Office of Rail Regulation: nationalised rail firm is most efficient in the country

East Coast gets a net subsidy of just 1 per cent, ORR reports.

The Financial Times, that most fervently socialist of newspapers, reports that the East Coast franchise – the only one of the British rail franchises owned by the state – is outdoing the private sector. Mark Odell reports:

The state-run East Coast mainline has emerged as the most efficiently run rail franchise in terms of its reliance on taxpayer funding, raising questions about a recent government decision to privatise the operation.

The ORR found that among the rail franchises that make net payments to the Treasury, the East Coast mainline, which has been run by the state since November 2009, is reliant on just 1 per cent of government funding once cost of infrastructure is taken into account.

The reliance on state funding of the other nine franchises that make net payments to the government ranges from 3 per cent to 36 per cent.

The news comes shortly after the government announced plans to refranchise East Coast to the private sector. Odell reports that those plans were "designed to draw a line under the months of chaos in the UK rail industry triggered by the West Coast fiasco", but they were widely seen as a spoiler for Labour's plans for the railway system, which would have kept the franchise in public hands.

As Railnews writes, "a new East Coast franchise, once let, would be difficult and expensive to reverse until it had run its natural term, which could be ten years or more." That's quite a long time to bind the country into a style of management which seems to be sub-par.

Maria Eagle, Labour's shadow transport secretary, used the report to double-down on that position:

Considering the East Coast service makes one of the highest annual payments to government, receives the least subsidy and is the only route on which all profits are reinvested in services, it makes no sense for the government to prioritise this privatisation over getting the rest of the industry back on track.

Of course, even "privatising" East Coast might not be quite what it sounds like. As Christian Wolmar wrote in 2011:

In a way, it’s funny. The Brpitish railway system is slowly being renationalised, but not by our own government. Rather, it is being taken over by foreign state-owned railways that now have an interest in almost half the franchises, and in one of the three open access operators as well.

That's as true now as it has ever been. Not one of the three companies bidding to run the privatised parts of Crossrail – operations will still be run by the nationalised Transport for London – is privately held. Instead, the largest transport project in decades will be run by a partnership of a British state-owned firm and either the French, Dutch or German national operator.

The free market: it's a funny place, sometimes.

Alex Hern is a technology reporter for the Guardian. He was formerly staff writer at the New Statesman. You should follow Alex on Twitter.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Labour's purge: how it works, and what it means

The total number of people removed will be small - but the rancour will linger. 

Labour has just kicked off its first big wave of expulsions, purging many voters from the party’s leadership rolls. Twitter is ablaze with activists who believe they have been kicked out because they are supporters of Jeremy Corbyn. There are, I'm told, more expulsions to come - what's going on?  Is Labour purging its rolls of Corbyn supporters?

The short answer is “No”.

If that opener feels familiar, it should: I wrote it last year, when the last set of purges kicked off, and may end up using it again next year. Labour has stringent rules about expressing support for other candidates and membership of other parties, which account for the bulk of the expulsions. It also has a code of conduct on abusive language which is also thinning the rolls, with supporters of both candidates being kicked off. 

Although the party is in significantly better financial shape than last year, it still is running a skeleton staff and is recovering from an expensive contest (in this case, to keep Britain in the European Union). The compliance unit itself remains small, so once again people from across the party staff have been dragooned in.

The process this year is pretty much the same: Labour party headquarters doesn’t have any bespoke software to match its voters against a long list of candidates in local elections, compiled last year and added to the list of candidates that stood against Labour in the 2016 local and devolved elections, plus a large backlog of complaints from activists.

It’s that backlog that is behind many of the highest-profile and most controversial examples. Last year, in one complaint that was not upheld, a local member was reported to the Compliance Unit for their failure to attend their local party’s annual barbecue. The mood in Labour, in the country and at Westminster, is significantly more bitter this summer than last and the complaints more personal. Ronnie Draper, the general secretary of the Bfawu, the bakers’ union, one of Corbyn’s biggest supporters in the trade union movement, has been expelled, reported for tweets which included the use of the word “traitors” to refer to Labour opponents of Corbyn.  Jon Will Chambers, former bag carrier to Stella Creasy, and a vocal Corbyn critic on Twitter, has been kicked out for using a “Theresa May” twibbon to indicate his preference for May over Andrea Leadsom, in contravention of the party’s rules.

Both activities breach the letter of the party’s rules although you can (and people will) make good arguments against empowering other people to comb through the social media profiles of their opponents for reasons to dob them in.  (In both cases, I wouldn’t be shocked if both complaints were struck down on appeal)

I would be frankly astonished if Corbyn’s margin of victory – or defeat, as unlikely as that remains in my view – isn’t significantly bigger than the number of people who are barred from voting, which will include supporters of both candidates, as well as a number of duplicates (some people who paid £25 were in fact members before the freeze date, others are affliated trade unionists, and so on). 

What is unarguably more significant, as one party staffer reflected is, “the complaints are nastier now [than last year]”. More and more of the messages to compliance are firmly in what you might call “the barbecue category” – they are obviously groundless and based on personal animosity. That doesn’t feel like the basis of a party that is ready to unite at any level. Publicly and privately, most people are still talking down the chances of a split. It may prove impossible to avoid.

Stephen Bush is special correspondent at the New Statesman. He usually writes about politics.