, reforming this would help fares or size of subsidy greatly as would creating a system of real competition on lines rather than mostly monopoly franchises. But it is all an example of government failure rather than market failure when the government set up the legal framework for how the market has to run.

[The Nihilistic view]

Oh and much of the subsidy is just going back to the government paying for the inflated franchise bid made to the government for the line this system creates. It is basically subsidy paying for the franchise paid by subsidy that is paying for the franchise.

[Lamadia]

Privatisation of rail, around the world, is always going to be difficult & very problematic, namely due to the fact that rail is very hard to privatise. Five (am I correct?) groups run UK rail, which isn't a 'free market' per say. However, the idea that these services would function better in the state sector than in the private sector is quite a naive one. Nationalising the trains would take a lot of power out of the rail services, as well as deflating the stock groups who take a massive profit from industry, and who put it back into the economy.

[Questers]

If the rail companies make a strong profit, the state takes the surplus -- but if they fail, the state makes up the shortfall.

(Image)

According to the government... the rail industry received total income of £12.9bn in 2012-13 of which 31% was provided by government, 59% by passengers and 10% from other income including car parking and property rentals.

Looking at the expenditure, most government funding goes into infrastructure. Depreciation of rolling stock is the job of franchises, but depreciation of infrastructure is the job of the state.

Every single rail franchise in Great Britain is being kept afloat by the state. Not just physically, in terms of balance sheets, but firm in the knowledge that they won't ever go bankrupt, ever. They simply do not make enough revenue to cover their expenditure costs in all areas.

And yet, for their investments, they are making a lot of money. Some of them pay the state back their surplus -- others receive government funding for shortfalls.

The cost of rail travel is going up, not down.

(Image)

Rail is more expensive in Britain than anywhere in Europe. It's similarly more expensive than developed asian countries like Singapore, South Korea and Japan.

In 2014, sixteen of Britains eighteen rail franchises reported profits - and all of those who posted profits received government subsidies.

This system has been a failure. Prices have gone up considerably. The state pays a significant amount of subsidy -- but private shareholders are taking profits anyway. It is not, however, as simple as saying 'oh the profits are large, confiscate them and re-invest them into lower prices.' They wouldn't go very far. The state needs to take control of the rail industry and plan it rationally, accounting for depreciation and rolling stock costs and infrastructure maintenance, invest in train technology and start building trains in this country again. This is doubly true if we believe, which we should, that we need to cut carbon emissions and reduce pollution in general. We have to call time on this idiotic, American concept that every family should own two cars and start rational and scientific urban, transport and national planning. It will preserve our wildlife and countryside, instead of running horrible looking spaghetti roads all over the place. It will decrease costs to the consumer and the commuter. And state-led investment will restore healthy employment and research and development into a crippled sector.

Depreciation of rolling stock will be a cost of the Rolling stock operating company not train operators. This is the main problem, the franchises make about 5% profit on average the rolling stock companies make something like 60%. This set up is the fault of the government and parliament, they set it up. It is an example of government failure. With longer franchise lengths, better competition rules and eliminating these rolling stock companies as the only way for franchises to get rolling stock.

https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-oper ... e-profits/
Profits at the end of the day
Taking these subsidies into account, last year train operating companies enjoyed, between them, a margin of £305 million (3.4%). Analysis from KPMG shows margins similar to this going right back to 1997.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2 ... price-hike
Passengers are also paying for the vast profits made by the rolling stock companies formed at privatisation. Just one, Angel Trains, made £372m in 2013 by its measure of underlying profitability.

One rolling stock provider (there are 3 major providers and a number of smaller ones) had a larger profit than the entire train operating industry over the period concerned.

The train operators don't make lots of money, they make less than 5% with the insecurity of relatively short term franchises providing little incentive to invest. That is the area to target, reforming this would help fares or size of subsidy greatly as would creating a system of real competition on lines rather than mostly monopoly franchises. But it is all an example of government failure rather than market failure when the government set up the legal framework for how the market has to run.

"The Government" has always set up the legal framework for markets in this country. By always, I mean for over a millenia. Unless you don't count the Courts as part of the Government. I guess possibly not a millenia. You can look at Bukton v Tounesend [1348] (B&M 358) for one of the first contract cases that might resemble something you would see today, in which Courts outlined basic rules of commercial exchange.

So this idea that nasty gubmint got involved to limit gallant entrepreneurs is false. Rules have always been set by courts on contract and commercial engagement.

