Ed Miliband speaks to supporters at Redbridge on May 1, 2014. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Labour's new rail plan: the full details

Party vows to end "ideological obsession" with privatisation by allowing the state to bid for franchises. 

One of the biggest decisions that will be taken at Labour's National Policy Forum, which opens in Milton Keynes tomorrow (and runs until Sunday), will be over the party's rail policy. As has long been known, Labour will pledge to reform the franchising system to allow state and not-for-profit firms to bid for contracts as they expire (in contrast to the coalition's dogmatic allegiance to the private sector). But transport unions have been pushing the party to go further and promise to automatically return franchises to public ownership. 

Ahead of the NPF, however, a source close to Jon Cruddas has said that "there is now general agreement across the Labour movement" around the package proposed by the leadership. This includes a pledge to legislate to allow a public sector comparator to compete with private firms for franchises "on a genuinely level playing field". 

Billed as the biggest proposed reform of the railways since privatisation, it also features a commitment to create a new overarching body, accountable to parliament, tasked with implementing a national strategy for the railways. This would bring Network Rail and a new passenger rail body together to co-ordinate passenger operations, manage infrastructure, oversee stations and ticketing, and ensure customer satisfaction across the network. 

As part of its plan to ease the living standards crisis, Labour will also pledge to cap annual fare rises on every route, simplify price structures and create a new legal right to the cheapest ticket. And it will promise to devolve regional and commuter services in an attempt to improve local transport, integrating trains, buses and trams - a plan modelled on Transport for London. 

A source close to Cruddas said: 

There is now general agreement across the Labour movement around Jon's bold package for how we reform the way our railways are run. We want to get rid of the Tories’ failed franchising model and an ideological obsession which puts privatisation ahead of common sense - without going back to the old days of British Rail.

Instead, Labour is determined to face up to the need for bigger reforms which meet the challenges facing our creaking transport system in the 21st Century. 

The package being discussed by the NPF this weekend goes beyond the public versus private debate. It would deliver a broader, radical reform agenda to save money and stop passengers being ripped off. It would allow us to plan railways that will serve our country as a whole and local communities better.

Above all, it would put right the mistakes made 20 years ago and put the taxpayer and rail passengers first.

Since 2010, commuter fares have increased by 20 per cent, leaving UK fares at least 30 per cent more expensive than those in other countries. Labour concedes that the franchising model adopted after privatisation in 1994 has delivered some improvements, but argues that a one-size-fits-all approach has failed to secure the best deal from private operators, with the collapse of the West Coast franchise process costing more than £50m. 

The task for Miliband will now be to build a consensus around this package. The proposal will be discussed in amendment meetings tomorrow followed by a vote of delegates on Sunday. Based on conversations with Labour sources tonight, the leadership is now confident of winning majority approval for the plan. 

Here's the motion that will be debated tomorrow:

"Since the late 1990s there has been significant investment in the railways and passenger numbers have grown sharply. But it is now clear that the rail system is not delivering a fair deal for passengers or the taxpayer, almost 20 years on from the botched privatisation of the railways. Both public subsidy and fares are higher than in other countries, and there is no 'guiding mind' overseeing the railways, planning investment and ensuring results. We have also seen a chaotic franchising process in recent years that has cost millions. To tackle these problems the next Labour government will:

"Review this government's failed franchising process as a priority, after the chaos of recent years, to safeguard taxpayer and passenger interests and put in place a system that is fit for purpose.

"Learn the lessons of East Coast, where we have seen the benefits of a not-for-dividend operator running rail lines, by legislating to allow a public sector operator to be able take on lines and challenge the train operators on a genuinely level playing field to secure value for money for passengers and taxpayers.

"Devolve decisions over the running of regional and local services, including to Scotland and Wales, so that areas can bring together trains, buses, ferries and trams into a single network.

"Tackle the monopoly market for rail rolling stock by giving Network Rail greater responsibility for developing a long term plan for procurement and leasing of new rolling stock.

"Create a new guiding mind for the railways, bringing Network Rail together with a new passenger rail body to contract routes, co-ordinate services, oversee stations and ensure customer satisfaction across the network.

"Ease the pressure on fare payers with the efficiencies these reforms release and by capping annual fare rises on every route, simplifying fare structures and creating a new legal right to the cheapest ticket."

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

GETTY
Show Hide image

Erdogan’s purge was too big and too organised to be a mere reaction to the failed coup

There is a specific word for the melancholy of Istanbul. The city is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. 

Even at the worst of times Istanbul is a beautiful city, and the Bosphorus is a remarkable stretch of sea. Turks get very irritated if you call it a river. They are right. The Bosphorus has a life and energy that a river could never equal. Spend five minutes watching the Bosphorus and you can understand why Orhan Pamuk, Turkey’s Nobel laureate for literature, became fixated by it as he grew up, tracking the movements of the ocean-going vessels, the warships and the freighters as they steamed between Asia and Europe.

