[gme]

In any case, improving rail services is only ever going to play really well among young urbanites and those commuters in the south east,

And everyone in the north, crying out for better rail services.

Maybe for commuters in the bigger cities, areas that generally didn’t vote Tory, but outside these rail is an irrelevance.
Average people in Blyth, Bishop, Redcar etc are not interested in the railways at all. Buses yes but not trains, most wont catch one in a year. Businesses in these areas would like improved services.
This is another example of labour focusing on the metropolitan areas too much.

I asked this question at work and 70% of my staff never use a train.

I guess I'm swayed by being in the northwest and the pretty good but expensive West Coast Mainline, but also the awful services of Northern and Trans Pennine. In the North West, public Transport is a big issue and it would make a big difference is the Conservative seats up here:

Altrincham and Sale
Bolton NE (Con Gain)
Bolton W
Bury N (Con Gain)
Bury S (Con Gain)
Cheadle
Hazel Grove
Heywood and Middleton (Con Gain)
Leigh (Con Gain)
Southport

There's 10 Conservative seats in Greater Manchester. 5 of which were gains at this election. Don't make the mistake of thinking the "North" is one homogeneous group. Not every policy has to resonate with every single voter.

https://yougov.co.uk/topics/transport/articles-reports/2018/12/31/four-ten-brits-havent-set-foot-train-last-12-month

I still think its an irrelevance to most people. See attached. Its important for less than 10 percent of the public who catch a train more than twice a month and i would hazard a guess a large percentage of those people are middle class white collar workers.

Everyone uses the NHS, most use the education system, a minority use the railways yet Labour seemed to spend a decent amount of time and effort going on about nationalising railways, something that would cost the 40+% who dont use it money and save money for the 10% who do, a majority of which can afford to pay.

[joeisidle]

In any case, improving rail services is only ever going to play really well among young urbanites and those commuters in the south east,

And everyone in the north, crying out for better rail services.

Maybe for commuters in the bigger cities, areas that generally didn’t vote Tory, but outside these rail is an irrelevance.
Average people in Blyth, Bishop, Redcar etc are not interested in the railways at all. Buses yes but not trains, most wont catch one in a year. Businesses in these areas would like improved services.
This is another example of labour focusing on the metropolitan areas too much.

I asked this question at work and 70% of my staff never use a train.

I guess I'm swayed by being in the northwest and the pretty good but expensive West Coast Mainline, but also the awful services of Northern and Trans Pennine. In the North West, public Transport is a big issue and it would make a big difference is the Conservative seats up here:

Altrincham and Sale
Bolton NE (Con Gain)
Bolton W
Bury N (Con Gain)
Bury S (Con Gain)
Cheadle
Hazel Grove
Heywood and Middleton (Con Gain)
Leigh (Con Gain)
Southport

There's 10 Conservative seats in Greater Manchester. 5 of which were gains at this election. Don't make the mistake of thinking the "North" is one homogeneous group. Not every policy has to resonate with every single voter.

On a personal/professional area of interest...

Personally I'm in the camp that views the focus in Labour's campaign on the nationalisation of rail as a bit of an emblematic own goal. Research typically shows that lower income groups typically gravitate towards bus provision rather than rail (for example, but by no means limited to; https://www.ucl.ac.uk/transport/sites/transport/files/transport-poverty.pdf) and my perception has been that in recent years transport interventions have typically been increasingly focused into the main city regions driving regional growth, whilst many bus services (particularly in more remote areas) have been increasingly cut over the same time. This arguably ties into increasing focus at a city-region level on prioritising transport interventions where it will 'unlock growth' which is rarely a small north-eastern town and more often than not tends to be central locations within city regions which Labour have been better at holding onto in 2017/2019.

Obviously this is just a tiny part of a much wider problem about how Labour communicates its policy promises, but if you were sympathetic to the idea that Labour only cared about metropolitan university cities, Corybn's focus on rail nationalisation could help to reinforce that view. Appreciate that the manifesto (all 100+ pages of it) had measures in about nationalising buses etc. but can't recall hearing that on national news, whereas I definitely heard the pledge to nationalise rail coming out multiple times. Just my impression so might be wrong on that though - made an effort to not seek out leader's speeches in the lead-up to the election so could well be wrong.