But I agree with a few things you said:

• It is a government failure.
• Train firms do not make an excessive profit (what I saw was 3% specifically).
• Franchising is also a problem.

But depreciation of rolling stock is not a huge cost. It's something like £1-2 billion for the whole industry. The stock owners may be ripping off the franchises, but it doesn't scupper what I have said. We are paying higher costs, and we can absorb them in two ways:

• Fix the stock-franchise relation OR
• Nationalise the railways.

Those companies who are not paying their surpluses back to the state would immediately start posting profits, and some of the money would go back to the state. Depending, of course, on who is spending what on depreciation etc. But it doesn't stand to reason that costs would fall. Right up until the point at which the company starts paying off a surplus to the state, there would be no incentive to reduce the costs for passengers -- only above that level, in order to appear better for their next tender. And the margin of paying the surplus back to the state, and the margin of profit from rolling stock companies is reasonably similar.

You would get the same problem, although you would see the profits transferred from rolling stock firms to firstly the operators, and secondly the state, and only then would it start to filter back to passengers. The amount of money simply isn't enough to make a big difference.

[Sadist France]

Honestly the best thing that could happen to the UK would be a surge of Libertarianism or liberty minded politics (Even the Liberal Democrat party would be a better thing than the status quo), but imo thats probably not going to happen sadly

[Philjia]

If the rail companies make a strong profit, the state takes the surplus -- but if they fail, the state makes up the shortfall.

(Image)

According to the government... the rail industry received total income of £12.9bn in 2012-13 of which 31% was provided by government, 59% by passengers and 10% from other income including car parking and property rentals.

Looking at the expenditure, most government funding goes into infrastructure. Depreciation of rolling stock is the job of franchises, but depreciation of infrastructure is the job of the state.

Every single rail franchise in Great Britain is being kept afloat by the state. Not just physically, in terms of balance sheets, but firm in the knowledge that they won't ever go bankrupt, ever. They simply do not make enough revenue to cover their expenditure costs in all areas.

And yet, for their investments, they are making a lot of money. Some of them pay the state back their surplus -- others receive government funding for shortfalls.

The cost of rail travel is going up, not down.

(Image)

Rail is more expensive in Britain than anywhere in Europe. It's similarly more expensive than developed asian countries like Singapore, South Korea and Japan.

In 2014, sixteen of Britains eighteen rail franchises reported profits - and all of those who posted profits received government subsidies.

This system has been a failure. Prices have gone up considerably. The state pays a significant amount of subsidy -- but private shareholders are taking profits anyway. It is not, however, as simple as saying 'oh the profits are large, confiscate them and re-invest them into lower prices.' They wouldn't go very far. The state needs to take control of the rail industry and plan it rationally, accounting for depreciation and rolling stock costs and infrastructure maintenance, invest in train technology and start building trains in this country again. This is doubly true if we believe, which we should, that we need to cut carbon emissions and reduce pollution in general. We have to call time on this idiotic, American concept that every family should own two cars and start rational and scientific urban, transport and national planning. It will preserve our wildlife and countryside, instead of running horrible looking spaghetti roads all over the place. It will decrease costs to the consumer and the commuter. And state-led investment will restore healthy employment and research and development into a crippled sector.

Depreciation of rolling stock will be a cost of the Rolling stock operating company not train operators. This is the main problem, the franchises make about 5% profit on average the rolling stock companies make something like 60%. This set up is the fault of the government and parliament, they set it up. It is an example of government failure. With longer franchise lengths, better competition rules and eliminating these rolling stock companies as the only way for franchises to get rolling stock.

https://fullfact.org/news/do-train-oper ... e-profits/
Profits at the end of the day
Taking these subsidies into account, last year train operating companies enjoyed, between them, a margin of £305 million (3.4%). Analysis from KPMG shows margins similar to this going right back to 1997.

http://www.theguardian.com/money/blog/2 ... price-hike
Passengers are also paying for the vast profits made by the rolling stock companies formed at privatisation. Just one, Angel Trains, made £372m in 2013 by its measure of underlying profitability.

One rolling stock provider (there are 3 major providers and a number of smaller ones) had a larger profit than the entire train operating industry over the period concerned.

The train operators don't make lots of money, they make less than 5% with the insecurity of relatively short term franchises providing little incentive to invest. That is the area to target, reforming this would help fares or size of subsidy greatly as would creating a system of real competition on lines rather than mostly monopoly franchises. But it is all an example of government failure rather than market failure when the government set up the legal framework for how the market has to run.

