# data[].attributes.body
Private sector are individuals or organisations that owned privately. Public sector are organisations that government owned a part of it. I think UK railways should nationlise rather than having privatisation. When it's change to public sector, more people may choose to take UK railways because the price may lower than the company runs private sector. The government will pay a part of it, so that the fee of taking UK railways will be cheaper. More UK people or even visitors from other countries will have a better choice.

# data[].attributes.body
In my personal view,I think that both sector have different advantages,but because it was a large business,it may cause a lot,if the train business turns into public sector,It may monopolised by the local shareholder,Because of that it increase the tax payer's taxes ,according to the article"Tax payer has been double",which require more taxes for the railways,or it will be issue too much shareholders if it in public sector,but when the UK's railways turn into private sector,it can solve the problem of the taxes payment,which reduce the taxes loads for the people,however,it will create private monopolies and allow real competition.

# data[].attributes.body
What is public and private sector? The private sector is usually composed of organizations that are privately owned and not part of the government. The public sector is usually composed of organizations that are owned and operated by the government. This includes federal, provincial, state, or municipal governments, depending on where you live. Based on the UK’s railway situation, I think they should goes for nationalism instead of privatization because nationalism is that it can build up a desire for independence within a country and this can cause them to overthrow colonial rule. It can also help advance a nation scientifically and technologically. An example of this is during the 1900s Germany and Britain was competing to build battle ships to improve their navies (Beck, Black, & Krieger, 2005).

# data[].attributes.body
Nationalism and privatisation are having different kind of business strategy. Of course, nationalism will be better for the people in UK (Base on this incident) However, the UK's traffic fee already gives a heavy financial problem for people there. If the UK's railway go for nationalism business, then it will cost a lost more for people travelling around UK. However, from my perspective, if UK's railway goes for nationalism, the business can bring economic growth for UK. Because the visitor can give a lot of money on travelling fee. Therefore, I think if the UK's railway change from privatisation to nationalism, it might be a good idea too.

# data[].attributes.body
From my point of view, there are advantages and disadvantage in both nationalisation and privatisation. In public perspective, nationalisation is more beneficial, due to the reason of creating cheaper traffic fees for the British, while privatisation has least advantage to the people due to high traffic fees. UK's railway fee is the most expensive one among the Europe, therefore, it is not an advantage from the public perspective. In business perspective, privatisation is a benefit, due to the less competitive environment.

# data[].attributes.body
"Organisations always run more efficiently when they are free of government control" must not stand. Privately run organisations are not always more efficient in terms of production, because they might decrease in productivity, customer satisfaction, and efficiency when the competition is not huge.

Private organisations might decrease in productivity, customer satisfaction, and efficiency, as they might become monopolies in a certain industry, and competition no longer exists. Taking the example of British Rail, a privatised organisation, it is the most expensive railway in Europe, with fares 14 times higher than the others (Clark, 2008). Although its fares are expensive, it receives four times more in taxpayers' subsidies than the state-owned rails (Clark, 2008). This suggests that the organisation is not producing efficiently since it still need large amount of subsidies despite its high fare prices. And one of the main cause to the malfunction of the organisation is its control over the rails market in UK. Since British Rail is the only railway organisation in UK, and rail is one of the most important public transportation used in the UK. This makes British Rail become the monopoly in the rail market. Since there is almost no competition,  they soon focus on making more profit, and customer satisfaction and productivity might be neglected.

Therefore, "Organisations always run more efficiently when they are free of government control" is not always true. This can be caused by the lack of competition, over-focus on profit-making and other external causes.

# data[].attributes.body
A private and public sector is simultaneously essential necessary to the society, mainly because the sector of two can reduce and let the life better, leading the population can have a safety and quality of life.
First of all, we need to know the private and public sector are different. We need a government to build the high way, hospital, street, road or even more then that, in the same time we also need a organisation to make the life become more efficient, that wise it is crucial to have this two sector together to maintain a better life.
Further more, we are need to have a private sector to balance because sometime both sector can run a project to safe the cost and share the technology.
In conclusion, this two factor are important, they need a competition and corruption to let the market work more efficient.

# data[].attributes.body
In my opinion, the public and private sector are both important to the society. For example, in the society there must be poverty, meaning that there must be people suffering from living, if there's only private sector, it may not be affordable, as they only aiming for making profit.
for them. Similarly, if there are over 70% of the market is own by the public sector, the market will be monopolies by them. So, to form a society, both public and private sector are important, as they mange different area in the society.

# data[].attributes.headline
Renationalisation can cure British failures

# data[].attributes.subject
Renationalisation can cure British failures

# data[].attributes.body
http://www.theweek.co.uk/25537/renationalisation-can-cure-other-british-failures

# data[].attributes.body
Why not nationalise the UK railways?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A look at eye-catching policy ideas that are often talked about but never seem to feature in UK general election campaigns.