[Nutty]

Even as someone who commutes by train most days, the nationalisation policy isn't one that grabbed me. We've recently had new rolling stock and longer trains on our line so I get a seat unless there are severe problems. Obviously I'd like to pay less for my season ticket, but should that be subsidised through tax?

The most severe delays are always due to people jumping in front of trains - nationalisation isn't going to fix that sadly. Other than that, it's signalling failures (which is Network Rail, not the train operating companies) or strikes - unions - (not as much of an issue on my line, but certainly an issue on Southern / South Western).

[gme]

A far better written and obviously more knowledgeable response than mine but saying the same thing.

I think labours obsession with nationalising everything is folly. Its something thats easy to get people to agree to and support as they think it will make everything both better and cheaper, which it obviously wont. Whats needed is investment and that costs money who ever is running things. I think the ludicrous proposal to nationalise broadband and give it away for free made a lot of people doubt the other stuff.

I personally think that nationalising the water industry and setting up a nationalised green energy provider to really push this area forward would be worth looking at, the rest not.

To give people what they think they are going to gain from nationalising rail  (more trains, more seats, on time, more guards AND cheaper fairs) will cost tens of billions even after you have taken back the, what are in the grand scheme of things, negligible profits the franchisees make at the minute. This will then have to be paid for in taxes by the majority of people, who hardly ever catch trains, to make it better and cheaper for 10% of the population who do, as per my earlier link.

If this was spelled out more clearly i suspect you would not have as much support for nationalisation of the railways.

[Paul B]

I personally think that nationalising the water industry and setting up a nationalised green energy provider to really push this area forward would be worth looking at, the rest not.

Out of interest why? Specifically the water industry.

[Davo]

I believe (happy to be corrected) that we are pretty much the only country in the world with a privatised water industry? Not really sure why it was privatised in the first place. I am not sure that the private sector is the right organiser if this one.

[Paul B]

I believe (happy to be corrected) that we are pretty much the only country in the world with a privatised water industry? Not really sure why it was privatised in the first place. I am not sure that the private sector is the right organiser if this one.

I've typed three responses to this and deleted them all. Do you mind expanding on this?

[gme]

I personally think that nationalising the water industry and setting up a nationalised green energy provider to really push this area forward would be worth looking at, the rest not.

Out of interest why? Specifically the water industry.

Everyone uses it in a reasonably similar amount. I believe its highly profitable to the owners unlike rail and these profits are big enough to make a difference when reinvested.

Energy is another option for similar reason but the supply end is not as profitable as it was. However i think the idea of setting up a nationalised renewable sector to compete would be a better option and we could become the leaders in the field unconnected to, and unrestrained by, the oil and gas industry.

Regarding both though i dont think they would make it cheaper for the users as i believe we have reasonably priced energy and water prices compared to most of Europe. Again something i think the whole idea is sold on.

[Davo]

I believe (happy to be corrected) that we are pretty much the only country in the world with a privatised water industry? Not really sure why it was privatised in the first place. I am not sure that the private sector is the right organiser if this one.

I've typed three responses to this and deleted them all. Do you mind expanding on this?

To be honest I think GME’s answer covers all I think about it. I have no real fixed opinions about this. It just seems different to rail (basically lots of people rarely use the train), everyone needs water, it seems like a common good like the roads (which we all pay for via taxation) and requires massive infrastructure investment and forward planning. All of those features make me feel as if the private sector is not a good way of running the water industry.

[tomtom]

It’s not labours policies that lost the election - it was the leader and leadership (or lack thereof).

Re water privatisation. It’s worth remembering that this isn’t privatisation in the sense there is completion. It’s replacing a monopoly with an oligopoly (I think!). Privatisation works if the regulator is effective - informed - and makes sensible decisions. I think OFWAT is weak - and run by ex water industry officials (who arguably understand the sector - but you could argue have vested interests). 

[Will Hunt]

I work in the water industry but am afraid to say that I don't have a great understanding of the finances in terms of how we raise revenue from private investment and how this might be done differently. My area is environmental regulation. I'd like to know more if anyone has any reading to suggest.

When I first entered the company I was against the idea of privatisation because, well, it's water, right? You shouldn't make profit from that.

