The most-respected No argument was a one-line ideological dismissal — “Commies, want state control over everything” — while Yes won comfortably on arguments about the structure and economics of the railway. That contrast in the debate was sharper than any simple contest between nostalgia for British Rail and faith in private operators.
The most-respected Yes cases argued that the state already bears much of the risk: it owns the track, funds infrastructure and steps in when lines fail. One called private profits from a natural monopoly “economic madness”; another said privatisation had “left the taxpayer with the costs” while shareholders took the profits.
No voters’ strongest substantive answer was not simply a defence of private ownership but a warning about the state’s record. One commuter reported “delays, cancellations, loss of service” on a publicly run route; another invoked “the lack of investment” and poor service they remembered from British Rail. Those warnings went largely unanswered by Yes voters, whose case focused more on the flaws of the existing model than on how public management would avoid repeating them.
The Yes case was not entirely confident: one voter called theirs “A reluctant yes”, conceding that government could bring “a financial drain and poor management” while arguing that transport should be a public service. The argument, then, was less about whether the railway needs public support than whether public ownership can turn that support into better service.
50 Opinions
Commies, want state control over everything.
I remember British Rail. Anyone who remembers British Rail will vote NO.
I'm a London commuter. Our trains into Waterloo are now public. Instant difference: no-one cares anymore because they'll get paid anyway. Straight back to the '70s (when I got trains to school) - delays, cancellations, loss of service prerty much every day. You think your trains can't get worse? Wait till the Govt runs them.
The state already owns the track, funds the infrastructure, and bails out failing lines. Letting private firms extract risk free profits from a natural monopoly is economic madness. Phasing them into GBR as contracts expire is the sensible and cheapest solution
Privatisation had ruined public transport, it has stagnated and extracted money from our ultimate l utilities. It had left the taxpayer with the costs whilst giving companies shareholders the profits. Corporate socialism. But the right wing love socialism when it gives money to foreign companies.
Hell yes, along with all our utilities. 100%
Perhaps take what they have got and make an example of them. If it is amazing, then go for the others. Government has an opportunity to prove it is right, but not braking any records yet.
Privatisation has always been a rip off, public ownership would make things fairer for everyone instead of already rich shareholders and investors not from the UK.
I remember British Rail, this plan is already poor. In the nationalised lines the delays & cancellations are already up. The Govt has no money so investment in rolling stock will take a back seat to benefits (like everything else does). The underinvested railways will go back to the way they were, and people will rediscover why they were privatised in the first place.
Perhaps when changing trains it would be done seamlessly if they were. Train services were privately owned to begin with, there was a lack of coordination, among other things, which is why they were nationalised. It was a lack of investment by government which led to them being sold off, instead of investing. There are important services we all rely on, which we cannot expect to make huge profits, public transport is one of them.