On Jul 1, 12:29*am, "
wrote:
On 01/07/2012 00:15, Charles Ellson wrote:





On Sun, 01 Jul 2012 00:05:25 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state....

Labour backs plans to return railway network to public control

Sweeping reform would begin with renationalisation of key routes and
end franchising of services

Plans to bring the national rail network back under public ownership
in order to halt big fare increases and prevent private companies
siphoning off huge profits will be considered by Labour as part of its
policy review, the Observer can reveal.

An independent thinktank report out on Monday, which puts forward a
detailed plan for effective renationalisation, was warmly welcomed by
the party's transport spokeswoman, Maria Eagle, who said the study was
timely and put forward a "coherent case for reform".

The changes would amount to the biggest overhaul of the train system
since British Rail was broken up in the mid-1990s and be seen as a
deliberate pitch by Ed Miliband's party for millions of "commuter
votes" in key marginal seats ahead of the next election.

If adopted by Labour it would mean ending franchises as they come up
for renewal on the east coast, west coast and midland mainlines –
ousting the likes of Sir Richard Branson from one of the country's
most profitable routes – and bringing the running of trains and
infrastructure under one publicly owned and accountable company.

Entitled Rebuilding Rail, the report by Transport for Quality of Life
argues that rail operations and infrastructure should be reintegrated,
franchising phased out and a democratic role given to passengers, the
workforce and elected local and regional authorities.

It says that the current fragmented system – under which the publicly
owned Network Rail runs the infrastructure and private companies
compete for franchise contracts to run trains – is failing taxpayers
and passengers while benefiting private train operators and their
shareholders, who are guaranteed taxpayer funds if profits fall below
a certain level.

The authors estimate that £1.2bn of public money has been lost each
year as a direct result of privatisation and fragmentation, money that
could have allowed fares to be 18% lower than at present. UK rail
passengers, who already pay the highest fares in Europe, face further
increases of at least 6% from next January.

Making it clear that Labour agreed with many ideas in the report,
which was funded by the main rail unions, Eagle said: "Under the
current system we have unaccountable train companies given a licence
to print money to operate a monopoly service at high cost to
passengers in an industry that still relies on £4bn from taxpayers
every year.

"Increasingly franchises are run by subsidiaries of the German, French
and Dutch state railways with profits helping deliver ticket prices in
those countries that are a third of ours. Labour's policy review is
therefore looking at all options to make our railways work better for
passengers with nothing ruled out, including whether the
not-for-dividend model that works for rail infrastructure should be
extended to rail services."

END QUOTE

For the rest of the article, go to:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2012/jun/30/labour-railway-network-state....

I'll believe it when I see it. Maybe they've conveniently forgotten to
mention how they will achieve it without tripping over EU rules which
will come as an "unexpected surprise" when they try it ?

Cannot the operating company and the infrastructure nonetheless be
state-owned?

Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name. The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been. Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways? Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure. Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

On 01/07/2012 09:27, e27002 wrote:
On Jul 1, 12:29 am,
wrote:
On 01/07/2012 00:15, Charles Ellson wrote:

Network Rail is a State Monopoly in everything but name. The Railways
are as Government Controlled as they have ever been. Why would the UK
go back to the dark days of British Railways? Better IMO to allow
operating companies to buy the infrastructure. Then drop franchising,
allow history to take its course (given neccessary regulation and
grants for desirable, but loss-making services).

Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.


Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

On 02/07/2012 16:19, allantracy wrote:

Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.


Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

There is something to what you say. The railways were saved first by
compulsory amalgamation in 1925, then by nationalization in 1947, by
which time three of the four companies were going out of business. Even
Margaret Thatcher stopped short of privatization, being a somewhat
cannier Friedmanite than her epigones (I'll give her that much).

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Jul 3, 8:41*am, Martin Edwards wrote:
On 02/07/2012 16:19, allantracy wrote:



Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

There is something to what you say. *The railways were saved first by
compulsory amalgamation in 1925, then by nationalization in 1947, by
which time three of the four companies were going out of business. *Even
Margaret Thatcher stopped short of privatization, being a somewhat
cannier Friedmanite than her epigones (I'll give her that much).

A major part of the financial problems the railways faced in the 1930s
and later was that they were subject to government regulation of
passenger fares and freight tarrifs, and subject to common carrier
obligations, that were created when the railways were effectively
regional monopolies, but that were no longer appropriate when
motorised road traffic provided effective competition. Railways could
not turn away freight that was expensive to transport (common carrier)
and could not price it off (freight rates were controlled by
government), nor could they increase rates on what should have been
profitable traffic. That's before the lack of payment for wartime
traffic loads are considered.

