Has anyone seen or read this article which appears in the latest Passenger Transport?
www.passengertransport.co.uk/2013/04/eagle-vows-to-take-on-operators/
Without being too political, it seems Labour are keen on bringing back public transport into a Government backed Co-operative values type scheme, rather than the private enterprises and PLC's running train and bus services as they do now.
(10 Apr 2013, 6:47 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Has anyone seen or read this article which appears in the latest Passenger Transport?
www.passengertransport.co.uk/2013/04/eagle-vows-to-take-on-operators/
Without being too political, it seems Labour are keen on bringing back public transport into a Government backed Co-operative values type scheme, rather than the private enterprises and PLC's running train and bus services as they do now.
The Labour party are keen on doing everything and everything they refused to do in 13 years of government. When it comes to their shadow ministers and national policy forum, I won't hold my breath. That's coming from a party member.
Haha, I didnt want to get into politics, but seeing as you asked...
Seriously though, it might not be a vote winner, but the author seems to have some valid ideas and points.
Seeing as de-regulation hasn't really worked and privatisation of the trains hasn't been a roaring success - seen more recently with the failure on the wcml contracts and the insistence on putting the ecml back into private hands, coming up with alternatives like this makes interesting reading
(10 Apr 2013, 6:47 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Has anyone seen or read this article which appears in the latest Passenger Transport?
www.passengertransport.co.uk/2013/04/eagle-vows-to-take-on-operators/
Without being too political, it seems Labour are keen on bringing back public transport into a Government backed Co-operative values type scheme, rather than the private enterprises and PLC's running train and bus services as they do now.
I think there are only after peoples votes for the next election, there do it all the time, its always the opposing side saying if we get in we will do blah blah blah etc..., and when there do get in then its a different story, all politics and promises that never gets fullfilled.
Dont forget that when the government built the motorways and no one was using it then there decided to take freight off the railways and onto roads as there said it will be quicker to transport the goods where the railways dont go to and when the railways was losing money from this there decided to hit the public passenger by taking the trains off and tear up the rails, and now the councils wants these rail services back in the counties but it will cost and arm and a leg to pay for these which at the end of the day is not viable as it will take about 50 years for it to start paying into profit. Even though there must of forseen the population boom as there were handing out more cash to households who has more than 1 child for an incentive. Joining the EU was another barrier lifted from the gates of this country to welcome non british nationals. Dont forget for this country to join the EU, there was at least a couple of conditions that had to be made which was to give the fishing grounds to them across the water and also to give up the ship building so them across the water can build ships and not us.
(11 Apr 2013, 3:38 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Haha, I didnt want to get into politics, but seeing as you asked...
Seriously though, it might not be a vote winner, but the author seems to have some valid ideas and points.
Seeing as de-regulation hasn't really worked and privatisation of the trains hasn't been a roaring success - seen more recently with the failure on the wcml contracts and the insistence on putting the ecml back into private hands, coming up with alternatives like this makes interesting reading
Both are government lead initiatives/screw ups, so not exactly the Private Sectors fault.
I have the utmost respect for the author but the whole thing is froth in the current situation.
Both may be government lead initiatives/screw ups - but it is the private sector operators who have screwed up on more than one occasion.
Bus de-regulation was supposed to increase competition. Where locally has that happened? Who is at fault for that? The operators or the government?
On the railways, operators have jumped ship, had contracts cancelled or performed so poorly, that on renewal they are ignored from the bidding process.
Some operators don't even have enough staff to run services.
Your thread on the new Lord Adonis scheme mentions that the ferry should be reinstated back to Norway. Who cancelled that?
At the end of the day, unless there is some sort of benefit to shareholders, these private organisations are not going to break their neck to run services.
Several of the rail and bus operators are foreign owned, so the country see's very little of the profit.
DOR have made a fantastic success of the ecml and in turn generated £500m in profit to the Government. If managed properly, that is then reinvested into the service and other parts of the country/economy.
If DB or RATP win the next contract and make the same sort of profit, who benefits?
If Virgin win it, who benefits?
If things go wrong like it did with GNER or National Express, who picks up the pieces?
Froth or not, it needs looking at.
(11 Apr 2013, 4:40 pm)cbma06 wrote [ -> ] (10 Apr 2013, 6:47 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Has anyone seen or read this article which appears in the latest Passenger Transport?
www.passengertransport.co.uk/2013/04/eagle-vows-to-take-on-operators/
Without being too political, it seems Labour are keen on bringing back public transport into a Government backed Co-operative values type scheme, rather than the private enterprises and PLC's running train and bus services as they do now.
I think there are only after peoples votes for the next election, there do it all the time, its always the opposing side saying if we get in we will do blah blah blah etc..., and when there do get in then its a different story, all politics and promises that never gets fullfilled.
