Snap General Election called

[Zhivago]

Making Labour more electable every day.

In truth there is a lot that can be done before you go so far as to nationalise the energy market. More work should be done on standardising pricing, and making switching supplier easier.

[Puja]

Making Labour more electable every day.

Can't work out if this is sarcasm or not.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

Making Labour more electable every day.

Can't work out if this is sarcasm or not.

Puja

Its not. Labour won't win power with just the lefties supporting it. It needs votes from the centre as well. Just a basic electoral fact.

[Sandydragon]

Making Labour more electable every day.

In truth there is a lot that can be done before you go so far as to nationalise the energy market. More work should be done on standardising pricing, and making switching supplier easier.

Indeed, but that doesn't sound as catchy. There is plenty of work to be done, the current situation isnt perfect by a long shot. But nationalisation isnt necessarily going to solve the problem.

[Puja]

Making Labour more electable every day.

Can't work out if this is sarcasm or not.

Puja

Its not. Labour won't win power with just the lefties supporting it. It needs votes from the centre as well. Just a basic electoral fact.

This is drifting over into righty sort of territory though and, while Labour might not win power with just the lefties (although I'm not sure I'd count that as a truism - leftwards politics under the hugely personally unpopular Corbyn with a divided party and a media firmly against them came pretty close and sprang some surprises in 2017. There's a lot more appetitie for "leftie" policies than has been assumed to be true, especially since most of them are actually fairly centrist and only look left because the Overton window's been so skewed), they also won't win power if they can't get their base out. All very well to court the right voters, but will enough of them turn out to make up for those disappearing from the other side, either defecting to the Libs or Greens or just plain not planning to vote because "Voting for a Red Tory just encourages them."

Puja

[Which Tyler]

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/boris-pm-resign-tory-peer/

[Sandydragon]

Can't work out if this is sarcasm or not.

Puja

Its not. Labour won't win power with just the lefties supporting it. It needs votes from the centre as well. Just a basic electoral fact.

This is drifting over into righty sort of territory though and, while Labour might not win power with just the lefties (although I'm not sure I'd count that as a truism - leftwards politics under the hugely personally unpopular Corbyn with a divided party and a media firmly against them came pretty close and sprang some surprises in 2017. There's a lot more appetitie for "leftie" policies than has been assumed to be true, especially since most of them are actually fairly centrist and only look left because the Overton window's been so skewed), they also won't win power if they can't get their base out. All very well to court the right voters, but will enough of them turn out to make up for those disappearing from the other side, either defecting to the Libs or Greens or just plain not planning to vote because "Voting for a Red Tory just encourages them."

Puja

Aping Corbyn is a guaranteed way to get most media against you. Blair courted the media by appearing be less threatening and it worked. Many Tories voted for Labour in 97 and if Starmer doesn't have the same charisma to get the same he has a better chance if he can paint the next Tory leader as incompetent (not difficult if its Truss) and pandering to the right whilst he occupies the sensible centre ground.

[Son of Mathonwy]

No doubt these debates are being gleefully recorded by the Labour party for use in the general election.

[Puja]

Its not. Labour won't win power with just the lefties supporting it. It needs votes from the centre as well. Just a basic electoral fact.

This is drifting over into righty sort of territory though and, while Labour might not win power with just the lefties (although I'm not sure I'd count that as a truism - leftwards politics under the hugely personally unpopular Corbyn with a divided party and a media firmly against them came pretty close and sprang some surprises in 2017. There's a lot more appetitie for "leftie" policies than has been assumed to be true, especially since most of them are actually fairly centrist and only look left because the Overton window's been so skewed), they also won't win power if they can't get their base out. All very well to court the right voters, but will enough of them turn out to make up for those disappearing from the other side, either defecting to the Libs or Greens or just plain not planning to vote because "Voting for a Red Tory just encourages them."

Puja

Aping Corbyn is a guaranteed way to get most media against you. Blair courted the media by appearing be less threatening and it worked. Many Tories voted for Labour in 97 and if Starmer doesn't have the same charisma to get the same he has a better chance if he can paint the next Tory leader as incompetent (not difficult if its Truss) and pandering to the right whilst he occupies the sensible centre ground.

Possibly true. However, repudiating everything that the left ever stood for may mean that, while Starmer will get many Tory voters, he won't get many Labour voters and he needs those just as much, probably more.

