Telling Stories

What's in a word?  Once upon a time, 'story' meant an account, either true or fictitious, of events. It could also mean a fabrication or an allegation. In this latter sense, a story was a bit dodgy.

In the past few years, 'narrative' has come to replace story, and in most cases, the dodgyness continues, but even dressed up in the posher term, the dubious nature of the claims being made by the narrator remain.

Politicians and political parties now have narratives which they spin with gusto, as do the media. Not to have a narrative puts a politician or a political party at a distinct disadvantage, and if they don't have a narrative, the media will soon invent one.

Ultimately, though, what they are all doing when presenting their narratives is simply telling stories.  And like most stories, there is an element of fantasy and fabrication.  We overlook this at our peril.  Whether story or narrative, what is going on is an attempt to trick, bamboozle or fool us.

Currently, the stories going around about Corbyn involve two diametric extremes:  a) he's a died in the wool Marxist and therefore both out of touch with reality and is a danger to our Way of Life, b) he's an authentic, principled, sincere man challenging the false pieties of conventional politics.

Frankly, neither story is convincing.  But then, I have to say, neither is the story of Corbyn as future Prime Minister.

Off the rails

I am puzzled.  The British railway system was founded and built by private enterprise.  Eventually, the system ran off the rails, and it was nationalised.  A generation of so later, the then Conservative govt led by John Major returned it to private ownership, setting up a complicated system of ownership (rail track and services separated) with the various services open to competitive bidding.

What has been largely hidden from public scrutiny is the level of subsidy offered to the privately owned rail franchisees.  The figures vary, but the latest I've seen is somewhere over £4 billion net.  In the overall scale of public finance, not a great deal, but nonetheless, it's public (or, to use the cliche, tax payers') money that is being put into private pockets.

In this part of the Home Counties, the rail services are rated in popularity along with 'welfare scroungers' and 'bogus asylum seekers.  The commuters to London, paying £4,000 p.a. for the privilege, probably don't realize that the rail company concerned is actually being publicly subsidised.  So, not only are they paying £4K out of taxed income for a less than brilliant service -- they are also through their taxes contributing to the shareholder's dividends.

The much maligned Corbyn has proposed renationalising the railways as various franchises expire. This has produced the usual knee jerk reactions from the right of centre press and politicians, and quite a few of the public. Rational debate is notably silent.  As is the fact that the current system, while not nationalised, is still publicly subsided. In other words, the tax payer still pays.

One argument advocates cutting subsidies entirely, freeing rail companies from govt micro management, and enabling them to run business-like and profitable enterprises.

http://www.iea.org.uk/blog/why-are-rail-subsidies-so-high

Unsprisingly, the TUC takes a different line, as it were:

https://www.tuc.org.uk/industrial-issues/transport-policy/train-operators-gained-%C2%A327bn-taxpayers-subsidy-last-year

Meanwhile, it seems that subsidies are actually down:

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/2014/04/rail-subsidies-down-%C2%A34bn-regulator-reveals

Now, are you confused?  I certainly am.  But I do think that Corbyn's proposal merits serious consideration, and some well informed debate.  Unfortunately, the railways, like the NHS, are political totems. So, I'm not anticipating rational discussion, and the unhappy commuters of Henley will continue to pay for the privilege of travelling in privatised, overcrowded, subsidised trains to and from London, while Cross Rail, built at vast public expense, will have as yet to be experienced effects on rail travel in the Thames Valley.