Derailing Privatisation

[Bper]

Labour announced that if they are elected they will nationalise the railways within 5 years. No mention of reducing fares but would this be a good or bad thing for commuters. Would doing the same with Utility companies benefit customers or not.?🙄

[Cyker]

TBH I think it's just talk, a weak attempt to appeal to people like me who think things like transport, education, medical, utilities etc. should never have been privatized in the first place, but the damage has already been done.

I strongly doubt they'd make more than a token effort to do so, and then the Cons will get in power again and sell them off at a loss again because they won't legislate protection to prevent that happening.

Even if they could, the current companies would probably take to the courts to block it which would tie it up for years, and waste money.

The thing is, what would privatizing them get us at this point? If they had articulated some reason, some plan beyond this vague Lets Nationalize the railways! thing then I might be less skeptical, but as it is, it feels like yet another empty promise, especially since Corbyn wanted to do that and was shot down by the people now proposing it...

 

[FROSTYBALLS]

Labour's intention would be to nationalise the rail companies as contracts expire, which supposedly would avoid having to pay compensation to those companies.

The rail network is already publicly owned via Network Rail, which is a body that reports directly to the Secretary of State for Transport.

Rolling stock however, is a different kettle of fish. Rolling stock (locomotives, carriages, etc) are owned by rolling stock leasing companies who lease and maintain the equipment to and for rail companies. Presumably the leasing arrangements would carry forward to the nationalised rail 'companies'. If not, compensation would be due to the rolling stock companies if these were nationalised as well.

So not straightforward.

The utilities industry - supply of power, water, etc - is different altogether. Utility companies operate under licence arrangements rather than fixed term contracts, and should nationalisation occur, massive compensation would almost certainly be payable.

[Haliotis]

Theoretically, services such as public transport, water and energy companies should be cheaper and more efficient if they were in public ownership.  Unfortunately this does not work in reality, for several reasons.  Nationalised companies are notorious for top heavy administration and for the bosses spendthrift activities on spurious side issues (look at the NHS for proof of that).  Then there is  political party interference where decisions and spending are enacted by senior officials who are not necessarily competent in the job (jobs for the boys, for example). To this you can add political disruption by the Unions - and silly pay rises easily squeezed from a Labour Government.

Privatisation has not worked either, because the bosses get hugely unworthy salaries, shareholders demand excessive dividends, and get them at the expense of system maintenance (look at the water companies for proof of that), and the Unions cause heavy losses due to regular strike action (look at the rail services for proof of that).

So, what have we got left?  A yet-to-be-discovered management body that can efficiently operate the systems without the brainless interference by amateur government ministers.  Look at how ministers can be promoted and/or be switched from one discipline to a completely different one and we all have to believe they are competent - sort of like being a bricklayer one day, and a heart surgeon the next.

If you are waiting for a sensible change for the better, don’t hold your breath!!! 

[2toyos]

1 hour ago, Bper said:

Labour announced that if they are elected they will nationalise the railways within 5 years. No mention of reducing fares but would this be a good or bad thing for commuters. Would doing the same with Utility companies benefit customers or not.?🙄

I don't care about the trains, I don't use them, I want house prices to fall, mortgages to fall, I'm not paying £325k for a shit box that was £190k, and £1800 A month 😂😂 labour is as useless as the conservatives, same party different idiots, plus everything you said considering utilities, their all owned by 3rd parties, all controlled by 3rd parties, the share holders, they won't allow them to nationalised, they rape them of any profits, I used to work for Anglian Water, it's ALL ABOUT THE SHARE HOLDERS, they don't give a flying f about us

Edited April 28 by 2toyos

[Big_D]

7 minutes ago, 2toyos said:

labour is as useless as the conservatives, same party different idiots

I couldn't agree more.

[Roy124]

As a shareholder .......  but not Post Office, Water, or Trains...

Privatisation was supposed to improve service and lower fares through competition.  Where one operator has a monopoly there is no incentive to do either.