The background

Britain's railways were nationalised by Labour in 1948 and returned to private hands by John Major's Conservative government in 1993.

Labour was initially committed to renationalisation but the policy was dropped when Tony Blair came to power in 1997. Track, signalling and stations were taken out of private hands, and put into a not-for-profit company, Network Rail, after the collapse of Railtrack in 2002.

Labour has yet to reveal its transport policies for the next general election, but they are not thought likely to feature rail nationalisation.

Green Party MP Caroline Lucas has launched a private members' bill to allow the train companies to "fall back" into public ownership, which is supported by a number of Labour backbenchers and Plaid Cymru MPs.

The train companies insist the debate about nationalisation is solely driven by the unions.

Ian Taylor: The case for nationalisation

In 1993, Britain's railway was broken into pieces and handed, mostly as local monopolies, to profit-taking companies.

The cost of the railway to the taxpayer has subsequently more than doubled in real terms, a rise out of all proportion to the 33% increase in train services over the same period.

The cost rises stem from wastage as shareholder dividend pay-outs, other inefficient private sector financing and inefficiencies created by fragmentation of the railway.

Ian Taylor, co-founder of Transport for Quality of Life think tank

Formerly manager of environmental consultancy services for the Centre for Alternative Technology

Has also worked for Greenpeace and Oxfam

Transport for Quality of Life's clients include the Department of Transport, local authorities and the rail unions

The wastage amounts to over £1bn per year, enough to cut fares by 20% if the railway were reunified as a public company.

Instead, fare increases on the privatised railway threaten to turn it into a "rich-man's toy", as this government's first Secretary of State for Transport put it.

Unbeknown to most passengers, one portion of our railway, the East Coast mainline, is still run by a publicly-owned company, Directly Operated Railways, which picked up the pieces after its two private sector predecessors walked off the job.

Recent calculations by the Office of Rail Regulation revealed how the public money that helps maintain the rail tracks or directly supports rail services splits between the train companies and showed that DOR receives less subsidy than any other rail franchise operator. DOR's success is a glaring embarrassment for the Government, who now intend to privatise it post-haste, even though that will increase costs to the taxpayer.

Most other rail franchises in the UK are, ironically, also run by companies that are wholly or partly publicly owned, but by other countries. Deutsche Bahn is foremost - they even run the Royal Train - and the German Government have said "We're skimming profit from the entire Deutsche Bahn...it is invested in the rail network here in Germany". So, if you are reading this on an overcrowded train with a ticket that made a painful hole in your wallet, take heart from your generous contribution to improvement of Germany's fine publicly-owned railway.

Ben Southwood: The case against nationalisation

The UK's railway network was built privately and competitively and by some way its most successful years were the private eras between 1830 and 1922 and 1994 to the present.

Returning it to centralised state control would be a step backwards and a mistake.

Instead we should end the practice of franchising, which creates private monopolies, and allow real competition and diversity.

Ben Southwood is a researcher at the Adam Smith Institute

Previously economics correspondent for City AM newspaper

He has a degree in Philosophy, Politics and Economics from Oxford University

The Adam Smith Institute is an independent free market think tank known for its work on privatisation and tax reform

Our system began with the first steam train in 1825, and despite costly government licenses, investors built the bulk of today's network (about 6,000 of approx 11,000 miles) in just three or so years, between 1844 and 1846.

Journeys rose to from about 500 million a year in the 1870s to 1.5 billion just before the First World War. After the war, David Lloyd George judged that rail firms profits were too low due to too much competition, and decided to merge nearly all the UK's railway firms into just four firms, practically monopolies.

Between 1923 and 1947 the so-called Big Four government-supported firms ran the roost and journeys fell to about 1.2 billion by the onset of the Second World War.

After the war, these and others were consolidated further into British Rail. Under British Rail, there were steadily fewer and fewer journeys per year-from around 1 billion in 1948 to only 750 million by 1995, just before the onset of the franchising system.

Now there are deep flaws with franchising, and undoubtedly it has been lucky, coinciding with higher congestion, fuel prices, and a renewed rise in London as the UK's economic centre. But the sharpness of the change since 1995 is undeniable.

Since then journeys have spiked dramatically, rising every year to close on the 1.5 billion not seen for almost a century.

The solution to our current problems is not more state bungling, it is a return to diversity, competition and open markets.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A look at eye-catching policy ideas that are often talked about but never seem to feature in UK general election campaigns. Britain's railways were nationalised by Labour in 1948 and returned to private hands by John Major's Conservative government in 1993.

# data[].attributes.body
Organisations always run more efficiently when they are free of government control. Discuss.

http://www.neweconomics.org/blog/entry/mythbusters-the-private-sector-is-more-efficient-than-the-public-sector