Robin

On 03/07/2012 11:16, bob wrote:
On Jul 3, 8:41 am, Martin wrote:
On 02/07/2012 16:19, allantracy wrote:



Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

There is something to what you say. The railways were saved first by
compulsory amalgamation in 1925, then by nationalization in 1947, by
which time three of the four companies were going out of business. Even
Margaret Thatcher stopped short of privatization, being a somewhat
cannier Friedmanite than her epigones (I'll give her that much).

A major part of the financial problems the railways faced in the 1930s
and later was that they were subject to government regulation of
passenger fares and freight tarrifs, and subject to common carrier
obligations, that were created when the railways were effectively
regional monopolies, but that were no longer appropriate when
motorised road traffic provided effective competition. Railways could
not turn away freight that was expensive to transport (common carrier)
and could not price it off (freight rates were controlled by
government), nor could they increase rates on what should have been
profitable traffic. That's before the lack of payment for wartime
traffic loads are considered.

Robin

I'm sure I knew that a long time ago but thanks for the update. :-)

--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman

On Jul 2, 4:19*pm, allantracy wrote:
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate. Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).

Perhaps the greatest example of the difference between socialism and
freedom is the Korean Peninsula. North of the DMZ is a giant
concentration camp. There the people are forced to fawn over their
incompetent "leader". Their years pass in hunger and missery.

To the south of the DMZ there flourishes a modern nation. The people
there enjoy freedom and increasing prosperity. Periodically they
elect their leaders. Their goods are a byword for quality around the
world.

Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 04:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
77002 wrote:
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate. Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).

Ah , but the traditional lefty get-out clause there would be that the
problems in those countries are down to corrupt government. Conveniently
forgetting that human nature is a core part of any society and its government.
This was something that marx conveniently forgot about in his treatise that
assumed people were robotic simpletons all marching to the same tune and all
putting the common good above themselves and their familes. Yeah , right.

Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

Marx is a simple solution to a complex problem and hence doesn't require you
to think - that makes it the easy option for braindead left wingers.

B2003

On Tue, 3 Jul 2012 04:13:38 -0700 (PDT), 77002
wrote:

On Jul 2, 4:19*pm, allantracy wrote:
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate. Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).

Perhaps the greatest example of the difference between socialism and
freedom is the Korean Peninsula. North of the DMZ is a giant
concentration camp. There the people are forced to fawn over their
incompetent "leader". Their years pass in hunger and missery.

To the south of the DMZ there flourishes a modern nation.

Which also got there by methods involving lorry loads of their
citizens disappearing overnight and never being seen again as can be
found in the more comprehensive commercial photo libraries, e.g.
"Suspected South Korean traitors are herded into lorries on their way
to execution" in http://avaxnews.com/educative/Korean_War_1.html
Neither of the local sides were angels.

The people
there enjoy freedom and increasing prosperity. Periodically they
elect their leaders. Their goods are a byword for quality around the
world.

Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

On 03/07/2012 12:13, 77002 wrote:
On Jul 2, 4:19 pm, wrote:
Friedmanite dogma is a good example of Einstein's statement that
insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a
different result.

Err... wasn't it Friedmanite insanity that built our railway network,
in the first place, and wasn't it Stalinist insanity, as applied to
the burgeoning road network, that did so much to undermine the
finances of some otherwise very sound private railway operations?

Coming from a hard-line marxist the poster's remark is particularly
appropriate.

To whom do you refer?

Everywhere his philosophy has taken power, death and
misery have followed (Russia, the PRC, Cambodia, North Korea, etc.,
etc.).

Perhaps the greatest example of the difference between socialism and
freedom is the Korean Peninsula. North of the DMZ is a giant
concentration camp. There the people are forced to fawn over their
incompetent "leader". Their years pass in hunger and missery.

To the south of the DMZ there flourishes a modern nation. The people
there enjoy freedom and increasing prosperity. Periodically they
elect their leaders. Their goods are a byword for quality around the
world.

Friedman vs. marx, wow that is a hard choice.

This may have been true for a few years while the state protected
nascent industries, but the "free" market system has now been imposed
and the Road to Serfdom has been taken.
--
Myth, after all, is what we believe naturally. History is what we must
painfully learn and struggle to remember. -Albert Goldman