Why does this current U.K. Government hate rail so much.

[yorksrob]

They feed in, but the weighting is absolutely tiny.

I very much doubt the inflation index is going to be significantly effected whatever happens to train fares.

@HSTEd summed it up.

But it basically debunks your claim that rail fares can be used to "hold down inflation".

That's not the whole story of course though.

A national inflation index is necessarily going to be a combination of various factors, however individuals will be affected by different combinations of products in the inflation basket. Certain prices being held down will have a considerable effect on peoples economic wellbeing - this is why the bus fares are being capped.

 

[zwk500]

That's not the whole story of course though.

A national inflation index is necessarily going to be a combination of various factors, however individuals will be affected by different combinations of products in the inflation basket. Certain prices being held down will have a considerable effect on peoples economic wellbeing - this is why the bus fares are being capped.

The only people for whom Rail travel will form a statistically relevant part of their personal inflation are season ticket holders, who's revenue is vital to the rail industry's material survival and therefore the government will not, under any circumstances, be subsidising it any further.

 

[yorksrob]

The only people for whom Rail travel will form a statistically relevant part of their personal inflation are season ticket holders, who's revenue is vital to the rail industry's material survival and therefore the government will not, under any circumstances, be subsidising it any further.

On the contrary, plenty of people use the railway for leisure travel - infact it's more vital to the material survival of the railway than ever before.

You can argue until you're blue in the face, however all these Western countries wouldn't be putting in these measures if they weren't to impact people's personal economic circumstances.

 

[A0]

On the contrary, plenty of people use the railway for leisure travel - infact it's more vital to the material survival of the railway than ever before.

You need to read @zwk500's post more carefully because what you've posted shows you haven't.

 

[yorksrob]

You need to read @zwk500's post more carefully because what you've posted shows you haven't.

The idea that rail travel will only be "statistically relevant for season ticket holders" is plain untrue, which is why I glossed over it. There will be plenty of people for whom leisure is the larger proportion of their rail travel.

The fundamental point though is that I don't need to argue the toss over this with any of you. I can just point to what is being done in Germany, Austria etc.

 

[zwk500]

The idea that rail travel will only be "statistically relevant for season ticket holders" is plain untrue, which is why I glossed over it. There will be plenty of people for whom leisure is the larger proportion of their rail travel.

But not of their total outgoings. By definition, if you are travelling for leisure it is because you can afford it. The vast majority of individuals will be facing almost all their inflation on three fronts: Housing costs, Energy costs, and Food Costs.

You've very selectively misquoted my post to get it completely wrong. In fact you've worked so hard to get the wrong end of the stick I'm almost impressed.

 

[yorksrob]

But not of their total outgoings. By definition, if you are travelling for leisure it is because you can afford it. The vast majority of individuals will be facing almost all their inflation on three fronts: Housing costs, Energy costs, and Food Costs.

You've very selectively misquoted my post to get it completely wrong.

Well, the quote "who's revenue is vital to the rail industry's material survival and therefore the government will not, under any circumstances, be subsidising it any further" is off topic, so I shouldn't have responded to it anyway.

But whatever you say about train fares is just as true for bus fares, yet our Government are capping them to bring down people's personal inflation rates.

 

[zwk500]

Well, the quote "who's revenue is vital to the rail industry's material survival and therefore the government will not, under any circumstances, be subsidising it any further" is off topic, so I shouldn't have responded to it anyway.

It's not off-topic, it's very relevant to the discussion: The UK Government wants the UK Rail industry to require less subsidy. That means not subsidising vital revenue flows.

But whatever you say about train fares is just as true for bus fares, yet our Government are capping them to bring down people's personal inflation rates.

Prior to the cap, what was the most expensive annual bus ticket anybody commuted on? As a proportion of household expenditure, it will not be anything like as significant as the average train commuting ticket.

 

[deltic]

In terms of the first point, using rail fares to hold down inflation is clearly and evidently not an impossibility as other countries in Europe are doing just that (and we are doing on the buses). Admittedly, it should be part of a package of measures that encourage domestic economic activity.

According to the ONS rail fares have a weight of 2.8 parts per thousand (0.28%) in the Consumer Prices Index including owner occupiers' housing costs (CPIH), and 4.2 parts per thousand in the Consumer Prices Index (CPI) (0.42%).

