Andy Burnham and Jeremy Corbyn have both pledged to bring back British Rail. Why? In a speech yesterday, Corbyn justified his position: ‘I think the public mood is there, absolutely there, saying, “Bring our railways back into public ownership.” And we’ll all get a better and much more integrated system as a result’.
Headline figures from recent polls suggest he may have a point: a YouGov survey from early August said 58 per cent supported ‘bringing the railways, water companies and other utilities back into public ownership through renationalisation’. But this could be classified as a ‘would you like a pony’ polling question; it offers no explanation of what renationalisation would entail, only hinting at a fantasy land where fares are cheaper and everything runs on time.
The same pollster conducted a more comprehensive survey in May last year, which looked at the reasons why a majority support renationalisation. 62 per cent said they think railways ‘should be accountable to taxpayers rather than shareholders’, just under half think rail fares would go down and 43 per cent reckon it would be ‘more cost-effective overall’.
Railways are already accountable to taxpayer: the Department for Transport oversees the tendering process and intervenes when railways aren’t delivering. Franchising and railway performance are frequently raised at Transport Questions in the Commons too. Neither Corbyn nor Burnham have provided any evidence that a nationalised railway would have cheaper ticket fares too — either the government would have to cut back on infrastructure improvements or pour money into the railways. Supporters of nationalisation often cite that money is wasted on the franchising system but taxes paid by the rail industry came to £3.89 billion last year, almost offsetting the £4 billion of government funding
Burnham and Corbyn do have a point on ticket fares. An analysis by the BBC shows it’s a mixed picture over the past 20 years: many fares have risen dramatically since the final British Rail figures were published in 1995, others have stayed in line with inflation.
Already a subscriber? Log in
Comments
Don't miss out
Join the conversation with other Spectator readers. Subscribe to leave a comment.
UNLOCK ACCESSAlready a subscriber? Log in