This article is from the source 'guardian' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.
You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2017/jan/06/southern-discomfort-fuels-call-to-renationalise-the-railways
The article has changed 2 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.
Previous version
1
Next version
| Version 0 | Version 1 |
|---|---|
| Southern discomfort fuels call to renationalise the railways | Southern discomfort fuels call to renationalise the railways |
| (about 17 hours later) | |
| Rafael Behr mentions false memory regarding the old British Rail (Rail chiefs and unions: can passengers trust either, 4 January), a condition he appears to suffer from himself. He writes that BR was synonymous with shabbiness. Really? In 1993, InterCity, the flagship, was rated by passengers at 95% in this regard (The InterCity Story, 1994). Customer satisfaction at service levels was at 98%, and the company made a profit for the six years to 1994, when it was privatised, despite the huge distractions of that process. Which privatised rail company has since delivered these levels of success? To equate BR with Southern Rail is a calumny.Dr John CarlisleSheffield | |
| • Rafael Behr correctly identifies the market failures at the heart the rail network. However, he wrongly dismisses public ownership as a solution to these failures, and misreads the reasons why the public support such a policy. On the first point, public ownership works. When the east coast line was in public ownership it was the most efficient franchise in the system, returning £1bn to the Treasury. If the whole network was in public ownership, it would save £1.2bn a year – that’s money that could be used to invest in network improvements or reduce fares. Across Europe, too, public ownership works. So Mr Behr is wrong to write off those of us who want the railways in public ownership as ideological. Rather it is those who continue to push privatisation (mostly just train companies and government ministers) that remain wrongly committed to failed economic mantras of the 1980s. They need to catch up. | • Rafael Behr correctly identifies the market failures at the heart the rail network. However, he wrongly dismisses public ownership as a solution to these failures, and misreads the reasons why the public support such a policy. On the first point, public ownership works. When the east coast line was in public ownership it was the most efficient franchise in the system, returning £1bn to the Treasury. If the whole network was in public ownership, it would save £1.2bn a year – that’s money that could be used to invest in network improvements or reduce fares. Across Europe, too, public ownership works. So Mr Behr is wrong to write off those of us who want the railways in public ownership as ideological. Rather it is those who continue to push privatisation (mostly just train companies and government ministers) that remain wrongly committed to failed economic mantras of the 1980s. They need to catch up. |
| On the second, the public do care about structures and ownership. In 2015, YouGov polling on exactly this issue found that the “whatever works” that Mr Behr promotes is in fact the least popular option of all. A clear majority favour public ownership in almost all public services. Continuing to promote such tired third-way tropes like “whatever works” completely misreads the situation and does a disservice to the vast majority who want to see publicly owned and run public services. | |
| Lastly, in framing the debate about rail privatisation as a “rail chiefs v unions” issue, you actually sideline even further the passengers you claim are stuck in the middle. The majority of the public (58%) think privatisation has been a failure. Just 13% think it has been a success. The public, not Mr Behr, seem to have a good grasp of the situation – they just aren’t being listened to.Matthew BramallCampaigner, We Own It | Lastly, in framing the debate about rail privatisation as a “rail chiefs v unions” issue, you actually sideline even further the passengers you claim are stuck in the middle. The majority of the public (58%) think privatisation has been a failure. Just 13% think it has been a success. The public, not Mr Behr, seem to have a good grasp of the situation – they just aren’t being listened to.Matthew BramallCampaigner, We Own It |
| • Re Rafael Behr’s comments that the usual point of striking, which is to deprive the bosses of income, doesn’t apply to a privatised rail franchise, has he being paying attention to any of the other significant industrial disputes that have occurred over the last few years? This statement is equally applicable to the junior doctors, the teachers, the firefighters and the numerous other public-sector workers who have taken to the picket lines to defend their terms and conditions against a political class that has decided they can no longer be justified while refusing to make similar sacrifices themselves. In each case, the impact of the strikes has been felt predominately by service users, not by the politicians and mandarins who run the services. Although inconveniencing the public through such action is regrettable, the only alternative faced by these workers would have been to simply accept changes that leave them worse off and ultimately lead to a denigration of the services they proudly deliver. While such a solution may be beneficial for Mr Behr’s commute in the short term, I for one am glad that there are still workers who maintain both the right and the will to take action to defend both decent jobs and the services we all rely on.Andy PrendergastSenior organiser, GMB | • Re Rafael Behr’s comments that the usual point of striking, which is to deprive the bosses of income, doesn’t apply to a privatised rail franchise, has he being paying attention to any of the other significant industrial disputes that have occurred over the last few years? This statement is equally applicable to the junior doctors, the teachers, the firefighters and the numerous other public-sector workers who have taken to the picket lines to defend their terms and conditions against a political class that has decided they can no longer be justified while refusing to make similar sacrifices themselves. In each case, the impact of the strikes has been felt predominately by service users, not by the politicians and mandarins who run the services. Although inconveniencing the public through such action is regrettable, the only alternative faced by these workers would have been to simply accept changes that leave them worse off and ultimately lead to a denigration of the services they proudly deliver. While such a solution may be beneficial for Mr Behr’s commute in the short term, I for one am glad that there are still workers who maintain both the right and the will to take action to defend both decent jobs and the services we all rely on.Andy PrendergastSenior organiser, GMB |
| • There are three parties to the Southern Rail dispute, not two. Normally, though nothing is normal in our dysfunctional railway system, the rail company keeps the ticket revenue and pays the government a contract fee. With Southern, the government keeps the ticket revenue and pays Southern an agreed contract fee, whether it runs any services or not. So there is no financial imperative for Southern to resolve the dispute. It’s the government that wants to prolong this dispute as it sees this as an opportunity to hang out to dry two of the last unions that still have some industrial muscle.Michael GoldGreen candidate for Walthamstow 2015 | • There are three parties to the Southern Rail dispute, not two. Normally, though nothing is normal in our dysfunctional railway system, the rail company keeps the ticket revenue and pays the government a contract fee. With Southern, the government keeps the ticket revenue and pays Southern an agreed contract fee, whether it runs any services or not. So there is no financial imperative for Southern to resolve the dispute. It’s the government that wants to prolong this dispute as it sees this as an opportunity to hang out to dry two of the last unions that still have some industrial muscle.Michael GoldGreen candidate for Walthamstow 2015 |
| • With regard to Samantha Renke’s recent experience travelling on Virgin Trains and the facilities available to disabled passengers (Report, 4 January), I recall that when Jeremy Corbyn went public with complaints of overcrowding on a Virgin train, Richard Branson was very quick to release CCTV footage refuting the accusations. In a spirit of openness and fairness, perhaps Richard could arrange to release CCTV pictures of this latest incident just as quickly, to allow us to see what happened and make up our own minds about the overcrowding issues on Virgin trains. I won’t hold my breath.Vernon DoddRadcliffe-on-Trent, Nottinghamshire | |
| • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com | • Join the debate – email guardian.letters@theguardian.com |
| • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters | • Read more Guardian letters – click here to visit gu.com/letters |
Previous version
1
Next version