 

[A0]

But whatever you say about train fares is just as true for bus fares, yet our Government are capping them to bring down people's personal inflation rates.

Far more bus journeys are made on a daily basis and often by those on lower incomes.

The £2 fare policy isn't about reducing inflation, it is about mitigating the effects of inflation in other sectors.

It should also be pointed out that this measure costs about £200m / year, against the rail subsidy of upward of £6.5bn a year - I'd say it's much better value as well.

 

[deltic]

The only people for whom Rail travel will form a statistically relevant part of their personal inflation are season ticket holders, who's revenue is vital to the rail industry's material survival and therefore the government will not, under any circumstances, be subsidising it any further.

Season ticket revenue is less than 10% of total passenger revenue

 

[yorksrob]

Prior to the cap, what was the most expensive annual bus ticket anybody commuted on? As a proportion of household expenditure, it will not be anything like as significant as the average train commuting ticket.

Which means that train fares would have an even greater effect on inflation.

Far more bus journeys are made on a daily basis and often by those on lower incomes.

The £2 fare policy isn't about reducing inflation, it is about mitigating the effects of inflation in other sectors.

It should also be pointed out that this measure costs about £200m / year, against the rail subsidy of upward of £6.5bn a year - I'd say it's much better value as well.

More journeys may be made on the bus but they will generally be of a higher value, so will have a greater effect.

It's also a very London-centric view to assume that the railways are all used by higher earners. All around the country people from all walks of life use the train for their day to day lives.

 

[Stephen42]

Which means that train fares would have an even greater effect on inflation.



More journeys may be made on the bus but they will generally be of a higher value, so will have a greater effect.

It's also a very London-centric view to assume that the railways are all used by higher earners. All around the country people from all walks of life use the train for their day to day lives.

The weightings mean that for an absolute cash amount of fare reduction it doesn't matter what mode you reduce as with the weights it will be the same percentage reduction in spending. Yes you would reduce inflation more if you cut all train tickets by half than bus tickets, but you would have foregone far more revenue to do so.

The bus fare cap latest extension is £200m a year as cap goes up to £2.50, for £2 was £300m per year. To put that into context, if the UK government decided all rail fares increased by RPI instead of 5.9% with the train fare revenue for 2022 that's about half a billion per year more it would have received. No fare increase at all is roughly another half a billion they would have foregone. (Very rough figures and factors that could pull it either way but gives a sense of the scale compared to bus).

The above suggests that maybe the UK gov doesn't hate rail as much as suggested. Many other public sector organisations including various NHS bodies are also having to look at efficiency savings, it's not that rail has been singled out.

 

[Pinza-C55]

The NHS has been wrecked by far too many years of ideological meddling, and currently back-door privatisation. Let's see where the money is actually going before we pour more money into it, but it's going to take a change of government to do that. It would be lovely if they'd give the NAO some real teeth too.

Unfortunately my immediate family & most of my family friends have been ground down by years of "helpful tinkering" in the NHS. At a base level units are incredibly efficient with their budget, when you start going up the pyramid a bit is when yoiu start finding leaks.

Hmm.

Again, suggesting a change of government to "save the NHS" implies that Labour will do this. The Blair Labour government introduced Private Finance Initiatives (a Tory idea) to the NHS and left it saddled with an £80 billion debt which will not be paid off till 2050 if at all. George Galloway (not known for his Tory leanings) pointed out that at one London hospital each bed cost £1 million to create.

 

[tomuk]

Isnt the justification for the £2 bus fare to reduce the cost of living, i.e cut inflation? Is that working?

No its to try and get people to use buses and for current users it does reduce their costs. But it has a negligible effect on inflation checking the weighting of items in the basket of goods bus fares sit between the cost of a cremation and a single pouch of cat food.

 

[yorksrob]

The weightings mean that for an absolute cash amount of fare reduction it doesn't matter what mode you reduce as with the weights it will be the same percentage reduction in spending. Yes you would reduce inflation more if you cut all train tickets by half than bus tickets, but you would have foregone far more revenue to do so.

The bus fare cap latest extension is £200m a year as cap goes up to £2.50, for £2 was £300m per year. To put that into context, if the UK government decided all rail fares increased by RPI instead of 5.9% with the train fare revenue for 2022 that's about half a billion per year more it would have received. No fare increase at all is roughly another half a billion they would have foregone. (Very rough figures and factors that could pull it either way but gives a sense of the scale compared to bus).