Dont forget that when the government built the motorways and no one was using it then there decided to take freight off the railways and onto roads as there said it will be quicker to transport the goods where the railways dont go to and when the railways was losing money from this there decided to hit the public passenger by taking the trains off and tear up the rails, and now the councils wants these rail services back in the counties but it will cost and arm and a leg to pay for these which at the end of the day is not viable as it will take about 50 years for it to start paying into profit. Even though there must of forseen the population boom as there were handing out more cash to households who has more than 1 child for an incentive. Joining the EU was another barrier lifted from the gates of this country to welcome non british nationals. Dont forget for this country to join the EU, there was at least a couple of conditions that had to be made which was to give the fishing grounds to them across the water and also to give up the ship building so them across the water can build ships and not us.
Those pesky tories eh?
Look at the mess they have left us in, time and time again.
Mind, at least they have an excellent transport infrastucture, extensive motorways and a brilliant rail network down south where it benefits them...
(11 Apr 2013, 9:47 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]Both may be government lead initiatives/screw ups - but it is the private sector operators who have screwed up on more than one occasion.
Bus de-regulation was supposed to increase competition. Where locally has that happened? Who is at fault for that? The operators or the government?
Government. They created a policy, implemented it and have failed to manage it's negative points effectively.
On the railways, operators have jumped ship, had contracts cancelled or performed so poorly, that on renewal they are ignored from the bidding process.
Some operators don't even have enough staff to run services.
These issues are contributed to by poor oversight. London Midland have failed to harmonise conditions and struggle now as staff leave for other operators
Your thread on the new Lord Adonis scheme mentions that the ferry should be reinstated back to Norway. Who cancelled that?
A private firm who cannot afford to run below certain revenue levels. If a connection is socially or economically vital, then there are options for the region to offer support. This has not been offered until now, so it has gone.
At the end of the day, unless there is some sort of benefit to shareholders, these private organisations are not going to break their neck to run services.
Several of the rail and bus operators are foreign owned, so the country see's very little of the profit.
If you fail to monitor the contract or create an inflexible system, then sadly you are not going to get the service that some may desire.
DOR have made a fantastic success of the ecml and in turn generated £500m in profit to the Government. If managed properly, that is then reinvested into the service and other parts of the country/economy.
If DB or RATP win the next contract and make the same sort of profit, who benefits?
If Virgin win it, who benefits?
If things go wrong like it did with GNER or National Express, who picks up the pieces?
Froth or not, it needs looking at.
Labour promised a few things in 1997 and reneged. This isnt even policy, so it is mostly froth.
Everyone benefits if the contract is specified and managed appropriately. It is a shame to see East Coast returned to the private sector because it is very profitable but it is even worse seeing a firm like Northern put back into private hands considering the amount of subsidy it requires.
The government can't be blamed for an operator deciding not to operate in an area. What are they supposed to do, force Arriva to operate in Washington?
They could have stopped GNE from buying out the smaller operators though.
As for the railways, you cant blame the Government for National Express putting in a massive offer and then realising they aren't making enough money. As a private enterprise, National Express are big enough to forcast profit and loss and determine their bid accordingly.
London Midland arent the first and wont be the last private operator to have staff shortages and cancel services.
As for DFDS, Im not sure they actually ran the service long enough to judge on profit/loss. Looking at how long the service ran for compared to the period of time they ran the service - as well as the books they will have analysed prior to purchase, Im not convinced the decision to cancel it was based only on economic reasons. Especially when they needed a ferry to accomodate the increasing numbers on the Amsterdam route and did so by selling the existing ferry and moving the Norway one to the different route...
(13 Apr 2013, 3:41 pm)Andreos1 wrote [ -> ]The government can't be blamed for an operator deciding not to operate in an area. What are they supposed to do, force Arriva to operate in Washington?
London operates a regulated market where local Government in the form of Transport for London decides who and what operates where.
As for the railways, you cant blame the Government for National Express putting in a massive offer and then realising they aren't making enough money. As a private enterprise, National Express are big enough to forcast profit and loss and determine their bid accordingly.
London Midland arent the first and wont be the last private operator to have staff shortages and cancel services.
You can't blame the government for National Express putting in the offer but you can certainly blame the government for accepting it, signing the contract and making the hurdles for leaving the contract too low.
As for DFDS, Im not sure they actually ran the service long enough to judge on profit/loss. Looking at how long the service ran for compared to the period of time they ran the service - as well as the books they will have analysed prior to purchase, Im not convinced the decision to cancel it was based only on economic reasons. Especially when they needed a ferry to accomodate the increasing numbers on the Amsterdam route and did so by selling the existing ferry and moving the Norway one to the different route...
It was all down to money. If the money is there, services will operate. A good local government will ask to see the books by hook or by crook if they consider it vital. This wasn't done. I think the frustration is that the hurdles for entering this market is just too high for a new entrant.
