Quote:
Originally Posted by Osem
Because nobody really wants their taxes to rise in order to pay for the decades of under-investment which happened when they were publicly owned? In theory yes it ought to be the best way but as I said before, history in the UK indicates it wasn't. Yes that could probably be changed with an entirely different govt. approach but all the evidence is that Corbyn's rooted in 1970's ideology and not going to emulate all that's best about state ownership of infrastructure in Europe. He'd only ensure we returned to the bad old days when the unions controlled this critical infrastructure and frequently closed it down, which is in large part what led to privatisation in the first place.
|
The problem with rail in this country was a direct result of the second world war. Rather than performing regular maintanence the rail companies were reduced to running on a shoestring just to keep services running as best they could and repairing the callosal damage inflicted.
After the war the government had to spend money on getting German infrastructure up and running as an occuping force so no money was available to compensate the rail companies.
Nationalisation of the rail came into effect rather than the rail companies going into recievership and we having no rail services.
Comparing rail in this country, lacking in investment is like chalk and cheese if you compare it with Europe.