The above suggests that maybe the UK gov doesn't hate rail as much as suggested. Many other public sector organisations including various NHS bodies are also having to look at efficiency savings, it's not that rail has been singled out.

I'm afraid that this Government clearly has no interest in getting the railways running. They have nothing but contempt for rail passengers who've had to put up with overpriced, sub-standard rail services for over a year now, and I won't be satisfied until they're gone.

 

[A0]

More journeys may be made on the bus but they will generally be of a higher value, so will have a greater effect.

Your average bus fare was already *lower* (before the cap) than your average rail fare.

Any other arrant nonsense you'd like to peddle on this thread ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==

I'm afraid that this Government clearly has no interest in getting the railways running. They have nothing but contempt for rail passengers who've had to put up with overpriced, sub-standard rail services for over a year now, and I won't be satisfied until they're gone.

Ah - just tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

How about the rail industry taking sone responsibility for the position its in ? And that includes the unions before you try to blame it all on the management.

 

[zwk500]

How about the rail industry taking sone responsibility for the position its in ? And that includes the unions before you try to blame it all on the management.

If the 'industry' is to take it's fair share of responsibility that includes all players being honest. It also means that over-generalising to 'the unions' and 'the management' isn't helpful. When I worked in the industry I found some managers to be worth 10 times what the union reps were worth, and at other times I found managers who could not have been worse for the company if they'd actively wanted to burn it to the ground. Equally I worked with external stakeholders (politicians and such like) who were excellent and drove significant service upgrades with clear vision and demarcation of responsibilities. I also worked with politicians who liked to throw their weight around from an ivory tower and squandered significant amounts of public money for gilded vanity projects that never had any chance of being built.

• Politicians have killed the railway by constantly changing scope, refusing to fund the scopes they do set out, and by trying to secure personal political victories even at the cost of overall public good.
• Managers have killed the railway by allowing working cultures of 'not my job' or 'little kingdoms' to develop while being overly focused on budgets and their spreadsheet targets without taking the time to understand the nuances of why individual circumstances might not fit their corporate buzzsheets. They have also caused problems by not fully appreciating the technical work that goes on underneath them, and by refusing to update working practices (yes, managers do this as well!) to reflect methods readily available. Safety critical documents have more holes in them than Gruyere because of poor and outdated data and reporting management. Managers have also repeatedly failed to deliver the promised benefits of 'modernisation' programmes with IT hamstrung by obsolete systems or personnel being reduced but then having to hire in a vast amount of new people when they discover the work isn't getting done because they got rid of the people actually doing it, costing the company far more in the long run.
• Unions have killed the railway by being reluctant to accept change unless they stand to personally benefit, and by inter-union or internal union politics often taking a far greater priority in their work than the actual welfare of individual members. They have also made exaggerated claims about some of the changes they oppose which discredit the legitimate objections.

HOWEVER

• Politicians have saved the railway by funding massive investment in infrastructure and stock, and facilitating the industry to allow experimentation while also ensuring it meets basic public service obligations. They have also set up a regulatory culture that have dramatically improved the safety of the railways in the last 20 years.
• Managers have saved the railways by providing clear drive and direction to provide innovative solutions to the problems the industry has faced. Some problems are unique, others are shared with other companies and the mix of managers from 'through the ranks' and coming in at the side has been hugely beneficial to this change. Managers have also rescued projects from the death to deliver world-class infrastructure on the world's oldest system and found ways to do the job that have resulted in far more efficient and effective working practices.
• Unions have saved the railway by protecting workers' rights and safety such that the railway can still recruit, because there is still and will always be a significant staffing requirement and reasonably large turnover within the industry in a number of key positions. Local union reps have also done excellent work bridging workplace tensions and divides to allow a more open and effective working culture as well as defending workers from hostile management when incidents do occur, keeping good people in the jobs for longer.

All of these examples are from personal experience of working in the industry. I have worked with good and bad politicians and managers, and have experienced good and bad union representation. Hence why abstract labels of 'Government' or 'Management' versus 'the Unions' aren't really helpful.

