> COMMENT. this article captures a major component of neo-liberalism: the > lack of real investment. As far as I can tell, British Railtrack was a > privatized company which was treated simply as a speculative & financial > investment by "the City" (Britain's Wall Street). Instead of building up > the railroad's capacity, it was more the subject of a lottery. This > emphasis on financial rather than real also shows up in California's > energy emergency last year: instead of building new power plants, Enron > _et al_ soaked the public. Enron itself shows the stress on finance & > speculation rather than real investment. > > Elliott's emphasis is on the state's failure to invest in important > infrastructure such as railroads. This critique applies to the neo-liberal > state, but the previous "New Deal" style liberal state might also be > guilty (though not _as_ guilty as the neo-liberal state). > > ---------------------------- > > Byers must not be made a scapegoat: Under-investment is to blame for the > rail crisis, not the minister > > Larry Elliott > Wednesday January 9, 2002 > > The Guardian > > Rarely has a politician slid from hero to zero as rapidly as Stephen > Byers. Back in the autumn when he pulled the plug on Railtrack and > effectively renationalised the lamest of lame ducks, Byers - the very > embodiment of New Labour greyness - found himself in the strange position > of being the toast of the left. > > But that was October. Now, fresh back from his holiday in India, the > Westminster smoke signals suggest he will be the sacrificial lamb thrown > to shivering, angry commuters waiting for the 8.12 to Waterloo. Strikes, > cancellations, delays, fare increases, congestion: Byers is being set up > as the fall guy for them all. > > Tossing Byers to the wolves has its attractions. He is scarred by the Jo > Moore affair and has hardly been the most eloquent of spokesman for his > brief. He has not been the safe pair of hands that Downing Street wanted, > so the argument goes, and should now be replaced by someone less > butter-fingered. > > But the case against the transport secretary doesn't really stack up. For > a start, the decision to put Railtrack into receivership was entirely > correct. Railtrack epitomised everything that was wrong with the > privatisation of the railways. It was not just that the company was > stuffed full of accountants and appeared to put profits before passengers, > but that as a capitalist organisation it was a complete dud. Aided and > abetted by the City and the Conservative party, the management of > Railtrack has attempted to rewrite history and present itself as the > protector of the shareholder against a confiscatory government. The simple > truth is that the falling share price was a function of the company's > inability to provide a halfway decent service without large and increasing > slugs of public money. > > Bringing the railways back into some form of public ownership - even if it > is at arms length - was a necessary first step towards sorting out the > tangled mess left behind by the Conservatives. But for some reason the > central issue for the past few months has been whether Byers has ripped > off the Railtrack shareholders. He didn't. Railtrack ripped off the > Railtrack shareholders, and since most of those left by the time the > company went belly-up were City institutions, they have only themselves to > blame. The government should give them short shrift and press ahead with > its plans for a new structure for the railways, the difficulties of which > long predate the arrival of Byers as transport secretary. > > Put bluntly, Britain has a railway system that was designed and > constructed for the world as it was 150 years ago, not the world as it is > now. A network where the routes converged on London and a few other > industrial centres may have been right for mid-Victorian Britain, but > looks anachronistic after a century which has been transformed by the car, > as well as population drift out to the suburbs and beyond. There are two > problems: those towns and cities that are linked to a metropolitan centre > by an arterial rail route are growing rapidly, and the existing commuter > services cannot cope. In addition, employment patterns have changed. It is > all very well suggesting that the worker in Hemel Hempstead should use > public transport, but if she works in Slough the M25 looks a much better > option than flogging in on the Euston line, taking the Circle line to > Paddington and heading out of London again. > > Britain needs to think hard about the sort of railway system it needs, > both upgrading the existing network to favour those who make frequent > short journeys - rather than those who make occasional long-distance trips > - and developing new ways to link the places outside of the big cities > where people now live and work. But this is self-evidently a huge task, > and it is not made any easier by the legacy of half a century at least of > relentless under-funding. This started in the 1950s, when Britain could > have emulated the French and used Marshall aid to create a modern > transport system but instead blew the American billions on defence, and > persisted right into the 1990s. The proportion of GDP spent on public > transport has fallen from 2% to 1% in the past decade - a shameful record. > The government is planning to pump in £30bn over the next 10 years; > neglect means it will need to spend more for longer. > > Byers, of course, was a member of the first Blair government, which > foolishly ignored the looming crisis in transport. But the idea that he is > personally responsible for the mess that currently exists is absurd. Nor > does it make the slightest sense to punish him for taking a holiday. > Ministers used to do so without the slightest public concern and the > result was probably clearer and more creative thinking. Scapegoating Byers > is not the answer. All it would mean is the arrival of yet another new > minister armed with a piece of sticking plaster to cover a gaping wound. > > Larry Elliott is the Guardian's economics editor. > [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~jdevine > >
