British railways - Is Labour on the right track?

Picture the scene. Britain is gripped by economic torpor. Huge public debt has led to swingeing spending cuts and people are restless, tired of a Government led programme of austerity. To placate agitating trade unions and an embattled and demanding electorate, the Government has decided to nationalise the railways, despite the difficult financial environment.

It could be a story of Britain’s immediate post-WW2 past, but it may also be a story of Britain's future. This week Shadow transport secretary, Maria Eagle MP responded to a report by Transport for Quality of Life called Rebuilding Rail that suggested the renationalising of Britain’s railways. Although she fell short of endorsing the policy, she was also clear to point out that all options would be considered under a Labour government.

At this stage, Labour are simply flying kites. But if they were to nationalise the railways, what communications challenges would they face?

Perhaps the biggest challenge would be high expectations. In 1948, years of underinvestment under the Big Four railway companies had left Britain’s railways in a state of decay and decline. The British public, who had seen first-hand how effective the Government could be at mobilising and organising on a national level, fully expected a nationalisation programme for the railways to be a resounding success. But the Government couldn’t meet these lofty expectations. Hamstrung by a lack of finance, the investment necessary to modernise the collection of decrepit tracks, carriages and stations never materialised. Three years later, a disillusioned electorate voted Labour out.

Today, a Labour government would likely face similar challenges. A 2009 poll found just 11% back the current railways model, with 51% backing renationalisation. It’s hardly unanimous, but a significant proportion of the electorate would clearly expect improvements to services under a nationalised railways system. With the current restrictions on public finances, this would not be a simple task.

The success of such a programme would rely on how it set out its objectives and how these were communicated. A programme that promised to increase reliability, cut costs and improve services would almost certainly fall short of people’s expectations. But a programme that ‘…put passengers before profit’, as suggested by Maria Eagle, may just resonate with a public increasingly sceptical of the motives of rail companies.

John Hood

Consultant

john@linstockcommunications.com