Nationalisation of train operators ‘tackling deep-rooted problems'
The operator, which runs services between London Fenchurch Street and south Essex, has been owned by Italy's state-owned rail company Trenitalia since 2017.
The Department for Transport (DfT) said c2c is 'consistently rated one of the best performing operators in the country'.
It achieved a passenger satisfaction rating for the overall journey of 89% in the most recent research by watchdog Transport Focus.
This was the joint sixth best performance out of 22 operators.
Ms Alexander said: 'Whether you're shopping in Lakeside or walking along the beach in Southend-on-Sea, from this Sunday you will be able to get there on a train service run by the public, for the public.
'Public ownership is already tackling deep-rooted problems we see on the railway that's led to spiralling costs, fragmentation and waste.'
Customers of a nationalised train company can use their tickets on another publicly-owned operator at no extra cost during disruption.
Ms Alexander added: 'A unified network under Great British Railways (GBR) will take this further with one railway under one brand with one mission – delivering excellent services for passengers wherever they travel.'
GBR is an upcoming public sector body that will oversee Britain's rail infrastructure and train operation.
Nationalised services are currently the responsibility of DfT Operator.
South Western Railway became the first operator brought into public ownership by the Labour Government in May.
It joined Northern, TransPennine Express, Southeastern and LNER, which were nationalised under the Conservative government because of performance failings by the former owners of those franchises.
Rob Mullen, managing director of c2c, said: 'We are proud of the reliable and high level of service we offer our passengers, consistently being rated as one of the best performing operators in the country.
'We now have a golden opportunity to collaborate with the wider family of publicly-owned operators, sharing our successes and best practice, but also learning from a wide range of different and diverse operators who have already benefited from public ownership, to drive even more improvements for the people and places we all serve.
'A unified and focused railway can deliver more for our communities, including better growth, jobs and houses.'
Eddie Dempsey, general secretary of the Rail, Maritime and Transport (RMT) union, welcomed the nationalisation of c2c but expressed frustration that staff cleaning its trains and stations will still be employed by private company Bidvest Noonan.
He said: 'The injustice of outsourcing must end so all railway workers can reap the benefits of public ownership and greedy private contractors can no longer extract obscene profits from the industry.
'Our members working for Bidvest Noonan deserve decent pay and the same terms and conditions as their colleagues, and we will fight tooth and nail to achieve it.'
Paul Nowak, general secretary of trade union body the TUC, said: 'We need a fully integrated national rail service that works for passengers and the rail workforce.
'That means tackling outsourcing in the sector.'
The next operator to be nationalised will be Greater Anglia on October 12.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
BBC News
15 hours ago
- BBC News
Cheshire and Warrington mayoral election one-year delay welcomed
Political leaders across Cheshire have welcomed ministers' decision to push the county's first mayoral election back by 12 government has confirmed that Cheshire and Warrington's inaugural elected figurehead will now be chosen on the same day in May 2027 as some local elections in the of the county's three councils - Cheshire East, Cheshire West and Chester, and Warrington - said the decision would provide "greater clarity" and save groups have also welcomed the move, with one Conservative councillor saying it would allow time to set up a "working and fully functioning combined authority". The three council leaders said the government's decision "gives us greater clarity on our plan to establish a Mayoral Combined Authority in 2026".They also said a May 2027 mayoral election would "save money and could also result in more people voting and having their say".Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester are both scheduled to hold their next full council elections in May Borough Council's would be the following year. Opposition Conservatives in both Cheshire East and Cheshire West and Chester had previously called for a delay in the mayoral Gardiner, the leader of the Tory group on Cheshire East Council, said: "Each borough-wide election costs around £1m to run, and having separate elections in 2026 and 2027 makes no financial sense."Additionally it would allow time to set up a working and fully functioning combined authority, rather than simply rushing to fit some arbitrary timetable set by the Labour government."Adrian Waddelove, who chairs the Conservative group on Cheshire West and Chester Council, said he was "delighted"."It's a shame that it has taken so long for the Labour leadership to realise the benefits of a one-year delay when greater clarity to residents and businesses could have been provided sooner," he Liberal Democrats opposition group on Warrington Council has been approached for comment. 'Benefits and opportunities' The leaders of Cheshire's three councils also welcomed the confirmation from the government that the county could continue with its devolution plans and had published the results of a recent consultation."We can now work with certainty to unlock the huge benefits and opportunities of devolution," they said."As we continue, it's important we take on board and respond to the feedback received through the government consultation."The three councils are expected to make formal decisions on the devolution proposals in September. Read more stories from Cheshire on the BBC and follow BBC North West on X. For more local politics coverage, BBC Politics North West is on BBC One on Sunday at 10:00am and on BBC iPlayer.