But. My limited understanding of privatisation is that you attract investment by selling a share of the company (you get a lump sum from the purchaser) and paying an annual dividend, from which the shareholder will hope to eventually see a profit. Kind of the same as borrowing and paying interest on the loan, right? And if the dividends are affordable and worth the investment you get then that's fine, right? I expect that if the industry had had to pay for all its capital investment from privatisation to now then it either wouldn't have happened or bills would have been significantly higher.

Is it so different from borrowing? Governments tend to be able to borrow at very low rates of interest, so maybe we'd be able to borrow at better rates than selling shares. I don't know whether this would be the case or if it would be significant.

My view of OFWAT is that they are not weak. We would like to have more money to fund all the things that we must and should do (not the same thing: we must meet environmental standards, we should maintain our asset base to minimise leakage and pollution), but OFWAT routinely give us less than we ask for. Part of that is the fair scrutiny and challenge that must come with regulated monopolies, but there is a disconnect. The Environment Agency set the environmental agenda, we must also satisfy the needs of the Drinking Water Inspectorate and the HSE, but these institutions are not OFWAT and it does feel that our regulators are asking us to do an extraordinary amount of work and OFWAT are putting the brakes on funding due to political pressure. Ultimately, if we fail to deliver because we weren't properly funded then OFWAT will simply say that we're too inefficient. Where's the scrutiny back to them to see if they allowed politics decisions overcome good judgement?

One of my concerns about nationalisation is how the company might run as a government/Council body. I have plenty of experience dealing with the Environment Agency and I would love nothing more to write a long rant detailing some of their problems. I never cease to be astounded by some of their decisions and behaviours. I really really want to write it but I post here under my real name so I shall bite my tongue. I will go as far as to say that sometimes it is like dealing with The Ministry of Truth.

[tomtom]

Of course the water companies could just not make any money/dividends for their shareholders 😱😃

Let’s do the same for the Police. And the fire service. And the Ambulance service.

Or chunks of the NHS - hell why not all of it!!

[Will Hunt]

I totally understand that, TT. Had we been sat here discussing this in the late 1980s I would be arguing against I privatisation - probably as a simple matter of principle. However, it's happened and given that the state would need to buy the industry back at great expense, I wonder whether it actually represents value for money since if we don't get capital privately we'll certainly have to pass the cost to the billpayer or the treasury's debt sheet. Plus the day to day working issues that go with being an arm of the state.

YW made something like £260m profit last year. Its a lot of money on paper, but getting rid of that isn't a magic wand that would pay for everything we need, quite apart from the fact that stopping dividends would stop investment.

[Will Hunt]

TL;DR: maybe we should/shouldn't nationalise - I don't know. But it's not as simple as nationalised good/cheap; privatised bad/expensive.

[tomtom]

With water the whole ‘investment’ thing is a bit of a fallacy iirc/afaik.

Water co. Submits five year plan to Ofwat (amp plan) saying we want to do x, y. z to keep things running smoothly. This will mean an extra £20 per bill (or even a reduction) etc... and Ofwat say yes or no. So Water co stumps up the ££ to start with but then makes it all back. And makes a profit.

I dunno - there’s something fucked up if European governments own our water companies because the income is so decent...

[Will Hunt]

Thread split? The issue of privatisation is an interesting one. We talk about it most in the NHS but what does that actually mean? I think we think it means that we lose free care at the point of need, or moving to an insurance model which we obviously have to fight against tooth and nail.
People talk about Tony Blair privatising the NHS - what did he privatise and what was the impact? Is the NHS not always going to subject to some element of privatisation? They're always going to put construction contracts out to tender etc. Where is the right place to draw the line and why is that?

There's loads of doctors on here. It would be good to hear what they think about it.

[James Malloch]

Thread split? The issue of privatisation is an interesting one. We talk about it most in the NHS but what does that actually mean? I think we think it means that we lose free care at the point of need, or moving to an insurance model which we obviously have to fight against tooth and nail.
People talk about Tony Blair privatising the NHS - what did he privatise and what was the impact? Is the NHS not always going to subject to some element of privatisation? They're always going to put construction contracts out to tender etc. Where is the right place to draw the line and why is that?

There's loads of doctors on here. It would be good to hear what they think about it.

I think of things like ambulance services being ran by a private company.  They deal with everything and the service could be of a same level, but the cost of running the service would be more expensive, thus impacting the NHS budget.

No idea how this is all run in reality but it's one example I've seen mentioned (possibly hypothetical).