On the East Coast Main Line we do have competition between Hull trains and LNER. Last month I travelled LNER and looking at the economics I travelled 1st Class using my disability card and benefited from breakfast, coffee, the lounge at KX, and supper with a can of beer and more coffee.

My daughter on the South Coast said her train was the pits.

[yossarian247]

I doubt we have the spare rail capacity in the UK to transfer that amount of freight off the roads in any case. We might have done until we closed thousands of miles of track from the 1960s to the 1980s. There are large swathes of the UK with no railway connection at all. The Great Central would have made a fantastic freight line, but most of it was gone by the late 60s.

[FROSTYBALLS]

UK Rail freight 2022:

"In the year ending March 2022, the total amount of rail freight transported increased to 16.87 billion net tonne kilometres (10.48 billion net tonne miles), an 11.3% increase compared to the previous year. However, this is still significantly lower than at its peak in the year ending 2014, when the total amount of rail freight transported was 22.70 billion net tonne kilometres (14.11 billion net tonne miles)."

Rail factsheet: 2022 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

UK Road freight 2022:

Domestic road freight statistics, United Kingdom: 2022 - GOV.UK (www.gov.uk)

[FROSTYBALLS]

Topic cleaned up.

Please remain polite with no name calling, etc, which is against forum rules. Further infringements will result in someone being banned. 

[Bper]

On 4/28/2024 at 5:36 PM, 2toyos said:

I don't care about the trains, I don't use them, I want house prices to fall, mortgages to fall, I'm not paying £325k for a **** box that was £190k, and £1800 A month 😂😂 labour is as useless as the conservatives, same party different idiots, plus everything you said considering utilities, their all owned by 3rd parties, all controlled by 3rd parties, the share holders, they won't allow them to nationalised, they rape them of any profits, I used to work for Anglian Water, it's ALL ABOUT THE SHARE HOLDERS, they don't give a flying f about us

Hi Matthew,streamlining the planning process to speed up approvals and reduce developer costs could lead to more houses being built.

Focus on brownfield sites,and utilising existing developed land reduces the need to encroach on green spaces and could be faster to develop.Public funding could incentivise building more affordable housing units. Building more council houses or housing association properties provides long term, affordable options.

Shared ownership schemes,these allow buyers to purchase a portion of a property and pay rent on the remaining share, making homeownership more accessible.

Regulating rent increases could provide more stability and affordability for renters.

Land banking discouraging developers from holding onto land without building to prevent artificial price inflation.Ensuring wages keep pace with housing costs allows people to afford mortgages.Combining public and private efforts could leverage the strengths of both sectors. Housing strategies might need to be tailored to specific regions and housing market conditions.

Its certainly a very difficult situations for many who at this rate may never own their own home.

[Cyker]

I've just become resigned to that - Unless I move waaaay out of London there's no way I'm going to ever be able to buy my own house unless I win the lottery or there's a massive crash in house prices or something.

The mortgage offers I get are 1/3 of the cost of even the scummiest house in murder and robbery central.

A friend of mine bought a part-rent part-buy flat in Milton Keynes and is now regretting as he's getting absolutely shafted with rent and management fee hikes, which are making it practically impossible to save to try and move out. And even if he did, how do you even divest yourself of the liabilities of a property if nobody will buy it?

[FROSTYBALLS]

24 minutes ago, Cyker said:

Unless I move waaaay out of London there's no way I'm going to ever be able to buy my own house

Here's your answer:

 

[Bper]

29 minutes ago, Cyker said:

I've just become resigned to that - Unless I move waaaay out of London there's no way I'm going to ever be able to buy my own house unless I win the lottery or there's a massive crash in house prices or something.

The mortgage offers I get are 1/3 of the cost of even the scummiest house in murder and robbery central.

A friend of mine bought a part-rent part-buy flat in Milton Keynes and is now regretting as he's getting absolutely shafted with rent and management fee hikes, which are making it practically impossible to save to try and move out. And even if he did, how do you even divest yourself of the liabilities of a property if nobody will buy it?

