British Rail should it be brought back?

[davyboy]

1999. I had to travel from Kent to Aberystwyth to pick up my repaired car which had broken down whilst on holiday.

The cost was just over £64.(of the train fare, the car £650)

Just looked up the off peak fare for the same journey: just over £101.

Taking into account inflation........just over £101

First class any time.....nearly £300.

[ukdobby]

Beacuse despite the flaws and rough edges one day it's gong to save your life most probably.

 

They should be able to that without rewarding failure and throwing taxpayers money away and I,m not talking about nurses sect but the no ideas running it.

[El Cid]

You shouldn't trust private ownership, but if there's competition you don't have to as they perform or die. You shouldn't trust public ownership either, but the mechanisms for keeping them honest and efficient are far weaker.

 

We have entered into a new era where private companies get bailed out when they fail.

I give you the example of the banks, Southern rail; not to mention the failed train operators that just walked away when the going got tough.

[unbeliever]

We have entered into a new era where private companies get bailed out when they fail.

I give you the example of the banks, Southern rail; not to mention the failed train operators that just walked away when the going got tough.

 

It's not a new era. It's a serious of ill-considered government interventions in the market, almost entirely by Labour. All that is needed is to stop doing it.

[Zamo]

I think that generally there has been a lot of improvement over the last 10 years or so in terms of the quality of the train stock, trains running on time and station facilities. Fares are very expensive though (especially to London) but nationalisation will not fix that. Corbyn and his supporters think what's needed is more empty seats on trains... says it all really.

[unbeliever]

I think that generally there has been a lot of improvement over the last 10 years or so in terms of the quality of the train stock, trains running on time and station facilities. Fares are very expensive though (especially to London) but nationalisation will not fix that. Corbyn and his supporters think what's needed is more empty seats on trains... says it all really.

 

It's expensive mostly because that's what it costs. Trains are an obsolete technology.

[I1L2T3]

Most rail operators would beg to differ, perhaps you could show the figures that demonstrate service has not improved?

 

Of course they would beg to differ.

 

Trains are more crowded than they ever were, and fare rises have grown in real terms year on year and fares are often subject to an arcane set of rules. Through those eye wateringly high fares we subsidise passengers on other rail systems because our operators are part-owned by continental operators. Hundreds of millions of pounds a year is wasted on shareholder dividends and support for the franchise system, and the public subsidies are still huge. The operators are not accountable to the public. Infrastructure had to be returned to public ownership because private companies would not invest in it.

 

It's a complete mess.

 

Travel on a train regularly. See what it's like.

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 10:34 ----------

 

What's wrong with copying one of the continental universal healthcare systems?

Nobody wants to end up with the US state of affairs but the purely state-funded model never seems to be able to get enough money into the system.

 

One simple fact: they cost more.

 

Germany spends 11.3% of GDP. France spends 11.5%.

 

We spend 9.1%. The closest system, which is arguably better than ours, is the Spanish one and their spend is 9.0%. that is the one to more aspire to.

 

But way to go wanting to piddle tens of billions of pounds up the wall every year because you have an irrational ideologically-driven dislike of the NHS

Edited September 10, 2016 by I1L2T3

[Zamo]

It's expensive mostly because that's what it costs. Trains are an obsolete technology.

 

More expensive still if a Labour government where to run them with more empty seats!

 

Why do you say trains are obsolete? London in particular could not function without the trains to get people to work.

[unbeliever]

One simple fact: they cost more.

 

Germany spends 11.3% of GDP. France spends 11.5%.

 

We spend 9.1%. The closest system, which is arguably better than ours, is the Spanish one and their spend is 9.0%. that is the one to more aspire to.

 

But way to go wanting to piddle tens of billions of pounds up the wall every year because you have an irrational ideologically-driven dislike of the NHS

 

Don't they get better service and outcomes?

Shouldn't we be spending 11-12% of GDP on healthcare?

If we introduce a hybrid funding model, but keep state funding at 9% that should be easy. Problem solved.

I have no idealogical objection to state-funded healthcare. I believe wholeheartedly in universal healthcare regardless of means. I just think that hybrid funding will probably get the job done better.

I expect that there will be a higher quality of service to those with employer or private insurance than those dependent on the state. As long as this is not in the standard of clinical care and service improves to a degree for all, I don't care.

 

---------- Post added 10-09-2016 at 10:48 ----------

 

More expensive still if a Labour government where to run them with more empty seats!

 

Why do you say trains are obsolete? London in particular could not function without the trains to get people to work.

 

Okay so trains still have a limited place in our transport infrastructure. London is so densely populated that public transport is still useful there. I think it could easily be self-funding.

In most of the country it's being foisted upon us by ideology at great cost.

[I1L2T3]

Don't they get better service and outcomes?

Shouldn't we be spending 11-12% of GDP on healthcare?

If we introduce a hybrid funding model, but keep state funding at 9% that should be easy. Problem solved.

I have no idealogical objection to state-funded healthcare. I believe wholeheartedly in universal healthcare regardless of means. I just think that hybrid funding will probably get the job done better.

I expect that there will be a higher quality of service to those with employer or private insurance than those dependent on the state. As long as this is not in the standard of clinical care and service improves to a degree for all, I don't care.

 

It's not problem solved if 3% of GDP gets spent in a below optimum way.

 

In fact the problem that needs to be solved is working out how we get even better value like the Spanish do. We can get better services by spending less not more. We all know the problems with the NHS and we all could point to better ways to reduce the spend on it.

 

I'm very irritated by the way supporters of privatisation so vigorously attack waste but are so relaxed about tens of billions being creamed off by private companies once services are privatised. Railways or healthcare it doesn't matter it seems.