It could be that he's judged this correctly and antipathy towards 12 years of Tory fuckery, combined with the reign of Truss, will mean that left voters will see him as the lesser of two weevils and hold their nose to vote. However, it may also be that a Prime Minister Sunak calms the fuck down on the culture wars and the left voters either deliberately decide to send a message to the right of the party or just can't be arsed to go out and vote/campaign/fundraise because they don't believe in it.

Blair courted the media and the centre ground, but he did chuck a fair few bones at his base as well, with the recognition that he needed them as much as he needed the centre. Plus he didn't win the Labour leadership election based on 10 clearly stated promises of direction and then steadily u-turn on each one.

Puja

[Which Tyler]

Aping Corbyn is a guaranteed way to get most media against you. Blair courted the media by appearing be less threatening and it worked. Many Tories voted for Labour in 97 and if Starmer doesn't have the same charisma to get the same he has a better chance if he can paint the next Tory leader as incompetent (not difficult if its Truss) and pandering to the right whilst he occupies the sensible centre ground.

Worth pointing out, again, that Corbyn's policies were very popular. It was Corbyn himself, and the accusations of anti-semitism that were unpopular.

As ever, leftist policies are typically very popular amongst voters... until you tell them they're proposed by leftist parties.
It's tribal brainwashing, pure and simple, primarily lead by the right-leaning media.

[Sandydragon]

No doubt these debates are being gleefully recorded by the Labour party for use in the general election.

If they aren't then they don't deserve to win. Nadine Dorries is ding a good job of giving Labour as many attack lines as possible.

[Sandydragon]

Aping Corbyn is a guaranteed way to get most media against you. Blair courted the media by appearing be less threatening and it worked. Many Tories voted for Labour in 97 and if Starmer doesn't have the same charisma to get the same he has a better chance if he can paint the next Tory leader as incompetent (not difficult if its Truss) and pandering to the right whilst he occupies the sensible centre ground.

Worth pointing out, again, that Corbyn's policies were very popular. It was Corbyn himself, and the accusations of anti-semitism that were unpopular.

As ever, leftist policies are typically very popular amongst voters... until you tell them they're proposed by leftist parties.
It's tribal brainwashing, pure and simple, primarily lead by the right-leaning media.

Some of them were. But taken as a whole with a Shadow Chancellor who wanted to wave Mao's little red book about and Corbyn being, well Corbyn, then its easy to identify them as the comedy vote for a government.

If Labour argued to renationalise the railways for example in and amongst other economic policies which were seen as fairly centrist then it probably wouldn't have made a huge problem. For me the big problem with any manifesto is I don't trust the people writing it (I regard all parties as equally dishonest here) and if the intention is to have a little bit of socialism in the manifesto then I'm wary of what else would they do when actually in power and years away from an election.

Arguably a winless argument given that the policies might have been popular but Corbyn wasn't (in 2019). If he had won in 2016 it might have been a different story, but even then he couldn't get past one of the most unelectable politicians in living history. That might give a decent indication of how electable he and his manifesto were.

[Which Tyler]

So... my point is "leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't" and your counter is to say that leftist people are unpopular, but their policies generally aren't?

[Sandydragon]

So... my point is "leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't" and your counter is to say that leftist people are unpopular, but their policies generally aren't?

Thats a big part of it. But equally too many leftish policies lumped together in a manifesto would attract concern regardless of who presents them. Nationalising a failing privatisation scheme would probably get some support, for example, but mass nationalisation based on ideology is a different matter.

[Puja]

So... my point is "leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't" and your counter is to say that leftist people are unpopular, but their policies generally aren't?

Thats a big part of it. But equally too many leftish policies lumped together in a manifesto would attract concern regardless of who presents them. Nationalising a failing privatisation scheme would probably get some support, for example, but mass nationalisation based on ideology is a different matter.

...you don't think energy, water, and trains are failing? Energy especially, since half the firms just went bust and no Western European country with nationalised energy is experiencing the same level of price shocks that we are (and hells, France's energy is subsidised by their national provider generating profuts out of our system!). I would've thought that could be extremely popular, especially packaged in the form of "easy solution to difficult problem" that we know the voting public all love.

Puja

[Sandydragon]

So... my point is "leftist policies are popular, leftist people aren't" and your counter is to say that leftist people are unpopular, but their policies generally aren't?

