Jonathan J. Ariel,

It's nothing to do with sticking it to anyone. The objective would be to ensure the benefits of public investment in the industry are passed on to the customers.

I don't know how much the deficit would balloon with nationalisation - that would depend on how quickly it's done, what the businesses are worth and how much taxes are increased. It also depends on the state of the economy – though it is at last improving, it could still be argued that at this stage of the economic cycle it's too small. Five years from now there may not be a deficit nor a need for one to stimulate the economy. There are too many unknowns to make a reliable prediction.

Hi Aidan,

Perhaps the Greek model could be emulated: a nationalised railways system, the costs of which have been compared to giving everybody taxis to and from work, and all for free. To buy out the British companies already operating the rail network would probably cost only a few hundred billion.

So after only a few years, a Corbyn government would have kicked up the deficit by not much, perhaps only a trillion, especially if he also padded the bureaucracy ('public employment'), made health and education completely free, and increased pensions, etc.

Seriously, is re-nationalising the railways really an issue in Britain ? As Jonathan says, why not simply legislate to limit fare levels and improve 'safety standards', i.e. forcing companies to upgrade their stock ? Why pay out a bonanza to rail-capitalists, probably on ageing stock ?

Just wondering. Of course, a Corbyn success is about as hypothetical as you can get.

Joe

Hi Johnathon,

Re Jeremy Corbyn's expenses:
"MPs were paid £3.1m in expenses during the first three and a half months after the general election.

The Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority - which runs the new system - has published 22,000 claims paid out between 7 May and 31 August.

Of those MPs who claimed expenses, the largest amount - £20,752 - was paid to Tory Keith Simpson while Labour's Jeremy Corbyn had the lowest at £8.70.

Nick Clegg was among 78 MPs who claimed no expenses at all over the period."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11899534

contd.

Re Michael T Flynn - no it was not about hindsight. He admitted that as head of the Defense Intelligence Agency he saw the report in August 2012 that the US was supporting radical muslim groups eg the Muslim Brotherhood, Al Nusra, Al Qaeda (the so-called moderate Muslims the US was assisting) to help oust the Assad regime in Syria - as well as the risk these groups might form a calaphate, but nothing was done - not just ignored, but worse.

Mehdi Hasan:"Did you say we shouldn't be supporting these groups?"
Michael Flynn:"I did, I mean we argued about the different groups that were there and we said who was involved here and I will tell you that I do believe that the intelligence was very clear. And now it's a matter of whether or not policy is going to be as clear and as defining and as precise as it needs to be and I don't think it was."
...
MH:"You are basically saying that even in government at the time you knew those groups were around (Muslim Brotherhood, Al Qaeda etc) and you saw this analysis and you were arguing against it - but who wasn't listening?"

MF:"I think the administration."

MH:"So the administration turned a blind eye to your analysis.

MF:"I don't know if they turned a blind eye. I think it was a decision, it was a willful decision."

MH:"A willful decision to support an insurgency that had Salafists, Al Qaeda and the Muslim Brotherhood?"

MF:"A wilful decision to do what they're doing, which you have to really ask the President what is it that he actually is doing with the policy that is in place because it is very, very confusing. I'm sitting here today Mehdi, and I can't tell you exactly what that is, and I've been at this for a long time"

Sounds like chaos huh?

Johnathon, why would the US president ignore his spy chief advising him against supporting these Muslim extremists in Syria?

We are 15 years into the war on terror, and are we safer or less safe? Why? After the billions of dollars, millions of lives lost and ruined (civilians and honest servicemen doing their duty) all the freedoms and rights we've given up, how come it is never enough to keep us safe?

Is it because our leaders are saying one thing, and doing another? That they are knowingly supporting the very groups that are attacking us? Why would they do that? I know what I think, how do you explain this?

So many things don't add up.

We need a better caliber of politician, to stop this cycle of war and violence. Unfortunately as seen by the Obama presidency, citizens can vote in a dove, who turns into a hawk once in office.

Love Peace Justice.

Hi Loudmouth,

There are a lot of myths about the way things are run in Greece, and indeed the costs of railway operation in Britain, that turn out not to be based on facts at all; just idle speculation. And there also tends to be a lot of misinterpretation of statistics, such as including the cost of building new railways in the cost of operating existing ones. So I'm treating your claims with a great deal of skepticism.

To buy out Britain's train operating companies would be orders of magnitude cheaper than you think. They're all on limited term franchises, and not terribly lucrative. It's not unknown for franchisees to voluntarily end them early.

Health has been free in Britain for well over half a century. And if Corbyn makes Britain's universiities free like their European counterparts, so much the better (though I doubt it would be one of his priorities). Reclaiming the money through the tax system is a better way to do it than sending people broke with student loans.

I think your comments about padding the bureaucracy are based on a prejudice against socialists. But like nearly everyone else, they know that it's stupid to pay people to do useless things when they could instead be paid to do useful things.

The tactic of using regulations to improve rail services was a huge failure when the Blair government tried it. It ended up costing the government more, but in most cases the passengers were no better off.

BTW when spending money upgrading railways, new stock is rarely wothwhile except where there's some other reason to justify it (such as electrification of more lines).