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

[yorksrob]

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.



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.



So you can have a coalition of the losers ?

But the change in price will be proportionally bigger if the cost of the product is more expensive to begin with, hence more inflation.

There have been service cuts, strikes and failing TOC's throughout my forty or so years of using trains. Just not so intensively and for such a sustained period of time.

This is the worst I've known it. The way the Government is running the railway is a national disgrace - sorry if that doesn't fit with your historical narrative.

 

[A0]

But the change in price will be proportionally bigger if the cost of the product is more expensive to begin with, hence more inflation.

Erm..... no.

Let's do this simply - if inflation is 10%:

A product costing £ 1 will become £ 1.10. A product costing £ 100 will become £ 110.

Proportionally their change in price is *exactly the same*. In absolute numbers it's 100 times more, but then the product costs 100 times more, so you'd expect that.

 

[Sm5]

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/

we differ on”new”.

If its a car thats new on someones driveway, its new to them, even if its not new on the road.

Point still stands, the number of cars is going up… if they were being scrapped it would be a constant, not growth.

32mn cars on the road..

Theres 51mn registered drivers, so >50% car / license ownership.

Vehicle licensing statistics: April to June 2021

Licensed and registered motor vehicle statistics in Great Britain and the United Kingdom for April to June 2021.

www.gov.uk

 

[yorksrob]

Erm..... no.

Let's do this simply - if inflation is 10%:

A product costing £ 1 will become £ 1.10. A product costing £ 100 will become £ 110.

Proportionally their change in price is *exactly the same*. In absolute numbers it's 100 times more, but then the product costs 100 times more, so you'd expect that.

By your argument, a £1m mortgage going up 10% will have the same effect on inflation and its economic consequences as a penny chew going up 10%. This is clearly not the case.

 

[A0]

we differ on”new”.

If its a car thats new on someones driveway, its new to them, even if its not new on the road.

Point still stands, the number of cars is going up… if they were being scrapped it would be a constant, not growth.

Erm.... I'll quote your original post and let others decide whether or not my point that your statement was wrong is correct:

Passengers are to blame for buying new cars during covid and working more from home.

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.

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

By your argument, a £1m mortgage going up 10% will have the same effect on inflation and its economic consequences as a penny chew going up 10%. This is clearly not the case.

Erm, you said.....

But the change in price will be proportionally bigger if the cost of the product is more expensive to begin with, hence more inflation.

Which is incorrect. Stop trying to twist the argument. You tried to do that with @zwk500 upthread and got it wrong then.

 

[yorksrob]

Erm.... I'll quote your original post and let others decide whether or not my point that your statement was wrong is correct:





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



Erm, you said.....



Which is incorrect. Stop trying to twist the argument. You tried to do that with @zwk500 upthread and got it wrong then.

The two posts of mine that you've quoted aren't contradictory.

In both posts I'm saying that larger values going up in price will have a greater effect on overall inflation.

 

[deltic]

By your argument, a £1m mortgage going up 10% will have the same effect on inflation and its economic consequences as a penny chew going up 10%. This is clearly not the case.

Which is incorrect. Stop trying to twist the argument. You tried to do that with @zwk500 upthread and got it wrong then.

Inflation is measured by the percentage increase in the product weighted by the amount spent on it.

 

[Pinza-C55]

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

No political party is going to change the voting system which elected it. The only thing they will do is tinker with it to give themselves an advantage over other parties.

 

[yorksrob]

Inflation is measured by the percentage increase in the product weighted by the amount spent on it.

Indeed, so so the same rate of increase on a more expensive product will result in greater inflation.

 

[A0]

Inflation is measured by the percentage increase in the product weighted by the amount spent on it.

Not quite - I think your earlier post was correct in that the weighting is how much of the total %age an individual item is.

But that weighting isn't necessarily on the value of goods, but instead on other factors - effectively what % age of an "average" person's income is spent on it.

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

Indeed, so so the same rate of increase on a more expensive product will result in greater inflation.

I think "amount" refers to percentage of total spend of an average person, not the "shelf price" of an item or groups of items.