I went to an Ottoman palace on the Asian side of the Bosphorus, waiting to interview the former prime minister Ahmet Davu­toglu. He was pushed out of office two months ago by President Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he appeared to be too wedded to the clauses in the Turkish constitution which say that the prime minister is the head of government and the president is a ceremonial head of state. Erdogan was happy with that when he was prime minister. But now he’s president, he wants to change the constitution. If Erdogan can win the vote in parliament he will, in effect, be rubber-stamping the reality he has created since he became president. In the days since the attempted coup, no one has had any doubt about who is the power in the land.

 

City of melancholy

The view from the Ottoman palace was magnificent. Beneath a luscious, pine-shaded garden an oil tanker plied its way towards the Black Sea. Small ferries dodged across the sea lanes. It was not, I hasten to add, Davutoglu’s private residence. It had just been borrowed, for the backdrop. But it reminded a Turkish friend of something she had heard once from the AKP, Erdogan’s ruling party: that they would not rest until they were living in the apartments with balconies and gardens overlooking the Bosphorus that had always been the preserve of the secular elite they wanted to replace.

Pamuk also writes about hüzün, the melancholy that afflicts the citizens of Istanbul. It comes, he says, from the city’s history and its decline, the foghorns on the Bosphorus, from tumbledown walls that have been ruins since the fall of the Byzantine empire, unemployed men in tea houses, covered women waiting for buses that never come, pelting rain and dark evenings: the city’s whole fabric and all the lives within it. “My starting point,” Pamuk wrote, “was the emotion that a child might feel while looking through a steamy window.”

Istanbul is suffering a mighty bout of something like hüzün at the moment. In Pamuk’s work the citizens of Istanbul take a perverse pride in hüzün. No one in Istanbul, or elsewhere in Turkey, can draw comfort from what is happening now. Erdogan’s opponents wonder what kind of future they can have in his Turkey. I think I sensed it, too, in the triumphalist crowds of Erdogan supporters that have been gathering day after day since the coup was defeated.

 

Down with the generals

Erdogan’s opponents are not downcast because the coup failed; a big reason why it did was that it had no public support. Turks know way too much about the authoritarian ways of military rule to want it back. The melancholy is because Erdogan is using the coup to entrench himself even more deeply in power. The purge looks too far-reaching, too organised and too big to have been a quick reaction to the attempt on his power. Instead it seems to be a plan that was waiting to be used.

Turkey is a deeply unhappy country. It is hard to imagine now, but when the Arab uprisings happened in 2011 it seemed to be a model for the Middle East. It had elections and an economy that worked and grew. When I asked Davutoglu around that time whether there would be a new Ottoman sphere of influence for the 21st century, he smiled modestly, denied any such ambition and went on to explain that the 2011 uprisings were the true succession to the Ottoman empire. A century of European, and then American, domination was ending. It had been a false start in Middle Eastern history. Now it was back on track. The people of the region were deciding their futures, and perhaps Turkey would have a role, almost like a big brother.

Turkey’s position – straddling east and west, facing Europe and Asia – is the key to its history and its future. It could be, should be, a rock of stability in a desperately un­stable part of the world. But it isn’t, and that is a problem for all of us.

 

Contagion of war

The coup did not come out of a clear sky. Turkey was in deep crisis before the attempt was made. Part of the problem has come from Erdogan’s divisive policies. He has led the AKP to successive election victories since it first won in 2002. But the policies of his governments have not been inclusive. As long as his supporters are happy, the president seems unconcerned about the resentment and opposition he is generating on the other side of politics.

Perhaps that was inevitable. His mission, as a political Islamist, was to change the country, to end the power of secular elites, including the army, which had been dominant since Mustafa Kemal Atatürk created modern Turkey after the collapse of the Ottoman empire. And there is also the influence of chaos and war in the Middle East. Turkey has borders with Iraq and Syria, and is deeply involved in their wars. The borders do not stop the contagion of violence. Hundreds of people have died in the past year in bomb attacks in Turkish cities, some carried out by the jihadists of so-called Islamic State, and some sent by Kurdish separatists working under the PKK.

It is a horrible mix. Erdogan might be able to deal with it better if he had used the attempted coup to try to unite Turkey. All the parliamentary parties condemned it. But instead, he has turned the power of the state against his opponents. More rough times lie ahead.

Jeremy Bowen is the BBC’s Middle East editor. He tweets @bowenbbc

This article first appeared in the 28 July 2016 issue of the New Statesman, Summer Double Issue