[Oldmanmatt]

No, don’t split, it’s part of the reality around which we choose how we vote.

[Oldmanmatt]

Thread split? The issue of privatisation is an interesting one. We talk about it most in the NHS but what does that actually mean? I think we think it means that we lose free care at the point of need, or moving to an insurance model which we obviously have to fight against tooth and nail.
People talk about Tony Blair privatising the NHS - what did he privatise and what was the impact? Is the NHS not always going to subject to some element of privatisation? They're always going to put construction contracts out to tender etc. Where is the right place to draw the line and why is that?

There's loads of doctors on here. It would be good to hear what they think about it.

I think of things like ambulance services being ran by a private company.  They deal with everything and the service could be of a same level, but the cost of running the service would be more expensive, thus impacting the NHS budget.

No idea how this is all run in reality but it's one example I've seen mentioned (possibly hypothetical).

This isn’t necessarily the case, in fact it often isn’t.

Civilian emergency services, suffer many of the same ills that are troubling the Military right now.

If things go to plan, I’ll be taking on a role with the RN in the new year, dealing with exactly these things.

I’m going to use RN Marine engineers as an example, because that’s my bag, but you could substitute “Fireman” or “Paramedic” etc etc, into the following and it would largely read true.

There have been cut backs. The RN decided (actually the MOD forced...) to get rid of Technicians, move to a “repair by replacement” model, train the operators to swap out components and contract manufacturers to maintain etc etc.

Training an Engineer is expensive and time consuming and RN pensions are rather nice.

It doesn’t work.

People got pissed off with it not working and suddenly all the senior Engineers realised they could make more money in better conditions, outside.

Around seven years ago they reach crisis point with manpower. They utilised foreign personnel to stopgap and keep assets operational. US,Can and Aus Navy Engineers came in on loan (good training for them). That arrangement came to an end and now there is a huge crisis.

So, they have reinstated their apprenticeship scheme (like wot I did back in the ‘80s), but it takes 6 years and ~£750k of training to be competent/qualified (it’s an undergrad app). And thats to produce a junior Tech, and doesn’t include feeding and paying them.

That’s a junior Tech.

A senior Engineer, an Engineering Officer, takes about 12 years and almost £2M to produce.

And so on.

When you offload those costs to the private sector and the subsequent pension liabilities, the savings can be huge, even if the apparent “daily rate” seems higher.

This is not an in depth analysis, just an outline.

[Will Hunt]

With water the whole ‘investment’ thing is a bit of a fallacy iirc/afaik.

Water co. Submits five year plan to Ofwat (amp plan) saying we want to do x, y. z to keep things running smoothly. This will mean an extra £20 per bill (or even a reduction) etc... and Ofwat say yes or no. So Water co stumps up the ££ to start with but then makes it all back. And makes a profit.

I dunno - there’s something fucked up if European governments own our water companies because the income is so decent...

Unfortunately here ends my knowledge. I think expected investment is factored in during the price review and bills adjusted accordingly? Could be wrong.

[Will Hunt]

That sounds very much like nursing, Matt. Cut the service and the training bursary and see training rates of nurses in the UK plummet. Fly in a load of Spanish nurses with relocation packages who are lovely but who are probably not going to stay around forever (unless of course they fall in love with Bradford's climate and culture and decide to stay).

Then make a load of campaign promises about 50,000 new nurses while wards are closing or just shut because there isn't anyone to staff them.

[Paul B]

Apologies for the delay in responding (I went climbing). Will and TomTom have given a decent amount of detail about OFWAT/AMPs etc. in the meantime.

Regarding both though i dont think they would make it cheaper for the users as i believe we have reasonably priced energy and water prices compared to most of Europe. Again something i think the whole idea is sold on.

I don't think we have 'reasonably' priced water I think we pay far less than we perhaps should. If you consider the infrastructure (and energy) required to get water from whichever catchment it happens to fall, via an impounding system, through to treatment and then a (clean water) main to your tap and then from your waste, through a sewer, to treatment (whilst also dealing with storm water) before final discharge, and that a fair amount of that infrastructure is in less than great condition, you may understand where I'm coming from.

Will mentioned the YWS profit; I remember pointing this out whenever (last year?) there was a 'dry weather event' in the NW (N.B. don't call it a drought when working for a water company or on their behalf) and everyone was kicking off about profits / wages for upper management and the fact they hadn't fixed whatever leak joe public had already pointed out to them etc.; that kind of money simply doesn't go far.