If they actually let multiple providers operate on the same routes, there would be benefit to privatisation, because competition would (probably) drive prices down. Conversely, a nationalised rail service would be beneficial if costs were adjusted so that the railways ran not for profit. Unfortunately no government has the drive or competence to actually implement either of these approaches, so we get the worst of both worlds.

[Philjia]

Honestly the best thing that could happen to the UK would be a surge of Libertarianism or liberty minded politics (Even the Liberal Democrat party would be a better thing than the status quo), but imo thats probably not going to happen sadly

Not really, because we're not starting from scratch; there are already a lot of people who wield vast influence with huge bags of cash, and the last thing we need is more of that.

EDIT: Also, as Keynes pointed out, the free market will often make inefficient macroeconomic decisions.

[Questers]

Privatisation of rail, around the world, is always going to be difficult & very problematic, namely due to the fact that rail is very hard to privatise. Five (am I correct?) groups run UK rail, which isn't a 'free market' per say. However, the idea that these services would function better in the state sector than in the private sector is quite a naive one. Nationalising the trains would take a lot of power out of the rail services, as well as deflating the stock groups who take a massive profit from industry, and who put it back into the economy.

1) Sorry, this is a circular statement. "Rail is hard to privatise is because rail is hard to privatise." It doesn't make any sense.

2) "Power out of the rail services" is a non-meaningful statement. What does it mean?

3) Yes. Back into the economies of France and Germany. If that's what you're concerned about, we could nationalise the rail and simply cash-transfer them the money. Our Franco-German taxpayer friends would still get their cash, it would still show up as a net transfer on our current account sheet, and everyone would be happy.

But seriously, they're not investing anyway. Investment in Britain has fallen dramatically since the recession and is still stalling. What you are saying is that dividends will fall. Obviously, they will: I am talking about nationalising something. Trains are a public good. The purpose of public goods is to deliver a service. You are not complaining that our nationalised navy doesn't deliver for investors, are you?

Because it does. It guarantees security for the huge quantity of goods which arrive in British ports every day. If there is any private body more happy with a state investment than Lloyd's of London is of the Royal Navy then let me know about it.

[Sadist France]

Honestly the best thing that could happen to the UK would be a surge of Libertarianism or liberty minded politics (Even the Liberal Democrat party would be a better thing than the status quo), but imo thats probably not going to happen sadly

Not really, because we're not starting from scratch; there are already a lot of people who wield vast influence with huge bags of cash, and the last thing we need is more of that.

I mean one benefit would be the legalization of prostitution and drugs which you agree should be a thing. Thats not going to come from a Radfem dominated Labour or a Religious dominated Conservative Party

[Questers]

Unfortunately no government has the drive or competence to actually implement either of these approaches, so we get the worst of both worlds.

I do agree with this though. Nobody in any party in Britain has had any drive or determination or competence for a very, very long time.

[Questers]

The Labour Party is not dominated by radfems and the Conservative Party is not dominated by the religious.

[Philjia]

Not really, because we're not starting from scratch; there are already a lot of people who wield vast influence with huge bags of cash, and the last thing we need is more of that.

I mean one benefit would be the legalization of prostitution and drugs which you agree should be a thing. Thats not going to come from a Radfem dominated Labour or a Religious dominated Conservative Party

I want that done because it will permit government intervention in them. I don't want the market to run free, I want to seize it and chain it.

[Questers]

I mean one benefit would be the legalization of prostitution and drugs which you agree should be a thing. Thats not going to come from a Radfem dominated Labour or a Religious dominated Conservative Party

I want that done because it will permit government intervention in them. I don't want the market to run free, I want to seize it and chain it.

A lot of people say this, but I don't think it's true.

The moment any narcotic is really legalised, a number of large corporations are going to start getting involved in it. They are going to spend a lot of money in the very important centres of politics in all major countries. They will get rules that suit them. Not you, or me, or any of your friends who happen to like a dabble, or anybody addicted to any kind of substance.

They will pay taxes. Well, maybe. Lots of companies and people in Britain do not pay taxes. Why should they? Anyway, corporate tax was lowered to 17%.

The cost of policing will fall. Or will it? Will people on methamphetamine and ketamine really not cause any crime at all?

The number of people on drugs who now are not criminals -- and this number will rise (look at mephedrone for an empirical example of how much it was used when it was skirting the Medicines Act) -- who need to seek mental help for addictions. The cost will go up. And up. And up.

We will be powerless to help it. This is the future for Corporate Britain. Capitalism leads to Corporatism. In almost every place in the world, always.