Cyker, like for many regardless of a half decent income it's the deposit that kills people looking to buy. Whilst not the ideal situation many have looked at shared ownership. Obviously this has to be given careful consideration, and you have to have an awful lot of confidence in the other party for this to work. I think most looking to buy live in hope that the market will change but supply amd demand as increased year on year. It cannot be right to grow up in your own country and not know if you will ever be able to buy your own home.

[Tee_J]

15 minutes ago, FROSTYBALLS said:

Here's your answer:

Hilarious!! 😂😂

[Tee_J]

10 minutes ago, Bper said:

It cannot be right to grow up in your own country and not know if you will ever be able to buy your own home

Yep - it is. All our young ones are still at home with us simply because it is stupidly expensive to find a decent flat to rent at a decent rental price, let alone think about buying a house when as @Cyker mentioned, you end up getting pull taut at both ends and could find yourself unable to get out - even breaking even!

It's a shame...but do those in power care? Nope.  It suits them to keep prices elevated by permitting increasing prices across the board so that everything in the chain has to go up! Lord have mercy on us all! 🙏

[2toyos]

3 hours ago, Bper said:

Hi Matthew,streamlining the planning process to speed up approvals and reduce developer costs could lead to more houses being built.

Focus on brownfield sites,and utilising existing developed land reduces the need to encroach on green spaces and could be faster to develop.Public funding could incentivise building more affordable housing units. Building more council houses or housing association properties provides long term, affordable options.

Shared ownership schemes,these allow buyers to purchase a portion of a property and pay rent on the remaining share, making homeownership more accessible.

Regulating rent increases could provide more stability and affordability for renters.

Land banking discouraging developers from holding onto land without building to prevent artificial price inflation.Ensuring wages keep pace with housing costs allows people to afford mortgages.Combining public and private efforts could leverage the strengths of both sectors. Housing strategies might need to be tailored to specific regions and housing market conditions.

Its certainly a very difficult situations for many who at this rate may never own their own home.

Unfortunately, we do not have the government that will allow this to happen, it's almost like they are driving us into crippling debt, debt that will stay with us for generations, making sure we keep working, im almost close to packing up and leaving, also the quality of houses being built today is shameful, I use to be In the building trade, and they are shocking, but at the moment, everything in the country is hanging on by a fiber

[Haliotis]

The lack of building enough homes to meet demand doesn’t help. Although, being a small country, we have to realise that land availability is not finite, and we cannot use up all land to the detriment of sustaining a liveable environment.

But the problem of rising house prices isn’t helped by the profiteering employed by the banks/building societies, estate agents, solicitors, and building firms - and even inappropriate government intervention (e.g., removal of married man’s’ allowance, and removal of mortgage interest allowance).   Individually each element might seem to be a small cost but, collectively, when all are added up they become an unwieldy burden.

And ever-increasing taxation or charge applied at local and central government levels adds further misery - and let us not forget that every new tax or charge that is introduced (no matter how small) is a stepping-stone to future increases of these taxes/charges.

One example:  Garden waste - collected fortnightly.  Started as free, then became £30/year about three years ago.  Annual increases have pushed this up to £60/year, along with reducing collections from 12 months to 9 months of the year. Over another 4 years, will this climb to £100/year?

[2toyos]

On 4/30/2024 at 10:50 AM, Haliotis said:

The lack of building enough homes to meet demand doesn’t help. Although, being a small country, we have to realise that land availability is not finite, and we cannot use up all land to the detriment of sustaining a liveable environment.

But the problem of rising house prices isn’t helped by the profiteering employed by the banks/building societies, estate agents, solicitors, and building firms - and even inappropriate government intervention (e.g., removal of married man’s’ allowance, and removal of mortgage interest allowance).   Individually each element might seem to be a small cost but, collectively, when all are added up they become an unwieldy burden.

And ever-increasing taxation or charge applied at local and central government levels adds further misery - and let us not forget that every new tax or charge that is introduced (no matter how small) is a stepping-stone to future increases of these taxes/charges.