Likewise with respect to wages, there are some tough decisions to be made by these people. There's one I'm aware of which relates to the last project I worked on and I simply wouldn't want to make that call (or you'd have to pay me a significant amount of FAs).

It's a shame our paths don't cross at the board any longer as I could explain the various things I'm alluding to better.

[gme]

Apologies for the delay in responding (I went climbing). Will and TomTom have given a decent amount of detail about OFWAT/AMPs etc. in the meantime.

Regarding both though i dont think they would make it cheaper for the users as i believe we have reasonably priced energy and water prices compared to most of Europe. Again something i think the whole idea is sold on.

I don't think we have 'reasonably' priced water I think we pay far less than we perhaps should. If you consider the infrastructure (and energy) required to get water from whichever catchment it happens to fall, via an impounding system, through to treatment and then a (clean water) main to your tap and then from your waste, through a sewer, to treatment (whilst also dealing with storm water) before final discharge, and that a fair amount of that infrastructure is in less than great condition, you may understand where I'm coming from.

Will mentioned the YWS profit; I remember pointing this out whenever (last year?) there was a 'dry weather event' in the NW (N.B. don't call it a drought when working for a water company or on their behalf) and everyone was kicking off about profits / wages for upper management and the fact they hadn't fixed whatever leak joe public had already pointed out to them etc.; that kind of money simply doesn't go far.

Likewise with respect to wages, there are some tough decisions to be made by these people. There's one I'm aware of which relates to the last project I worked on and I simply wouldn't want to make that call (or you'd have to pay me a significant amount of FAs).

It's a shame our paths don't cross at the board any longer as I could explain the various things I'm alluding to better.

I used the term reasonably priced to avoid being shot down. I actually think it’s really cheap. Sits about avg in the EU.
I also only said if they want to nationalise anything then water is the one they should look at. Not into nationalisation at all really.
I think most people will just happily agree to it without actually thinking about what it will do for them. Labour only ever point out the shit bits and add a bit of smash the rich rhetoric to get a where do I sign reaction.
It’s the policy they had that I really didn’t like as I don’t think it’s that important.

I think I read that if all the utilities were nationalised we would be £220 better off per year. Big deal and not worth the additional debt payments and liability.

[Paul B]

Rail piqued my interest (mainly because my father in law kept telling me how it couldn't be achieved as it was against EU regulations; it turns out this is inaccurate). I commute ~50mins by car to Preston. The train isn't a viable alternative really as I need to get the 1Mi to the station, take a train to Blackburn, change and then get a train to Preston (this one takes some time out on the journey). It takes 1H20 ish which is an hour a day extra. When combined with my need to go to site from time to time and working from home once a week the passes don't stack up as viable. Therefore, I choose the car. It struck me that such measures might convince more people to use the train which has other benefits (financially and green). However, I fully admit I fall into your earlier "can afford it" category.

[TobyD]

People talk about Tony Blair privatising the NHS - what did he privatise and what was the impact? Is the NHS not always going to subject to some element of privatisation?

I'm not a doctor, but I'm an NHS physio. Privatisation is, as far as I can see, essential to a functional healthcare service. It has been a benefit to reducing waiting lists, allowing trusts to buy services from (in theory) the best value provider. Auxiliary services such as catering, cleaning, maintenance and equipment provision seem better suited to smaller specialist services and companies, allowing trusts to concentrate (in theory...) on improving front line healthcare.
Blair managed to get new hospitals built quickly, but the fact that they were PFI contracts and not well considered meant they have ended up being poor value for money.
I briefly worked in a private hospital in Malaysia, and it was a seriously depressing experience for many reasons best summed up as the flagrant cynicism of the company that ran it. Everything seemed set up solely to extract money from people at every opportunity. Staff were encouraged to give rather pointless treatments to incur higher bills etc etc. So I'd hate to see this sort of thing, but elements of private provision are in my opinion, good.

All that said, I'm not sure many people vote on the basis of privatising anything, definitely not utilities. I really don't think most people care very much either way.

However millions of people will vote on the basis of whether the leader is funny, seems like 'one of us' or conversely, if he or she looks shit on TV or a social media video clip.