Off Topic Politics Thread

Unfortunately the arseholes have found funds to develop Sizewell C even after the engineering and financial disaster at Hinckley Point.
"Sizewell C has been jointly developed by EDF and the UK Government – the Government is now the majority shareholder and is currently investing a total of £2.5bn in financial support for the project.25 Mar 2024"
https://www.sizewellc.com/news-view...df-energy-for-purchase-of-power-station-land/

"EDF has estimated that Hinkley Point C could cost up to £46bn and take another four years to complete.
The French state-owned client said that the first reactor will not be in use until at least 2029, two years later than the most recent 2027 goal, and could take until 2031 if electromechanical work runs into problems."
https://www.constructionnews.co.uk/...0bn-cost-hike-and-four-year-delay-24-01-2024/

 

And Nosac still hasn’t said how he will plug the £45 billion (?) per year gap in tax income, if he ends National Insurance contributions.
The defence promise is one he won’t get to fulfill, because he will be out of office, but apparently Labour has already mentioned that they too will be increasing the defence to a similar level, apparently.
I think we will see more empty and impossible to fund promises from the Tories, just so they can use them to undermine the next Government, as in “If we were still in power we would have done x, y, z and given everyone a free unicorn in the colour of their choice, as long as it was red, white and blue, but the Labour Party won’t do that”.

 

Labour will renationalise the railway industry within 5 years, if they win the next election.
This next passage details how flawed the franchise system is.


The franchising system is also deeply flawed. Private firms bid for the right to run a franchise but they only pay the bulk of the money owed at the end of the contract.

This has allowed the companies to walk away without paying their dues.

In 2011 FirstGroup decided not to extend its franchise for the Great Western.

By doing so it avoided forking out the £826m it was due to pay the Government for the right to run the service.

To underline the craziness of the system, FirstGroup immediately launched a new bid – and won – the Great Western contract it had just abandoned.

The Conservatives have persisted with privatisation despite evidence that train companies do better under public control.

After the East Coast Main Line was taken back under public control in 2009 it provided a more efficient service and paid more money back to the Government.

The Tories then privatised it again only for the new operator to fail. It is now back under Government ownership.

 

There simply are some things that should not be and should never have been privatised no matter how pro-capitalist / anti-socialist you are. And those are things where competition is not possible. Railways and water are two big ones here.

 

The British rail privatisation model is held up throughout the world as an example of incompetance. The sums lost to the taxpayer border on fraudulent, a thorough investigation is needed into the business practises of franchises and those in government connected with them.

 

Load of ****.

please log in to view this image

 

That bolded statement simply isn't true. If anything it's been seen as an example to follow. The EU produced a report in 2013 that said Britain's railways were the most improved and safest in Europe and levels of customer satisfaction were second only to Finland, which has a much smaller rail network. I think it also highlighted that in many parts of the EU the rolling stock itself was much older than in the UK. Following on from that the EU's fourth railway package, introduced in 2016, aimed to open up the railway market in Europe in a similar way to ours and was in some ways modelled on the Railways Act 1993. Not that that was universally popular - after that package was adopted, the RMT advocated voting to leave the EU - but your claim our system is a global laughing stock just isn't true. I haven't seen the details of Labour's plan but it's possible it would have been illegal if we were still in the EU.

And for what it's worth I don't have a strong opinion on rail nationalisation. I've spent enough time working in and around the public sector to be skeptical of the idea the service will be more efficient and I suspect some of the problems we have today are a legacy of the covid era but I also can't see very many benefits to "competition" on the railways because you're essentially selling limited-time monopolies and generally speaking you don't have a lot of options when taking trains. If you have to travel from, say, Southampton to Basingstoke for an 11:30 meeting you probably have to catch a specific train regardless of who's operating it. At the same time, my dad used to commute to London every day and tells me services improved enormously after privatisation and I'm also aware that most of the train delays I've experienced myself are to do with the rail infrastructure, which is of course managed by the already-nationalised Network Rail.

 

This was not in my post "but your claim our system is a global laughing stock" The piecemeal awarding of franchises and the financial loopholes exploited as pointed out elsewhere are just part of it. . Any basis in fact for claiming illegality? I think not.
How then do you account for the numerous failures, bailouts and renationalisations let alone the historical and ongoing industrial disputes?
There's massive failures in electrification and provision of high speed routes for which successive governments are accountable..

 

Any important national infrastructure should be state run IMHO

 

Not those precise words but I don't think that phrasing is too different from "held up throughout the world as an example of incompetance."

I said it was possible it would be illegal because I hadn't seen much about the story but I know that if they were trying to recreate British Rail that would be illegal if we were in the EU - one of the aims of the fourth railway package was to end state monopolies in the railway sector.

