ukclique > railway

ColinR (14.07.2017, 23:14)
On 14/07/2017 12:28, Stephen Allcroft wrote:
> It was not in the Labour Party Manifesto and I have not heard of anybody actually suggesting it.


Err - "We will introduce a Public Ownership of the Railways Bill to
repeal the Railways Act 1993 under which the Conservatives privatised
our railways." Page 90 of their manifesto.

A straight repeal is renationalisation of the whole lot, not just TOCs
but the infrastructure and ROSCOs. As others have said, not sure if it
is practicable or even possible, but it WAS in their manifesto.
Robert (14.07.2017, 23:19)
On 2017-07-14 19:44:45 +0000, Roland Perry said:

> In message <fd6imcd4a954e26mrpu2v0r87lk3cdr08l>, at 20:32:48 on
> Fri, 14 Jul 2017, mcp remarked:
> Hatfield maybe?


Yup - I was thinking of Hatfield. A very senior moment! :-(
Clive Page (14.07.2017, 23:46)
On 14/07/2017 15:20, Roland Perry wrote:
> You've fallen for the spin that delivering re-nationalisation of the railways is the Labour Party's objective here. Rather than getting elected.


I think many members of the Labour Party would like both to happen. Well I would for one. Preferably with a different leader, but that's a separate question.
Recliner (15.07.2017, 00:01)
NY <me> wrote:
[..]
> not also to line every-intermediate-and-his-dog's pockets as well. Anything
> which lowers fares and yet keeps the same level of service and investment by
> running more efficiently has got to be a Good Thing.


That's the old BR model, which led to steady, long-term decline.
Recliner (15.07.2017, 00:01)
John Levine <johnl> wrote:
> In article <5466cbc0-00eb-4b45-8f28-dfedd6a9abd0>,
> R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram> wrote:
> I rememeber it too, but that was then, this is now. If rates were 15%
> I would agree there was international pressure on the budget. At 1.3%
> there is not.
> The Bank of England is unfortunately famous for fighting the last war.


The interest and inflation rates would shoot up if we had a profligate
Corbyn government.
Theo (15.07.2017, 02:02)
ColinR <rail> wrote:
> Err - "We will introduce a Public Ownership of the Railways Bill to
> repeal the Railways Act 1993 under which the Conservatives privatised
> our railways." Page 90 of their manifesto.
> A straight repeal is renationalisation of the whole lot, not just TOCs
> but the infrastructure and ROSCOs. As others have said, not sure if it
> is practicable or even possible, but it WAS in their manifesto.


If it is repealed, what legislation does it fall back to?
It seems the Transport Act 1947 was repealed by the Transport Act 1962.
It seems that's still in force, with clauses like:

"1 The four Boards.
(1)For the purposes of this Act there shall be . . . F1 public authorities
to be called—
the British Railways Board (in this Act referred to as the “Railways
Board”);
the British Transport Docks Board (in this Act referred to as the “Docks
Board”); and
the British Waterways Board,

among whom the functions and (subject to the provisions of this Act relating
to the Holding Company) the property of the British Transport Commission
(hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) shall be divided in accordance
with this Act.

2 [repealed TA1968, about Regional Railway Boards]

"3. Duty and powers of Railways Board.
[section added by RA1993 removed] it shall be the duty of the Railways Board in
the exercise of their powers under this Act to provide railway services in
Great Britain and, in connection with the provision of railway services, to
provide such other services and facilities as appear to the Board to be
expedient, and to have due regard, as respects all those railway and other
services and facilities, to efficiency, economy and safety of operation."

etc. I don't see anything about rolling stock.

IANAL and I haven't studied it very hard, but I'm not sure that repealing an
Act privatising naturally means that assets will be nationalised again.
Perhaps instead it would mean that passing legislation forces a change of
status (TA1947 private->public, RA1993 public->private) but repealing
1993 doesn't naturally cause a 1947 event again - the assets would stay where
they are with the same ownership unless Parliament says that should change?

What does change is the powers under which services are run. If powers are
given to Network Rail and TOCs by virtue of the RA1993, presumably its
repealing means they would revert to the BR Board... whose successor is the
DfT. Whch is presumably the intended consequence?

Theo
Recliner (15.07.2017, 02:50)
Theo <theom+news> wrote:
[..]
> given to Network Rail and TOCs by virtue of the RA1993, presumably its
> repealing means they would revert to the BR Board... whose successor is the
> DfT. Whch is presumably the intended consequence?


Which would simply be business as usual. The DfT already owns the
disfunctional NR and the stumbling franchise process.

I think the manifesto doesn't accurately describe what Labour spokespeople
said they planned to do. But it's all a bit academic now: Labour has just
lost its third election in a row, 56 seats behind the Tories.
John Levine (15.07.2017, 03:38)
In article <1623317127.521758877.555053.recliner.ng-btinternet.com>,
Recliner <recliner.ng> wrote:
>>>> International pressure? The UK borrows in its own currency so the
>>>> only meaningful evidence of international pressure is the interest
>>>> rate it has to pay. The current rate on 10 year gilts is a piddly
>>>> 1.3% and even 30 year gilts are under 2%. Since the UK has the
>>>> world's best repayment record, there is no risk premium. ...


>> I rememeber it too, but that was then, this is now. If rates were 15%
>> I would agree there was international pressure on the budget. At 1.3%
>> there is not.
>> The Bank of England is unfortunately famous for fighting the last war.

>The interest and inflation rates would shoot up if we had a profligate
>Corbyn government.