Scotsman
17 hours ago
- Scotsman
Former Nato Secretary-General's terrifying warning about state of UK's defences shows why we need to 'wake up'
Sign up to our daily newsletter – Regular news stories and round-ups from around Scotland direct to your inbox Sign up Thank you for signing up! Did you know with a Digital Subscription to The Scotsman, you can get unlimited access to the website including our premium content, as well as benefiting from fewer ads, loyalty rewards and much more. Learn More Sorry, there seem to be some issues. Please try again later. Submitting... Given he was a UK Defence Secretary, Nato Secretary-General and recently co-wrote a Strategic Defence Review for the Westminster government, George Robertson is worth listening to on military matters. And, speaking in a debate on the review in the House of Lords, Lord Robertson stressed repeatedly that 'this country and its people are not safe' because of the state of our Armed Forces. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad 'When we say in the report [the review] that we are unprepared, it is an understatement,' he warned. 'We don't have the ammunition, the training, the people, the spare parts, the logistics, and we don't have the medical capacity to deal with the mass casualties that we would face if we were involved in high-intensity warfare.' If Ukraine is defeated by Vladimir Putin's forces, he is likely to turn his attention to the Baltic states, all Nato members (Picture: Genya Savilov) | AFP via Getty Images No more peace dividend Not that long ago, the risk that this country might be involved in such a conflict was relatively small. The UK was, therefore, able to enjoy a 'peace dividend' that saw the size of our Armed Forces fall to historically low levels, with the money saved used for other public spending priorities. And that was a good thing. However, the world has changed dramatically in three main ways: Vladimir Putin's corruption of Russian democracy and his invasion of Ukraine; the rise of isolationism in US politics, as expressed by Donald Trump's 'America first' slogan; and the increasing military might of China. Advertisement Hide Ad Advertisement Hide Ad Suddenly the UK has found itself facing a possible future in which Russia defeats Ukraine and then turns its attention to the Baltic states, all Nato members; the US, under Trump or a fellow traveller, decides to leave Europe to its own defences; and China invades Taiwan. The problem is few people recognise the potential dangers. Former Conservative defence minister Nicholas Soames said 'unless the public has some idea of the sense of urgency, the only way really to wake people up is to establish either a minister or ministry of civil defence charged with training millions of people how to respond to an attack'.
The National
18 hours ago
- The National
Voting age of 16 is fine – but what about kids who are 8 or 9?
At this age, you can work, pay taxes, join the armed forces, live independently, marry (in Scotland), change your legal name, consume alcohol (under supervision), as well as legally serve it. So, why not have the vote? Don't all these rights and responsibilities mean you're contributing to society, and thus should be able to shape its priorities through representative democracy? On the other hand, the Labour Government's proposal for the next UK General Election – following more than a decade of enfranchisement at 16-17 in Scottish and Welsh elections – has opened it up to accusations of election rigging, or gerrymandering. READ MORE: I'm a journalist covering Palestine Action arrests. This is all absurd The Tories, registering at 2% of the vote for 18 to 24-year-olds, are unhappy (Reform UK only slightly less unhappy, at 8%). The Greens, at 26% for this cohort in the most recent YouGov poll (only two behind Labour), are pleased. Academics at Edinburgh University have studied the consequences of a generation of 16 to 17-year-olds starting their voting lives in the Scottish indy referendum. And they're adamant: for them, this hasn't resulted in SNP or Green electoral advantage. Going by international comparisons in Brazil and Austria, when they've introduced it, the electoral voting patterns were the same overall. But there is a clear result from Scottish surveys. Those whose first voting experience was at 16-17 became more enthusiastic voters, over subsequent elections, by comparison with those whose first vote was at 18. Why so? There are some interesting sociological hunches. Eighteen is a pretty transitional year for many – they're leaving home, entering the labour market and/or campus. Registering or participating in an electoral vote may slide down the priority list. Whereas 16 to 17-year-old voters are still likely to be embedded in both family and school. Conversations will be raging at home, teachers will be setting up debates and frameworks in schools (not forgetting that great Scots tradition of 'modern studies' education also feeding in). So votes at 16 may be a long-term revitaliser of democratic electoral participation, at the most functional level. But it doesn't seem like a net that's going to pull in shoals of progressive, liberal-left votes. In any case, these teens are only about 2.8% of these islands' population. Nor, as the Scottish research reports, does 17-18 increase levels of non-electoral political engagement (like demonstrations, petitions or other activism). There's also a degree of Gen Z weirdness around youth