Having looked briefly at a BBC article I'm not sure that is what they're saying. It appears Labour's plan is to set up a new state-owned rail operator called Great British Railways which would take over (some?) rail contracts as they expire. As I understand it the EU's fourth railway package makes it compulsory to run a competitive tender process before awarding such contracts. So at first glance it seems to me this plan would be illegal under EU law - the government wouldn't be permitted to directly award the contracts to Great British Railways. There might be another way to do what they want in the EU. They could certainly set up a state-owned rail operator and bid for the contracts, but there's never been anything to stop a government doing that. Of course we're not in the EU so it doesn't really matter.

For failures and bailouts you'd need to look at each instance and I don't claim the current system is perfect or have an especially strong view so I'm not really interested in doing that. As for industrial action, there are plenty of strikes on the publicly-owned tube and I very much doubt you're suggesting there were no strikes when British Rail was around. I can't find a list of historic railway strikes but in 2022 the planned strikes were described as "the biggest for 30 years" which rather suggests there was a larger strike some time around 1992, when the railways were publicly-owned.

I agree there are massive failures in electrification. That's nothing to do with private rail operators though. Electrification is the responsibility of Network Rail, which is publicly-owned. I also agree that governments are accountable for these failures. Both of these things are reasons why I have doubts as to whether a nationalised railway would be any better.

 

Thames Water is planning to pay out £2bn in dividends over the next decade despite growing fears over the company’s collapse, The Telegraph can reveal

 

Illegal? SNCF and DB are state-owned

 

As are the Dutch main line routes.
https://www.government.nl/topics/mo...ic-transport/organisation-of-public-transport

 

Yes, SNCF and DB are state-owned. As I said in my post it isn't illegal for state-owned companies to run rail services. But it IS illegal for national governments to directly award contracts for rail services. There must be a competitive bidding process. So it's likely that in future SNCF and DB will not have a monopoly in France and Germany. Actually, I think there's already an Italian company operating some rail services in the south of the France. That doesn't necessarily mean SNCF and DB will stop operating rail services - they may win all the contracts - but it's likely they will have to compete with other operators and perhaps each other.

The Dutch railways are a great example. The Dutch government wants to directly award a contract to NS, the state operator. The contract will begin in 2025. Here's a 2022 letter from the European Commission to the Dutch government where the Commission states they have "serious concerns about the legality of the award" and refer to "the new 4th Railway Package requirement of competitive award": https://www.etf-europe.org/wp-conte...tter-to-NL-government-on-direct-award-003.pdf

The EU operates a system based on the current British model. State rail monopolies are banned in the EU. Directly awarding public service contracts is banned in the EU. Labour's plan would be illegal if the UK was in the EU.

But we're not in the EU so it doesn't matter.

 

The looks and reactions to what Chris Philip says. Priceless.

https://x.com/LondonEconomic/status/1783585107879584108

 

I'm in the EU, in the Netherlands so it does matter to me. This the NS reaction to the EU letter(s).
"On several occasions in 2022, the European Commission made critical comments about the direct award of the main rail network franchise to NS. According to the Commission, the Dutch government should conduct a market analysis prior to awarding the franchise. The Minister for the Environment has pointed out, however, in the Lower House and elsewhere, that such a market analysis is not necessary. NS’s own position on this matter remains unchanged: the existing legal framework permits a direct award."
https://2022.nsannualreport.nl/annu...opments/main-rail-network-franchise-from-2025
Also in the linked report is the billions worth of investments in public transport pledged by the Dutch government.
What has to be avoided is the disaster that UK rail privatisation brought about in terms of service and cost to the taxpayer as San Tejón posted, this point a good example "After the East Coast Main Line was taken back under public control in 2009 it provided a more efficient service and paid more money back to the Government.
The Tories then privatised it again only for the new operator to fail. It is now back under Government ownership."
Perhaps I should have worded my post differently "The implementation of the British Rail privatisation model is held up throughout the world as an example of incompetance.
I'd better not mention HS2.

 

please log in to view this image

 

Fossil fuel and petrochemical campaigners at Ottawa summit outnumber scientists, EU and Indigenous delegates

The number of fossil fuel and petrochemical industry lobbyists has increased by more than a third at UN talks to agree the first global treaty to cut plastic pollution, analysis shows

Good to see climate change is being taken seriously

 

No surprise at that. I think the same applies at COP conferences. The fossil fuel lobbyists are out in force whenever similar meetings are held and, of course, busy in many parliaments. They should be identified and their credentials and funding checked. The list of lies and misinformation from the fossil fuel and petrochemical industry is long and growing.