 

[A0]

If the 'industry' is to take it's fair share of responsibility that includes all players being honest. It also means that over-generalising to 'the unions' and 'the management' isn't helpful. When I worked in the industry I found some managers to be worth 10 times what the union reps were worth, and at other times I found managers who could not have been worse for the company if they'd actively wanted to burn it to the ground. Equally I worked with external stakeholders (politicians and such like) who were excellent and drove significant service upgrades with clear vision and demarcation of responsibilities. I also worked with politicians who liked to throw their weight around from an ivory tower and squandered significant amounts of public money for gilded vanity projects that never had any chance of being built.

• Politicians have killed the railway by constantly changing scope, refusing to fund the scopes they do set out, and by trying to secure personal political victories even at the cost of overall public good.
• Managers have killed the railway by allowing working cultures of 'not my job' or 'little kingdoms' to develop while being overly focused on budgets and their spreadsheet targets without taking the time to understand the nuances of why individual circumstances might not fit their corporate buzzsheets. They have also caused problems by not fully appreciating the technical work that goes on underneath them, and by refusing to update working practices (yes, managers do this as well!) to reflect methods readily available. Safety critical documents have more holes in them than Gruyere because of poor and outdated data and reporting management. Managers have also repeatedly failed to deliver the promised benefits of 'modernisation' programmes with IT hamstrung by obsolete systems or personnel being reduced but then having to hire in a vast amount of new people when they discover the work isn't getting done because they got rid of the people actually doing it, costing the company far more in the long run.
• Unions have killed the railway by being reluctant to accept change unless they stand to personally benefit, and by inter-union or internal union politics often taking a far greater priority in their work than the actual welfare of individual members. They have also made exaggerated claims about some of the changes they oppose which discredit the legitimate objections.

HOWEVER

• Politicians have saved the railway by funding massive investment in infrastructure and stock, and facilitating the industry to allow experimentation while also ensuring it meets basic public service obligations. They have also set up a regulatory culture that have dramatically improved the safety of the railways in the last 20 years.
• Managers have saved the railways by providing clear drive and direction to provide innovative solutions to the problems the industry has faced. Some problems are unique, others are shared with other companies and the mix of managers from 'through the ranks' and coming in at the side has been hugely beneficial to this change. Managers have also rescued projects from the death to deliver world-class infrastructure on the world's oldest system and found ways to do the job that have resulted in far more efficient and effective working practices.
• Unions have saved the railway by protecting workers' rights and safety such that the railway can still recruit, because there is still and will always be a significant staffing requirement and reasonably large turnover within the industry in a number of key positions. Local union reps have also done excellent work bridging workplace tensions and divides to allow a more open and effective working culture as well as defending workers from hostile management when incidents do occur, keeping good people in the jobs for longer.

All of these examples are from personal experience of working in the industry. I have worked with good and bad politicians and managers, and have experienced good and bad union representation. Hence why abstract labels of 'Government' or 'Management' versus 'the Unions' aren't really helpful.

I don't disagree with any of that - but there are no shortage of posters (such as the one I directed my comment to) on this and other boards who's first approach will be "get rid of the management and the problems go away" without recognising there are failings at all levels, which was the point I was making.

 

[yorksrob]

Your average bus fare was already *lower* (before the cap) than your average rail fare.

Any other arrant nonsense you'd like to peddle on this thread ?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==



Ah - just tinfoil hat conspiracy theories.

How about the rail industry taking sone responsibility for the position its in ? And that includes the unions before you try to blame it all on the management.

Apologies, I was typing quickly and meant to say "but rail journeys will be of a higher value" hence they will have a greater impact on inflation and inflation mitigation.

As for conspiracy theories, I've been using the train since the 1980's and this is the worst they've ever been. For the past year + I've been forced to run a gauntlet of industrial action, failing franchises, and "covid cuts" that have turned out to be permanent, as well as the usual price gouging that seems to be intensifying. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is lived experience and the buck stops with this Government which clearly holds railway passengers in contempt.

 

[gazzaa2]

If you dislike one political parties policies then you should be able to suggest an alternative. My own view is that in reality both parties when elected have little difference and are happy to carry on with the policies of the previous lot.

Yeah, but we're basically stuck with it until the point the voting system changes.

 

[A0]

Apologies, I was typing quickly and meant to say "but rail journeys will be of a higher value" hence they will have a greater impact on inflation and inflation mitigation.

Bit in bold:

No they won't - because the "price" of the goods or services being sold isn't the driver of inflation figures, it's the change in price over a period of time.

