|
|
|
|
|
by TheOtherHobbes
899 days ago
|
|
The former British Rail was cheaper to run, cheaper to use, and provided a better service which integrated service delivery, maintenance. engineering, and national R&D (with valuable IP which was given away for nothing after privatisation.) It was often joked about because it was underfunded and run down, but in financial terms it was hugely efficient. The ideology isn't really about "free markets", it's about giving public money to donors, cronies, and - bizarrely - foreign businesses, because much of the privatised network is foreign-owned. In fact the ideology is fundamentally about not spending public money on working people - because they're poor and inferior, they don't deserve it, and if life gets too comfortable for them they'll start talking back instead of knowing their place. Over the decades the definition of "working" has expanded from "factory workers and semi-skilled" to formerly middle class professions like law and medicine. Engineering has always been considered a low-status profession, as has competent - as opposed to venal and self-interested - management. |
|
We need pragmatism.
Perhaps state-owned railways would deliver more value but most likely that would mean running the company on sound principles with high efficiency and private sector management principles, and no strikes (none of which is a given in the public sector, unfortunately).