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.

Show Hide image

Labour must reclaim English patriotism if we are to beat Ukip and the Tories

We can't talk about the future of our country unless we can discuss the past. 

I was a parliamentary candidate for Thurrock, but the place which I currently call home is Hackney, London. This distinction is worth explaining. The questions of Labour and Englishness – what exactly is the English problem that we’re trying to solve, why do we need a progressive patriotism, does it already exist, if not why not and if we had one what would it look like? – are, above all, questions of identity and place. We need to build a patriotism that includes and resonates with residents of both Hackney and Thurrock. Currently they are very far apart. 

I’m the little girl who sat on her dad’s shoulders to wave a flag at Princess Anne’s first wedding. And I was also, like Sadiq Khan, waving a flag at the Silver Jubilee in 1977. I’m an ex-Catholic, I’m a Londoner, I’m English and I’m a woman, and all of those identities are important although not necessarily equally so and not necessarily all of the time.

But I’m also a member of the Labour party, not only as a candidate, but now as an activist in Hackney. And that is where I see the difference very strongly between Hackney and what I experienced in Thurrock. 

Thurrock was Ukip ground zero last year - 12,000 people voted for Ukip in a general election for the first time, on top of the 3,500 that had voted for them before in 2010. Most of those 12,000 people had either not voted before, or had voted Labour. 

This isn’t just about being in two different places. Sometimes it feels like more than being in two different countries, or even like being on two different planets. The reality is that large swathes of Labour’s members and supporters don’t identify as patriotic, fundamentally because patriotism has been seized and colonised by the right. We need to understand that, by allowing them to seize it, we are losing an opportunity to be able to reclaim our past. 

We do not have any legitimacy to talk about the future of our country unless we can talk about our past in a better way. We have tried but our efforts have been half-hearted. Take Ed Miliband's call for One Nation Labour, which ended up amounting to a washed-out Union Jack as a visual for our brand. It could have been so much better – an opportunity for an intellectual rebranding and a seizure of Conservative territory for our own ends. Ultimately One Nation Labour was a slogan and not a project. 

There is a section of the left which has a distinct discomfort with the idea of pride in country. It has swallowed the right-wing myth that England’s successes have all been Conservative ones. This is a lie, but one that has spread very effectively. The left’s willingness to swallow it means that we are still living in a Thatcherite paradigm. It is no wonder progressives revolt at the idea of patriotism, when the right’s ideas of duty and authority quash our ideas of ambitions for equality, opportunity for all and challenging injustice. But we risk denying our successes by allowing the right to define Englishness. It’s England that helped establish the principle of the right to vote, the rule of law, equal suffrage, and the fight against racism. 

If Englishness is going to mean anything in modern England, it needs to be as important for those who feel that perhaps they aren’t English as it is for those who feel that they definitely are. And a place must be reserved for those who, though technically English, don’t see their own story within the Conservative myth of Englishness. 

Although this reclaiming is electorally essential, it is not an electoral gimmick. It is fundamental to who we are. Even if we didn’t need it to win, I would be arguing for it.

We need to make sure that progressive patriotism reclaims the visual language that the Conservatives use to dress up their regressive patriotism. Women need to be as much in the pantheon of the radicals as part of the visual identity of Englishness. Women tend to either be there by birth or by marriage, or we are abstract manifestations of ideals like "justice" or "truth" – as seen on city halls and civic buildings across the country. But English women need to be real, rather than just ideal. Englishness does need to be focused on place and connection, and it should include Mary Wollstonecraft and Sylvia Pankhurst as well as Wat Tyler and Thomas Paine. 

We can’t pretend that we’re always right. The most patriotic thing you can do is to admit sometimes that you’re wrong, so that your country can be better. I love my country, for all its faults. But I do not live with them. I try to make my country better. That is progressive patriotism. And I know all of us who want to be part of this can be part of it. 

This article is based on Polly’s contribution to Who Speaks to England? Labour’s English challenge, a new book published today by the Fabian Society and the Centre for English Identity and Politics at the University of Winchester.