As for conspiracy theories, I've been using the train since the 1980's and this is the worst they've ever been. For the past year + I've been forced to run a gauntlet of industrial action, failing franchises, and "covid cuts" that have turned out to be permanent, as well as the usual price gouging that seems to be intensifying. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is lived experience and the buck stops with this Government which clearly holds railway passengers in contempt.

Yes, because there were *never* strikes, service reductions, "temporary" cuts which became permanent etc etc in the 1970s, 1980s or 1990s.

And fare increases were headline news throughout those times as well.

Time to put the rose-tinted glasses back in their case.

Yeah, but we're basically stuck with it until the point the voting system changes.

So you can have a coalition of the losers ?

 

[Kilopylae]

If I had to take a guess, I would say it's because of what railways represent. Conservatism in western society tends to lean towards individualism and personal freedom (despite also somewhat misunderstanding their meanings), and as such they naturally favour the car over the train which is a timetabled form of transport for the collective which is against their aforementioned principles.

There was a socialist political philosopher, Brian Barry, who said this in 1989:

"Socialists are right to think that public transport is more than a device for moving people around: it also throws people from different social classes and areas of the country together and creates a common interest in the efficient running of the system. Conversely, driving a car creates a spirit of competition with other road users in which those who are prepared to be anti-social (eg, by pulling into an intersection or not letting pedestrians cross the road) gain at the expense of others. It is a common observation that, as traffic congestion gets worse in London, standards of civility and considerate behaviour decline. Is it likely that the aggression and rudeness displayed on the road are completely left behind when the car is parked?

"The socialist case against the car in city centres is not just that it creates mutual frustration but also that it makes people worse. Across the board-education and medical care are two other obvious examples - collective provision on a universal basis fosters attitudes of co-operation and concern while private provision is divisive and conducive to selfishness."

 

[A0]

There was a socialist political philosopher, Brian Barry, who said this in 1989:

"Socialists are right to think that public transport is more than a device for moving people around: it also throws people from different social classes and areas of the country together and creates a common interest in the efficient running of the system. Conversely, driving a car creates a spirit of competition with other road users in which those who are prepared to be anti-social (eg, by pulling into an intersection or not letting pedestrians cross the road) gain at the expense of others. It is a common observation that, as traffic congestion gets worse in London, standards of civility and considerate behaviour decline. Is it likely that the aggression and rudeness displayed on the road are completely left behind when the car is parked?

"The socialist case against the car in city centres is not just that it creates mutual frustration but also that it makes people worse. Across the board-education and medical care are two other obvious examples - collective provision on a universal basis fosters attitudes of co-operation and concern while private provision is divisive and conducive to selfishness."

I'm sure if you speak to people who grew up in the former Eastern Bloc they may not share your romantic view of "all in it together". Certainly those I've spoken to definitely didn't.

 

[mike57]

There are a few candidates - the Conwy Valley (though I doubt the Welsh Assembly will do that, even if it was significantly washed out again). Barton on Humber branch, should it ever need significant spending, I'd also say Whitby has to be a contender as well, especially as the bus to Middlesbrough is quicker than the train already. Stourbridge Town - once the PPMs reach end of life.

I dont think complete closure would be politically acceptable to either main party, it would be seen as political suicide. However reductions in service is likely and any other cost saving measures that can be found.

Interestingly a huge amount (for the station usage, 2020-21 annual passenger numbers 790, pre covid 2000 ish, still less than 10 per day) has recently been spent on rebuilding Barrow Haven on the B-o-H branch, and was the subject of discussion here. The old station may not have been ideal but any government trying to justify closures when people can still see money being wasted will not go down well.

 

[HSTEd]

I dont think complete closure would be politically acceptable to either main party, it would be seen as political suicide. However reductions in service is likely and any other cost saving measures that can be found.

Interestingly a huge amount (for the station usage, 2020-21 annual passenger numbers 790, pre covid 2000 ish, still less than 10 per day) has recently been spent on rebuilding Barrow Haven on the B-o-H branch, and was the subject of discussion here. The old station may not have been ideal but any government trying to justify closures when people can still see money being wasted will not go down well.

At this point there is precious little that can be done to further reduce costs on those lines.

When Conwy Valley washes out it will either be rebuild it or close it. It won't be "rebuild 80% of it", because the line either functions or it does not.
Ultimately the current approach is the worst of all worlds.

The railway requires expensive rebuilding every time it washes out. Either they should close the line or they should spend the money necessary to secure it against future events.