Possibly, but experience here in the US suggests that in a low-rate
iiquidity trap a great deal of borrowing and money creation does not
necessarily translate into high rates or inflation. The US deficit
was $1.4 trillion in 2009, and the overall debt roughly doubled since
then even as the annual deficit has dropped. Our ten year bond yield
is now about 2.3% and our inflation is under 2%, while we've recovered
from the recession a lot better than you did. It really depends what
the government spends the money on.

R's,
John
Recliner (15.07.2017, 05:25)
Patrick Hearn <patrick.hearn39> wrote:
> On Friday, July 14, 2017 at 5:41:58 PM UTC+1, R. Mark Clayton wrote:
> Bond yields
> 1979-97 was no picnic either


Indeed. It takes a number of years to clear up the appalling mess left by
every Labour government. Of course, Corbyn is much more ambitious than
previous Labour PMs: his hero is Chavez.
<https://www.spectator.co.uk/2017/02/britain-under-corbyn-just-look-at-venezuela/>

‘Chavez was a very important figure worldwide… because he was prepared to
use his position to argue for a different world order.’ Corbyn attended a
vigil in London at which he gave a stirring speech about the great man:
‘Chavez showed us that there is a different and a better way of doing
things,’ he said. ‘It’s called socialism, it’s called social justice and
it’s something that Venezuela has made a big step towards.’
Nobody (15.07.2017, 05:32)
On Sat, 15 Jul 2017 00:38:11 -0000 (UTC), John Levine <johnl>
wrote:

>In article <1623317127.521758877.555053.recliner.ng-btinternet.com>,
>Recliner <recliner.ng> wrote:
>Possibly, but experience here in the US suggests that in a low-rate
>iiquidity trap a great deal of borrowing and money creation does not
>necessarily translate into high rates or inflation. The US deficit
>was .4 trillion in 2009, and the overall debt roughly doubled since


>John
>then even as the annual deficit has dropped. Our ten year bond yield
>is now about 2.3% and our inflation is under 2%, while we've recovered
>from the recession a lot better than you did. It really depends what
>the government spends the money on.


Fewer social programmes (spelling deliberate)?
Charles Ellson (15.07.2017, 07:10)
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 23:50:01 -0000 (UTC), Recliner
<recliner.ng> wrote:

>Theo <theom+news> wrote:

None of the above actually nationalises anything, that occurs more
specifically somewhere else to specify which actual services the above
duties are applicable to. Nationalisation didn't apply to all
transport undertakings either. The undertakings (i.e. specific
companies) nationalised in 1948 will mostly no longer exist so by that
means will have since been removed from the scope of older
legislation.
[..]
R. Mark Clayton (15.07.2017, 13:58)
On Friday, 14 July 2017 20:05:35 UTC+1, John Levine wrote:
> In article <5466cbc0-00eb-4b45-8f28-dfedd6a9abd0>,
> R. Mark Clayton <notyalckram> wrote:
> I rememeber it too, but that was then, this is now. If rates were 15%
> I would agree there was international pressure on the budget. At 1.3%
> there is not.
> The Bank of England is unfortunately famous for fighting the last war.


Any attempt to implement Labour's recent manifesto would take us straight back there.
e27002 aurora (16.07.2017, 09:37)
On Fri, 14 Jul 2017 21:46:48 +0100, Clive Page <usenet>
wrote:

>On 14/07/2017 15:20, Roland Perry wrote:
>> You've fallen for the spin that delivering re-nationalisation of the railways is the Labour Party's objective here. Rather than getting elected.

>I think many members of the Labour Party would like both to happen. Well I would for one. Preferably with a different leader, but that's a separate question.


You can be happy then. You probably will have a labour government.
but under the leadership of Mr. corbyn.

Much as I like Mrs. May, her political instincts suck raw lemons. She
fought the last election campaign badly and gave Corbyn credibility.

The Conservative party is unlikely to win a fourth election. So,
baring a miracle, for which I earnestly pray, Mr. corbin is set to
assume office in a few years.

Remember Venezuela was, pre-Chavez, a moderately successful country.
Arthur Figgis (16.07.2017, 10:18)
On 14/07/2017 20:36, Roland Perry wrote:
> In message <bI2dnX9AYqUUh_TEnZ2dnUU78N-dnZ2d>, at
> 20:24:47 on Fri, 14 Jul 2017, Arthur Figgis
> <afiggis> remarked:
> Why do you think it isn't?


Because there is a pilot scheme to have it developed using a different
model, possibly some kind of design build finance operate contract. Just
before the election, the details were due to be announced real soon now.
Roland Perry (16.07.2017, 10:53)
In message <9tydnVU64_H5jvbEnZ2dnUU78XnNnZ2d>, at
08:18:49 on Sun, 16 Jul 2017, Arthur Figgis
<afiggis> remarked:

>Because there is a pilot scheme to have it developed using a different
>model, possibly some kind of design build finance operate contract.
>Just before the election, the details were due to be announced real
>soon now.


Interesting. Is does indeed appear to be a new private railway, perhaps
we can call it MS1 (medium speed 1).

Although it's not clear if they will "adopt" the only bit Network Rail
has managed to complete so far [but is it electrified?] from
Oxford-Bicester, plus the work-in-progress Bicester to Bedford leg, as
well as building the new line from Bedford to Shepreth.

And who will be responsible for upgrading and electrifying
Cambridge-Ipswich, and Ely-Norwich (and presumably doing the Ely North
upgrade) - NR or MS1?

Similar Threads