voting intentions. An ITV/Merlin Strategy poll of 16 to 17-year-olds shows that only 18% would vote in an election tomorrow. Nearly half (49%) didn't think they should be given the chance to vote at all. Finally, more than a fifth said that 'a military strongman, with no government or elections' was 'positively regarded' (this is in line with other recent surveys). So, the kids are hardly automatic rich pickings for the centre-left, no matter Reform's or Farage's bluster in recent headlines. Some have recently made a broader case that the voting age could arguably be lowered further, in an incremental way. Or take a leap to the beginning of school attendance (say, six years). Or even be present from birth. The Cambridge professor of politics, David Runciman, offers some of the best context for these initially alarming proposals. As he notes, from ancient Athens to the UK in the Seventies, there were many more voters under 40 than over 60. READ MORE: John Swinney's plan on independence is a start but it can't be the final word Since then, it's been reversing: the over-65s, who were barely 5% of the electorate a century ago, are now closer to 20%. In 2022, Runciman suggested (with a whiff of Swiftian satire) that children who can execute lessons in schools should be able to choose a box on a voting slip. 'Why would you exclude children, unless you wanted 65-year-olds and above to decide every election that ever happens?' But is this the way to include children? Runciman makes a valiant attempt to knock down every objection. Competence to vote could be a factor. But we once subjected women to such a test – and despite the manifest cognitive decline of many elders, we don't apply it there either these days. Another objection: might children be unpredictable and emotional in their political choices? Surely we adults are hardly exempting ourselves from that charge, at the moment? At a deeper level, says the professor, children are citizens with rights. Like the rest of us, they will 'have to live with the consequences of the decisions that are made by politicians on our behalf'. Runciman emphasises that children will live with these consequences longer than anyone else. Therefore they should have a right to express a view. Another challenge: will they be susceptible to the charisma of teachers, TikTokkers and YouTubers, kids marketers and seductive tech? Again, take our addicted and entranced adult selves, pulled this way and that by loyalties, identities and peer pressure. Do we use that as a case for disqualifying our own capability to vote? In his research with local schools, Runciman reports that 'there's absolutely no evidence that all primary-age schoolchildren are Corbynites [or in the Scottish context, independistas]. They have all sorts of interesting and surprising views, many of them quite conservative'. He found that 10-year-olds were 'really cynical', reflecting adult negativity and scepticism about politics and public life absorbed from social media or parents. Meanwhile, six and eight-year-olds were 'fresh, interesting, engaged'. READ MORE: Donald Trump hits out at Rupert Murdoch over 'fake' note to Jeffrey Epstein All of this is a grand thought-experiment from Runciman, which he confesses 'won't be happening anytime soon'. But he does open up fascinating questions about the point at which we think citizenship begins, as we head for the second quarter of the 21st century. Some obvious objections can be made. Take the recent revival of the right of children to unsupervised, rough-and-tumble play – led by the American psychologist Jonathan Haidt and others. They make the argument that the return of free play can help American youth form themselves as robust citizens. All this cavorting will equip them from early years to handle debate and dispute. Rather than being over-sensitive and over-reactive from too much 'helicopter' teaching and parenting. In Haidt's view, you can confer too much responsibility on children too early. They should be allowed much more time and space to mess around and test their responses to the world and others. At the appropriate moment (which may well be 16), they can deploy those healthily developed social and cognitive muscles, as full citizens of their polity. But not before. I have my objections to Haidt's work, specifically his negative attitudes to social media and technology in the worlds of children. The kinds of dynamic, communal interactivity it enables could – if properly administered and designed – open up new kinds of political voice for children. This would stop short of a further legal extension of the franchise. But it could use bandwidth, apps and regulation in creative ways, establishing a beachhead of democratic behaviour within kids' endless entertainment landscapes. Taking inspiration from Audrey Tang's digital democracy system in Taiwan, we could send call-outs for deliberation and shaping around great issues towards six-year-olds and upwards. The exact justification would be their generational stake in futures otherwise decided for them by various waves of elders. Wales is also an inspiration (as in much at the moment), with its Future Generations ministry. So do we only use smart kids in propaganda videos and party-political broadcasts, symbolising the future independence of Scotland? Or do we systematically bring their voices to the centre of our concerns, given the bad job we've made of the world they'll grow up in? Tick the right box, grown-ups.