As for the Barton-on-Humber branch, on that sort of very low traffic line the strategy should be to concentrate major works into temporary closures to reduce overall costs. No trying to rebuild a railway platform next to an active railway that serves small numbers of people anyway.

 

[Sm5]

Bit in bold - that's not correct. Car sales fell and the global chip shortage strangled new car supply as well. You only needed to look at the escalation of used car prices in late 2019 to see that.

And the working from home has lead to a number of people returning their PCP cars and buying something older and cheaper on the grounds they don't need a 'newish' car for the reduced mileage they are covering.

1 year dip… in 2020

ClearScore | Your credit score & report. For free. Forever.

Get your free credit score and credit report and be ClearScore sure. Check them as often as you like - it won’t affect your score.

www.nimblefins.co.uk

but its already climbed higher and surpassed 2019 by 2021.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==

Which ones?

CP7 suggested Network Rail may need to prioritise lines for repairs.

natural selection and network rail will decide.

 

[zwk500]

When Conwy Valley washes out it will either be rebuild it or close it. It won't be "rebuild 80% of it", because the line either functions or it does not.
Ultimately the current approach is the worst of all worlds.

Well in 2022, the Conwy Valley was substantially rebuilt with major flood alleviation works to try and mitigate washouts in future. I can't find any reports of the line washing out last winter.

 

[Sm5]

There was a socialist political philosopher, Brian Barry, who said this in 1989:

"Socialists are right to think that public transport is more than a device for moving people around: it also throws people from different social classes and areas of the country together and creates a common interest in the efficient running of the system. Conversely, driving a car creates a spirit of competition with other road users in which those who are prepared to be anti-social (eg, by pulling into an intersection or not letting pedestrians cross the road) gain at the expense of others. It is a common observation that, as traffic congestion gets worse in London, standards of civility and considerate behaviour decline. Is it likely that the aggression and rudeness displayed on the road are completely left behind when the car is parked?

"The socialist case against the car in city centres is not just that it creates mutual frustration but also that it makes people worse. Across the board-education and medical care are two other obvious examples - collective provision on a universal basis fosters attitudes of co-operation and concern while private provision is divisive and conducive to selfishness."

Tell that to the city guy in a suit who had drinks thrown over him by street kids on the London D7 I was on once.

Mixing socio-economic groups on a bus, or even in housing estates does do not inspire the poor to be better, or the wealthy to be more philanthropic.

It propogates hatred and jealously that turns to opportunistic theft by those poor from the wealthier around them.

It doesnt build communities, it literally builds walls… wealthier developments proceed to be gated communities to reduce crime.

Tower Hamlets / Isle of Dogs is the best example to see that.

socialism only works when everyone has nothing to begin with, and fails as soon as someone wants more. Its against human nature and against most mammal instincts from millions of years evolution… Humans hunt, compete to survive… thats why western europe has the blood thirsty history it has, but is economically stronger. Its also why after socialism fades, that other regions are rapidly challenging us.

The wheels on the bus might go round and round, and the driver in the car might shout and shout, but if someone is late for work they are going to get vocal no matter what the mode of transport.
I noticed those peacenik liberals mixing

people from different social classes and areas of the country together and creates a common interest in the efficient running of the system.

By protesting on the carriage roof of tube at Canning Town never repeated their stunt when the builders, contractors of “different social class” to them took matters into their own hands and ripped them off the carriage roof.

Tube protest was a mistake, admit leading Extinction Rebellion members

Senior figures in protest group forced to rethink future tactics

www.theguardian.com

whipping up some idealistic socialist drivel for the UK will simply see us overtaken and defeated in the future. Weve already taken the Brexit step backwards, we dont need to take any more.

 

[A0]

1 year dip… in 2020

ClearScore | Your credit score & report. For free. Forever.

Get your free credit score and credit report and be ClearScore sure. Check them as often as you like - it won’t affect your score.

www.nimblefins.co.uk

but its already climbed higher and surpassed 2019 by 2021.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 25 May 2023 ==

Due in part to restricted demand in 2020.

And the figure you've quoted there is total number of cars *registered* not new car sales.

2022 car sales were *significantly* below 2019 as were 2020 and 2021 https://www.carmagazine.co.uk/car-news/industry-news/uk-2022-car-sales-analysis-winners-and-losers/