Whelan recognises, however, that the party’s emphasis has been “on the nationalisation of the passenger side”. And he wants it to go further: “At some point in the future, I do think we’ve got to fight for a policy where the whole railway comes under one banner, and we plan it in the proper way.”
He is particularly critical of the rolling stock companies, which McDonald said had “got away with murder”, in an interview with RailReview in 2019.
“You know, the ROSCOs didn’t lose any money and didn’t cut any cloth during the pandemic - even though we had reduced ridership and less money coming into the industry,” says Whelan.
In Haigh, the ASLEF leader clearly sees an ally: “We’re hoping that in future, what we tend to see in Louise Haigh, that the Labour policy will move in the right direction. I think the real problem we’ve always experienced will be the fact that mass policy, housing, the NHS. is always going to come first. But as long as it comes, I don’t care.”
So, how does he think Starmer and Reeves ended up appearing to renege on Labour party policy? “The real problem is: in public they misspoke, and they came to us and said they had misspoken and they did it quite quickly. If they hadn’t come to us at all, I’d be concerned. The real problem is when people misspeak, people don’t see the rowing back.”
Haigh was not available for interview, but McDonald says she is holding firm to GB Rail.
“My understanding is that it holds entirely, and that it would be implemented by an incoming Labour government,” he says in an interview with RailReview.
“We’ve seen in the last months, especially in this volatile industrial environment, that the public are overwhelmingly in favour of bringing the railway into public ownership.
“It speaks to the needs and demands of the public. It’s not a surprise therefore that it remains Labour party policy. I’m sure that my successors have taken this document on board - in fact, I’ve had discussions directly with them about it, and they remain committed to seeing its implementation.”
Is McDonald concerned that the more expensive parts of the plan, such as the public operator procuring rolling stock and potentially running freight operations, could fall victim to Reeves’s “fiscal rule”?
“There’s clearly a live discussion ongoing about Keir and his commitments when he stood for the leadership, in terms of rail, mail, water and energy, and that’s caused some tensions at the very least.
“Keir is right to reaffirm the commitment to public ownership of the railway. And on the issue of costs, he’s right again that the capital expenditure we’re talking about doesn’t really frighten the horses. Because we’re talking about bringing the operation of the railways back into public ownership, which is simply allowing franchises as they were to fall into default over the passage of time.”
McDonald believes this will be an equally (if not more) applicable model once franchising has given way to the concessions system: “The costs there are minimal.”
As for rolling stock arrangements, he believes that state ownership will save money in the medium and long terms - although GB Rail does not include a commitment to buying out existing stock or abolishing the ROSCOs.
“My position was that we are where we are, and that rolling stock companies had morphed into not just financial deals and leasing arrangements, but into technology. But if we could draw a line under paying through the nose for leasing the trains, that would be a step in the right direction.”
McDonald also believes that Brexit will give an incoming Labour government more opportunity to shake up the railways - as Britain will no longer be bound by EU directives which stipulate open access and the separation of track and train.
“We had a plan to implement GB Rail in any event - within those EU considerations it was still doable. That doesn’t apply any longer, so we do have that freedom.”
Playing on the Vote Leave slogan, he adds: “And yes, let’s do it, let’s take back control. Let’s truly take back control - not to give it to somebody else, but have it devolved to our nations and regions of Great Britain. And let us have a direct say in how our transport system works, and for what benefit. Let us make those decisions - not other nation states.”
Despite the similar names, McDonald says the Conservative Government’s Great British Railways plan “couldn’t be more markedly different” from the GB Rail one he drew up as Shadow Transport Secretary: “It’s simply reinforcing the role of the private sector in what is a pale imitation of my document - the only resemblance is the title.”
In Wales, public ownership is already a reality under a Labour government, after KeolisAmey Wales was crippled by a loss of revenue at the onset of the pandemic. The involvement of trade unions has been a key pillar of the Welsh Government’s approach to public ownership - something to which Labour at a UK level has repeatedly drawn attention, noting that there is no dispute between the rail unions and the government west of the border.
In Scotland, it’s the SNP which has renationalised operations. Unions have, of course, welcomed this, but industrial relations remain fraught with a dispute earlier this year resulting in ASLEF calling on Scottish First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to intervene (which she eventually did).
But with Network Rail remaining the responsibility of Westminster, and ScotRail’s chain of command going up to Holyrood, it is a structure with which no one seems entirely comfortable.
To understand what would put the Labour stamp on public ownership, it’s worth paying attention to Scottish Labour’s criticisms of the new model.
Neil Bibby, Labour’s transport spokesman in the Scottish Parliament, has stressed the need for trade union and passenger representation in the governance of Scotland’s railways. He also criticises cuts to booking offices, which came alongside a promise from SNP Transport Minister Jenny Gilruth for a “national conversation” about Scotland’s railways.
“We’re happy to take part in a national conversation, but that needs to be about improving and making the railways better,” says Bibby.
“We’re not wanting to have a conversation about cuts and closures. Obviously, we understand patterns are changing and we need to be able to reflect that. But overall service levels need to be restored.”
The sacking of Tarry, who worked for the white-collar Transport Salaried Staffs Association (TSSA) union prior to his election to Parliament in 2019, has brought about a peak in tensions between party and unions.
It came after a directive from Starmer prohibiting front-benchers from joining picket lines. The Labour leader had argued that the role of a party looking to govern was to seek to resolve trade disputes - and not involve itself in them on one side.
However, Starmer has insisted that Tarry lost his front-bench role not because of the act of appearing on the picket line - but instead “because he booked himself onto media programmes without permission and then made up policy on the hoof”.
Whelan sees things differently: “I think Sam Tarry going on a picket line as a former rail political officer and showing support was the right thing to do.
“I’ve never known it when a leader has banned the Shadow Cabinet from going on picket lines - not in my lifetime anyway. And I was told he wasn’t sacked for going on the picket line. I was told he was sacked for creating policy.
“I watched it back two or three times, and all I saw him say was: the opposition has to challenge the Government over the cost-of-living crisis. Well, we are the opposition and we should be challenging the Government, so I don’t think he did anything wrong.”
Immediately after Tarry’s sacking, Whelan tweeted: “Maybe time to recognise the link is gone.”