Thats a big part of it. But equally too many leftish policies lumped together in a manifesto would attract concern regardless of who presents them. Nationalising a failing privatisation scheme would probably get some support, for example, but mass nationalisation based on ideology is a different matter.

...you don't think energy, water, and trains are failing?

Puja

Water is unchanged in my opinion. Grater investment then when it was nationalised but still not perfect.

Energy is interesting and the problem there in my opinion was the ability to set up energy providing firms without sufficient reserves. Even a national company would be setting high tariffs at the moment. Now if the government were going to subsidise bills that would be a significant impact but one which could be applied regardless of the ownership model.

Trains. Mixed bag in my honest opinion. Again we could (should) subsidise fares if we want to encourage greener travel. But some operators were pretty good (cost excepted); Virgin for example I never had any complaint for and I used them quite a bit. Their replacement company is less good in my opinion but better than BR used to be. Other train lines are less well served. Steping into ensure basic services where individual franchises have failed is one thing, but mass privatisation wouldn't be the solution. And Network Rail is a major part of the problem that can't be ignored in any evaluation. Network Rail is publicly owned so not a great advert for nationalisation.

[Sandydragon]

Here you go Puja, this fella agrees with you

https://unherd.com/2022/07/the-state-ha ... ccfb4669f8

In our age of crisis, the state has been reawakened, breaking the taboos of the past few decades. But it’s still an uphill climb. Over the past 40 years, there was broad political agreement that markets were not to be meddled with, and that the power of the state had to be reined in. Economists such as Milton Friedman argued that the overbearing nature of the Keynesian state had suffocated the entrepreneurial spirit, making workers lazy and entitled. Much of this situation, they claimed, was the result of intrusive government interfering with the smooth running of the free market.

Then, in the Eighties, Right-wing politicians such as Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan adopted this philosophy, taking aim at the “nanny state” that had supposedly led to the proliferation of “welfare queens”. They were followed by Third Way politicians like Bill Clinton and Tony Blair, who were convinced that the “era of big government is over” and the state’s power had to be reduced. Besides demolishing much of the welfare state, European state-owned enterprises that accounted for a significant chunk of national economies were also targeted. Companies such as British Gas, British Telecom, British Steel, and the railway sector were all privatised. But the aim of these policies was not merely a drive for efficiency; they were also designed to break the power of trade unions, while trying to turn Britain into a “shareholder society”.

Until a decade ago there was overwhelming support for this reining in of the power of the state, and in particular the privatisation of state-owned enterprises. But after the wave of repeated crises we have suffered since 2008, the public mood has changed considerably. According to YouGov, around 60% of British citizens now want to nationalise a UK rail sector infamous for its extortionate fares, and a similar number want to nationalise the energy sector. But it’s not only a matter of changing attitudes but also of political necessity. The current energy crisis is already forcing governments around Europe to consider bringing some energy companies under public ownership.

The Russian invasion of Ukraine has led to a severe rise in the price of oil and gas, with gas prices already increased by 52% by April 2022, and further hikes likely in the autumn. Now politicians are under heavy pressure to find rapid solutions that the market could not provide. Among the measures are releases of strategic reserves to increase supply by importing liquified natural gas from the US, striking gas deals with alternative suppliers from Algeria to Azerbaijan, and fast-tracking new Liquid Natural Gas (LNG) plants.

Governments were also forced to provide subsidies to families and companies to help with rising energy costs. In Britain, part of this was eventually covered through a windfall tax on corporate profits (totalling £5 billion): a common-sense policy given the profiteering going on in the energy sector. But even this intervention was met with disapproval by economists still convinced that the market should take its course, even if it destroys millions of jobs in the process. In preparation for the winter other measures are currently under discussion, including an EU-wide price cap.

Some governments have also been offering free or low-cost public transport to help address rising energy costs. In Germany, the government has launched a nine-euro-a-month ticket to travel across the entire country on local or regional trains during the summer. The initiative has been immensely successful, with train trips increasing by 50% and may even be continued as a “Klimaticket” to fight against carbon emissions. A similar scheme has been adopted by the Spanish government, with 100% discounts on multi-trip ticket journeys on local and regional services from September to December. These measures are all good palliatives, but the war in Ukraine has unearthed systemic fragilities in our economy and highlighted how free-market extremism has put countries’ economic and geopolitical security at risk, while slowing post-carbon transition.

