Nationalise the railways!

[Tamas]

A state run can be as ineffective and corrupt as it dares to be forever, because there is no end of tax money and especially loaned bond money.

Only of you let it. If you have a properly functioning democracy, the level of inefficiency you speak of is a major scandal that ends political and professional careers; which means that there is a significant incentive to avoid just that.

yes. And I am well aware there are degrees of difference between different political cultures. But at the end of the day, we are still talking about a system with that inherent danger built into it.

[Brazen]

Train service, stock and rails are much improved over when I was a youth. The problem is the exorbitant and arcane pricing - your ticket could easily cost five times as much as that of the person sitting next to you taking the same journey depending on when, where and how you booked it.

[Jacob]

yes. And I am well aware there are degrees of difference between different political cultures. But at the end of the day, we are still talking about a system with that inherent danger built into it.

Certainly, there are risks to state run services and industries, and the risk of inefficiency and corruption are among them. The proper response to that is to ensure there is a proper regulatory framework and oversight, and to inculcate a good institutional culture; not to completely eschew state run enterprises due to this risk. And whether public or private is best depends on a number of possible factors; when it comes to public goods and public policy cost and efficiency are not the only factors that matter (though cheap and efficient is preferable whee all else is equal).

I'm not even arguing that UK railways should be nationalized, but your categorical universal claims about the inevitable corruption inherent in state run anything everywhere is as silly as you make Tyr's claims out to be.

Basically it seems you've been traumatized by the Hungarian experience and that has damaged you ability to assess risk in other environments.

[Maladict]

your ticket could easily cost five times as much as that of the person sitting next to you taking the same journey depending on when, where and how you booked it.

That's one of the most mindboggling things I've tried to make sense of in the UK.
Peak and off-peak I can understand, the rest just seems to be devoid of any logic.

[Sheilbh]

Production of fuel is not a public service?

Of course not. It was publicly owned but no more a public service than BAE or Rolls Royce were.

I agree with Jacob. Polling on corruption has British people as cynical and suspicious as in Italy, but evidence of actual corruption has us at the same level as Scandinavia.

I think the worst argument against nationalising the railways is that it would lead to our politicians enriching themselves. We had the largest state involvement in the Western world until a few decades ago and there wasn't that sort of corruption - just inefficiency, waste and exacerbation of Britain's low productivity. Having said that I think the worst argument for nationalising them is that we'll get a better service out of people feeling their public service employees

It is worth remembering as well that the rails have been re-nationalised. It's the rolling stock that's privatised I think.

Train service, stock and rails are much improved over when I was a youth. The problem is the exorbitant and arcane pricing - your ticket could easily cost five times as much as that of the person sitting next to you taking the same journey depending on when, where and how you booked it.

That was what your article was about, no? 

[Admiral Yi]

Of course not. It was publicly owned but no more a public service than BAE or Rolls Royce were.

By what arcane interpretation is rail transport a public service then, and these others are not?

[Barrister]

The Danish National Railways are state owned, and are pretty decent and corruption free. Both Canada and Denmark have numerous examples of well functioning state-run enterprises and bodies that are not the locus of clientism and corruption, and are not treated as piggy banks to be raided by well-connected oligarchs.

I don't expect that it's a genetic difference; perhaps it is one of political and public culture? In any case, I don't think it's reasonable to apply the lessons from the apparent clusterfucks in Hungary to well functioning modern states.

Tell me you didn't just cite Via Rail as a "well functioning state-run enterprise".

[Sheilbh]

By what arcane interpretation is rail transport a public service then, and these others are not?

Well for a start it provides a service to the public

There's still a couple of public service elements to the privatised train services. They're contractually required to run certain routes even if they're non-economic.

[Admiral Yi]

Well for a start it provides a service to the public

OK, the distinction between goods and services.  Fair enough.

The next question for Squeeze then is: do only public *services* benefit from the efficiency and customer service advantages, or does it extend to publicly provided goods as well?  If not, what explains the difference?

[Gups]

And what does it matter.

Do people suddenly become more effecient and less corruptible when you tell them they are providing a public service rather than working in industry?

Anyway, the most significant problem with the UK reailways is the short-term franchising system (generally 7 years per franchise) which incentivised squeezing as much as possible and gaming the system and discourages infrastructure investment by operators.

The one example of a long franchise being granted (Chiltern) has led to the best run railway in the country.

And there's no need for the franchise system to be restricted to the private sector. Governmental bodies are allowed to bid as well - TfL run the fanchises (sub-contracting to an operator) for a number of railway lines. I think Merseytravel do as well.

[Jacob]

Tell me you didn't just cite Via Rail as a "well functioning state-run enterprise".

I didn't. Did you miss the "Danish" part of the Danish National Railways?

[Valmy]

Do people suddenly become more effecient and less corruptible when you tell them they are providing a public service rather than working in industry?

No.  Which is why contract privatization does not typically improve things at all and generally governments in the US do it simply to keep from paying employee benefits rather than seeing it as an increase of efficiency. 

[Brazen]

your ticket could easily cost five times as much as that of the person sitting next to you taking the same journey depending on when, where and how you booked it.

That's one of the most mindboggling things I've tried to make sense of in the UK.
Peak and off-peak I can understand, the rest just seems to be devoid of any logic.

I touched on it in an article I wrote a while back, but I'm still none the wiser.

http://www.newstatesman.com/business/2013/03/how-getting-low-down-rail-fares-might-make-passengers-worse

People better informed than I try to make sense of it. Yes, you have to do all this to attempt to find a cheap fare:

http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/travel/cheap-train-tickets

[Jacob]

And what does it matter.

Do people suddenly become more effecient and less corruptible when you tell them they are providing a public service rather than working in industry?

Anyway, the most significant problem with the UK reailways is the short-term franchising system (generally 7 years per franchise) which incentivised squeezing as much as possible and gaming the system and discourages infrastructure investment by operators.

The one example of a long franchise being granted (Chiltern) has led to the best run railway in the country.

And there's no need for the franchise system to be restricted to the private sector. Governmental bodies are allowed to bid as well - TfL run the fanchises (sub-contracting to an operator) for a number of railway lines. I think Merseytravel do as well.

You make it sound like the system is relatively fixable as is. How accepted/controversial is your analysis? Is there any kind of political will to act on it?

[Sheilbh]

And what does it matter.

Do people suddenly become more effecient and less corruptible when you tell them they are providing a public service rather than working in industry?

Exactly. It's a bit 'our NHS is the envy of the world'.

On the other hand privatising something doesn't necessarily lead to a more efficient or better service either - see ATOS, Capita, G4S, Serco. I don't really think it's worth being wed to one or the other.