One example:  Garden waste - collected fortnightly.  Started as free, then became £30/year about three years ago.  Annual increases have pushed this up to £60/year, along with reducing collections from 12 months to 9 months of the year. Over another 4 years, will this climb to £100/year?

I remember learning about Hong Kong, they did something revolutionary, going from a high tax high poverty dump, to being a great and successful city, they did this by lowering all taxes, and allowing the population to grow, they actually made more money from people having more money to spend, yes took them 10years to become a successful city, but it worked, everyone had 2 cars, 2 Houses, they went out to eat 3/4times a week, obviously this inflation rise it doesn't work, it's not a successful plan, why can't someone have the balls and try this 

[Haliotis]

The simple answer to that, mathew, is that the government want to spend your money in a manner that THEY decide is best for you.  To our government (any government) we are simply simple-minded yokels who are incapable of planning our spending wisely, so they tax us just short of causing civil unrest and we just take it on the chin.   Annoyingly, they do spend a lot of our cash on idle people who sponge off the state (it’s still us) in any way they can.  Think about the £6 million per day that our government spends on a crowd of ******* who sneak in by the back door! 

[2toyos]

7 minutes ago, Haliotis said:

The simple answer to that, mathew, is that the government want to spend your money in a manner that THEY decide is best for you.  To our government (any government) we are simply simple-minded yokels who are incapable of planning our spending wisely, so they tax us just short of causing civil unrest and we just take it on the chin.   Annoyingly, they do spend a lot of our cash on idle people who sponge off the state (it’s still us) in any way they can.  Think about the £6 million per day that our government spends on a crowd of ******* who sneak in by the back door! 

I found it hilarious they targeted the working immigrants 😂😂 not the illegal 😂😂 I was hoping for a different outcome with the elections, but majority of the people In the UK are stupid, I see the gender fluid idiots of labour are getting in, I was hoping some other party would do well, time for a change

[Haliotis]

Mathew, I cannot argue with you that the majority of people in the UK are stupid - I only wish that I could.  If you had the opportunity to become an MP, which party would you choose?  Because there isn’t one which proposes radical change for the better.  They are all looking for ways to keep the present mess managable, and to just plod on hopelessly.   On any subject at any level, we only see falling values and degradation.  The greatest worry is that, if ever the UK suffered mass unemployment, there would be such anarchy that would make current disorder a walk in the park. 

[2toyos]

I have no idea who I would go for, probably the one that benefits Britian and it's people, not the 1s getting involved in other peoples scuffles, trying to be the world police all while hiking the prices of everything and threatening the public of conscription because they want to be the lap dog of America, I don't care if it's reform, green party or labour/Tories, the only party that has stood out to me, that would offer change is reform, taxes, armed forces, education (get rid of that terrible gender fluid bollocks) and protection of the country, Mr starma is all for teaching that nonsense, that none life skill gender bollocks in schools, i have young kids, I want them to have the best, unfortunately with the world as it is today, they won't with a weak government

[Bper]

5 minutes ago, 2toyos said:

I have no idea who I would go for, probably the one that benefits Britian and it's people, not the 1s getting involved in other peoples scuffles, trying to be the world police all while hiking the prices of everything and threatening the public of conscription because they want to be the lap dog of America, I don't care if it's reform, green party or labour/Tories, the only party that has stood out to me, that would offer change is reform, taxes, armed forces, education (get rid of that terrible gender fluid !Removed!) and protection of the country, Mr starma is all for teaching that nonsense, that none life skill gender !Removed! in schools, i have young kids, I want them to have the best, unfortunately with the world as it is today, they won't with a weak government

Mathew,you are only echoing the views of many

[Haliotis]

With our armed forces at an all-time low, and the oft mentioned recalling of conscription an idea that simply would not get off the ground (for many obvious reasons), the most sensible way forward for the UK is to keep our own council and avoid getting involved with other countries problems. We are not an empire any more, and we certainly do not “rule the waves”.   Switzerland stayed neutral in WW2, and that’s the stance we should take now.

The UK is not an area of strategic importance, and does not boast any natural deposits worth fighting for.