Desperate to reverse this, some policymakers are now turning to more direct forms of state intervention: nationalisations. In France, Emmanuel Macron has launched a plan to bring back the energy giant EDF (which was part-privatised in 2005) under public control, at a cost of around €8 billion. The immediate motivation is to save from bankruptcy a company already laden with debt, which has only grown since Macron forced it to sell energy below market price to avoid an explosion of social unrest. But the nationalisation is also part of a more long-term plan that aims at securing France’s energy independence while meeting its climate transition targets. This comprises the building of six new nuclear power stations over the coming decades.

France isn’t alone in falling back on the state-ownership of strategic companies. In fact, we may well be at the beginning of a wave of nationalisations around Europe, with policymakers forced to reverse Thatcherite policies, by dint of necessity rather than ideology. The UK government has announced that it will part-nationalise the National Grid to help reach the Net Zero targets. Even the German government has mulled the possible nationalisation of energy firms at risk of going bankrupt, including Nord Stream 2. The reason is straightforward: it’s far easier to radically transform the energy sector by owning companies directly than by regulating them.

The real sticking point, however, remains public investment, given the enormous resources needed for the transition to a post-carbon and more secure energy supply that may help reduce prices. In Europe, the 2010s were a “lost decade”, when austerity policies led to a severe drop in public investment in key sectors including energy. But since the pandemic struck, we’ve seen a partial inversion of this self-defeating bean-counter mentality. The European Union Recovery Fund, which totals €800 billion, for instance, was a partial move away from this austerity orthodoxy, and came after a longstanding confrontation with the so-called Frugal Four (Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, and Austria).

But even still, it’s wholly insufficient to the challenge the continent faces. Worse, fiscal hawks such as Germany’s finance minister Christian Lindner are already calling for another bout of austerity, even while central banks are raising interest rates, which risks plunging our economies into deep recessions. In the US, even though Biden’s $1 billion Infrastructure Bill was passed, it still barely makes up for decades of public disinvestment, while more ambitious plans contained in the Build Back Better bill were scuppered because of opposition from centrist Democrats like Joe Manchin. Manchin, who is bankrolled by oil lobbies, insists that public investment would contribute to inflation, despite the fact that much of it is directed towards creating alternative streams of energy supply that may help reduce prices.

So while state interventionism is coming back, its return is far from complete. As economist Daniela Gabor has argued, what we’ve seen so far can be described as a “green derisking state”, in which governments attempt to guarantee financial markets against the liability of highly risky investments in the “green transition”.

What is instead required is a far more ambitious strategy — what Gabor calls a “green developmental state” — with governments heavily investing in energy transition and using state-owned companies as the driver of economic transformation. However, this requires moving beyond resorting to state interventionism as an emergency measure and safety net for market failure. It would mean rethinking our entire economic model, finally accepting that some sectors are best run by state-owned companies, and devising fruitful ways in which state and market can collaborate.

As the past decade has shown, there is no market solution to a problem that was created by prioritising the short-term convenience of the market over the long-term security of nations. If we want to avoid environmental disaster, economic decline and geopolitical blackmail, we need to move beyond the self-defeating fallacies of anti-statism.

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

[Which Tyler]

Thats a big part of it. But equally too many leftish policies lumped together in a manifesto would attract concern regardless of who presents them.

As far as I'm aware, that research hasn't been done; if I'm wrong, then absolutely feel free to correct me.
But as an unsupported assertion, claiming that combining popular policies together makes them unpopular is... quite the stretch.

Nationalising a failing privatisation scheme would probably get some support, for example, but mass nationalisation based on ideology is a different matter.

That's... not what the research on the issue suggests; though again, I don't know if that specific has been looked at.

[Puja]

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

[Stom]

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

As an aside, there is Free market competition on the train line between Oradea and Cluj in Romania. A private entity runs trains to supplement the state rail, and gets passengers. They compete on price, which is saying something as the prices are dirt compared to sky high British rail prices.

And on another point: I knew a lot of people who didn’t get the train in and around London because it’s too expensive. Poorer people get the bus, not the train. I know that was the case in north Wales, too. At least back when I was there.

[Sandydragon]

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

A key point here is that not all the franchises are failing. Some are woeful, no arguments there. Others are actually pretty good - Virgin was very good.