Thats right, Tfl was set up after LRT initially took control of public transport.
When buses were deregulated, the Government at the time decided to create an Act specifically for London. Nowhere else in the country was allowed anything like it until recently - hence the whole point of deregulation...
It has failed and now you have proposals like the QCS who realise deregulation was a disaster for the majority, bar a few shareholders.
By deregulating services - which was supposed to increase competition, the Government were giving the new operators the chance to operate wherever they wanted.
As I said earlier, you cant force Arriva to operate in Washington - but deregulation was set up to encourage it's predecessors to do so.
It can't be one, without the other.
Because of the nature of privatisation, what sort of message would it be giving the taxpayer, if the Government were to accept a low offer? They got their billions and because of that were confident of being able to justify the whole point of privatisation.
If National Express have put their case forward and convinced the Government they can make the railway work with their forcasts, what else can we do?
So bring everything back in house, let the Government generate all the profits and invest it back into the country.
GNER and National Express cant make money and saw ticket sales fall both before and during a recession - yet DOR increase profits and ticket sales...
Exactly and what more proof does anyone need that deregulation and privatisation has failed in this part of the world?
London has Tfl overseeing everything and has a great network. We have three organisations each with their own little patch and charging whatever they want - including £3.15 childs fares for an 30min journey down the road...
I can assure those doubters that the report is far from 'froth' or an election ploy.
As a party member the issue is being debated significantly within the party, and those pessimists forget that the last Labour Government continued the de-regulated consensus.
The proposals in the manifesto being drawn up over the next year, will offer a significant change, a radical one if you may want to call it that.
Competition has failed as monopolies have been accepted, the 'socialisation' or 'mutualisation' of buses will probably become a reality. It has done in London and nearly did in Manchester.
At this stage it's much better to look forward rather than back.
(13 Apr 2013, 10:44 pm)V802EBR wrote [ -> ]I can assure those doubters that the report is far from 'froth' or an election ploy.
As a party member the issue is being debated significantly within the party, and those pessimists forget that the last Labour Government continued the de-regulated consensus.
The proposals in the manifesto being drawn up over the next year, will offer a significant change, a radical one if you may want to call it that.
Competition has failed as monopolies have been accepted, the 'socialisation' or 'mutualisation' of buses will probably become a reality. It has done in London and nearly did in Manchester.
At this stage it's much better to look forward rather than back.
I am sorry to say this but your comments just reinforce that this is a puff piece. Yes, it might be a matter where there are views but if it still under debate, then it is nowhere near becoming policy. It would be an error to forget what Labour did last time.
The government would be sending a strong message out if it chose a feasible bid, rather than a bid based on dreams. The government can learn from its errors and identify the mistakes that were made in that process. It is a matter of evolving the process to take advantage of best practice and lessons learned.
It is very easy to brand private companies with the simple marker of greed but it takes two to tango, and if the government fails to look after the processes it has created, it shares the blame.
I'm not denying the New Labour made significant errors in transport policy. I was in no way saying that it's been solely the fault of the private sector.
However, at least the issue is being debated and something will come of it. Oh I can assure you the mistakes are far from accepted and forgotten. You can't expect a transport policy to be published now, criticize in 2014/5 not before its been formulated.
There does need to be change and now is the time to be vocal about what you would want to see.
Policy paper submitted by Labour, following a number of submissions from the likes of Unite and TSSA.
As I said earlier - the Government created
privatisation and to make it a success, they
accept the most attractive and sound bid. It
would be foolhardy of them to accept a bid
which is low and offers little return.
With the National Express offer, they obviously thought the bid was feasable... They need to convince the public that by selling
off railway access, that they can still generate
money for the treasury, whilst allegedly
allowing the paying passenger a choice of
operators. The model the privatisation was based on, was
from a Scandavian country - possibly Denmark
or Sweden, Im not 100% sure, but an EU Act
was put into play. However, a number of the
operators in that country were subsequently
declared bankrupt. Unfortunately, as with buses, there is usually
very little competition - just like we have with
the privatisation of the water and sewerage
network. Interesting (or just a coincedence) that when
SeaLink was sold off, its buyer was Sea
Containers - who also operated the ECML under
the GNER brand when it was first privatised. Whether you think this is froth or not, people
whether they are labour party members are
not (I aint) feel strongly about it - with the first
part of it debate.
Not sure what happened to previous post.
This is probably the best place to put it.
www.planetbods.org/blog/2011/10/26/where_the_nations_privatised_buses_went
Although some of the information in text isnt earth shattering, the graphs and charts illustrate what happened to public transport since deregulation and how the supposed competition which deregulation was supposed to open up, hasnt created anything other than a monopoly which lines the pockets of shareholders.