[Sandydragon]

I think he is missing the point here in that the issue is state investment, not necessarily ownership. the state could subsidise rail travel and force companies to reduce ticket prices accordingly. If the state nationalised rail travel then either it would charge customers the full price of travel or it would subsidise it and then have to find investment via taxation for improvements. BR wasn't known for its efficiency or comfort as I recall.

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

As an aside, there is Free market competition on the train line between Oradea and Cluj in Romania. A private entity runs trains to supplement the state rail, and gets passengers. They compete on price, which is saying something as the prices are dirt compared to sky high British rail prices.

And on another point: I knew a lot of people who didn’t get the train in and around London because it’s too expensive. Poorer people get the bus, not the train. I know that was the case in north Wales, too. At least back when I was there.

The price of the fare is far too high - but the only way to reduce that is for the government to subsidise by some means. The current model means that the railways cost the government nothing (or very little in the great scheme of things).

[Which Tyler]

The price of the fare is far too high - but the only way to reduce that is for the government to subsidise by some means. The current model means that the railways cost the government nothing (or very little in the great scheme of things).

£5.3 Billion p.a. (higher currently with HS2)
https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-d ... -railways/

[Puja]

Fair point, but are the current franchises any better? BR gets remembered as a failure after years of underinvestment brought it to its knees, but the franchises are also currently offering shit and inefficient service with massive public subsidies, while still finding the ability to pay significant profits to shareholders (again, some of which goes to benefit European nationalised rail providers, which is just galling).

I think rail is one of those things that the market is ill-equipped to do efficiently. In a pure free-market, most British railway services would not exist - they're expensive to run and maintain, carry significant risks, and don't produce a worthwhile profit, if at all. They're not something that is economically viable. However, from a holistic national perspective, they're hugely important - economic benefits from people commuting to jobs, economic benefits from reducing the strain on publically-owned road infrastructure, economic and social benefits from providing transport to poorer people without cars, green benefits from a carbon-efficient form of transport, etc. All these externalities that make it a great idea for the nation to have a train service, but offer bog-all profit to a company.

As such, given that it's not something that the market would provide as a profit-making industry and is only needed as a public good, I find it bizarre that it's something we've been chucking money at trying to fit to a free-market model, especially since it's an industry in which there can be no competition because it's not like I can jump on an East Anglian Rail train if First Great Western fail me.

Puja

As an aside, there is Free market competition on the train line between Oradea and Cluj in Romania. A private entity runs trains to supplement the state rail, and gets passengers. They compete on price, which is saying something as the prices are dirt compared to sky high British rail prices.

And on another point: I knew a lot of people who didn’t get the train in and around London because it’s too expensive. Poorer people get the bus, not the train. I know that was the case in north Wales, too. At least back when I was there.

The price of the fare is far too high - but the only way to reduce that is for the government to subsidise by some means. The current model means that the railways cost the government nothing (or very little in the great scheme of things).

The government actually pays more in subsidies to railways than British Rail used to cost. There are a few things muddying the waters there, including HS2, greater use in some areas, the fact that British Rail was chronically underfunded before its demise, but railways definitely don't cost the government "very little in the great scheme of things".

Ref: https://fullfact.org/economy/how-much-d ... -railways/

Personally, I would be in favour of the government subsidising tickets and eating the cost - yes, it'd be an upfront cost in an already strained budget, but I believe the research is there to show that it would earn a large chunk of it back in greater economic activity from people being able to travel easier.

Puja

[Mellsblue]

I suppose the research on whether a socialist/leftish manifesto is popular is nearly half a century of one not being voted into govt. The longest suicide note in history etc
As numerous commentators have pointed out, people will always like socialist policies in isolation - who doesn’t want more for less - but when put together with how they need to be paid for people tend to be less favourable.
I don’t see the logic behind calling capital investment, eg Crossrail and HS2, a subsidy. I suppose we could always go back to the Victorian model of letting private companies build the infrastructure? I make this last point as someone not wholly sold on the railways being privatised as I think the first rule of privatisation should be to provide competition, ie choice to the consumer.
On which note, and with a similar viewpoint, saying privatised utilities etc are flawed isn’t a bullet proof argument that they should be nationalised. As Sandy points out there’s a weight of history of evidence showing that nationalised provision has a myriad of its own problems. I currently work in the public sector and its slow moving and makes some terrible and illogical decisions based on party politics but also has numerous plus points. Ultimately, no system is perfect, just have to choose your poison. As Churchill possibly said, democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others that have been tried.