 

[yorksrob]

Not quite - I think your earlier post was correct in that the weighting is how much of the total %age an individual item is.

But that weighting isn't necessarily on the value of goods, but instead on other factors - effectively what % age of an "average" person's income is spent on it.

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



I think "amount" refers to percentage of total spend of an average person, not the "shelf price" of an item or groups of items.

An average person will likely spend more on train fares than they do on bus fares.

 

[A0]

An average person will likely spend more on train fares than they do on bus fares.

Probably not, given the number of bus journeys made.

There were about 2.8bn bus journeys made in 2022 compared to 1.8bn train journeys.

More people travel by bus more often than travel by train - that is what will filter through into the inflation calculation.

Look - it's clear what you're trying to argue, reducing rail fares will help inflation - it won't. Nor will capping bus fares for that matter. But reducing bus fares *will* help to mitigate the *effect* of inflation on more people than a similar measure would on train fares, at that more people on lower incomes. And doing it on buses costs the exchequer *far less* than a similar measure would on trains, not least because trains are loss making where many bus routes are profitable.

The problem is you don't like buses and don't see why buses - which you don't like using, are getting this where trains, which you do like using aren't. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that you're not the target beneficiary of this measure? It's about helping those on lower incomes manage their transport costs getting to work, not you and your wild gallivantings on every marginal train service in the UK.

 

[tomuk]

An average person will likely spend more on train fares than they do on bus fares.

The weighting used to calculate CPI all place a lower weighting various train fares than bus fares.

 

[yorksrob]

Probably not, given the number of bus journeys made.

There were about 2.8bn bus journeys made in 2022 compared to 1.8bn train journeys.

More people travel by bus more often than travel by train - that is what will filter through into the inflation calculation.

Look - it's clear what you're trying to argue, reducing rail fares will help inflation - it won't. Nor will capping bus fares for that matter. But reducing bus fares *will* help to mitigate the *effect* of inflation on more people than a similar measure would on train fares, at that more people on lower incomes. And doing it on buses costs the exchequer *far less* than a similar measure would on trains, not least because trains are loss making where many bus routes are profitable.

The problem is you don't like buses and don't see why buses - which you don't like using, are getting this where trains, which you do like using aren't. Perhaps it hasn't occurred to you that you're not the target beneficiary of this measure? It's about helping those on lower incomes manage their transport costs getting to work, not you and your wild gallivantings on every marginal train service in the UK.

The figures you quote suggest that there are only 1.56 times as many bus journeys as train journeys. This suggests that if train fares were on average 1.56 times the average bus fare, the total value of those fares would be the same. I would expect average train fares to be much more than 1.56 times the average bus fare, therefore I expect the total value of train fares to be much more than the total value of train fares, therefore if you increase bus and train fares by the same percentage, the overal increase in cost will be much larger for the trains.

Inflation is just a figure. No one is interested in it as a mathematical concept. It is important because it represents spending power taken out of the economy. If you hold down fares for buses and train fares it will put more money in peoples pockets to spend in the economy.

The idea that poor people use buses and rich people use trains is a very skewed Westminster/Tory/Motorist centric point of view. Come and travel on the train up here, you will see that many working class people use and rely on the train. Infact if train fares weren't so expensive, lower income households would have more opportunities for their work, education and leisure enabled by rail. Countries such as Germany/Austria.Switzerland get this. Unfortunately our Westminster/Tory/Motorist establishment doesn't.

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

The weighting used to calculate CPI all place a lower weighting various train fares than bus fares.

Then that sounds like a rather silly way to calculate it.

 

[Ken H]

The figures you quote suggest that there are only 1.56 times as many bus journeys as train journeys. This suggests that if train fares were on average 1.56 times the average bus fare, the total value of those fares would be the same. I would expect average train fares to be much more than 1.56 times the average bus fare, therefore I expect the total value of train fares to be much more than the total value of train fares, therefore if you increase bus and train fares by the same percentage, the overal increase in cost will be much larger for the trains.

Inflation is just a figure. No one is interested in it as a mathematical concept. It is important because it represents spending power taken out of the economy. If you hold down fares for buses and train fares it will put more money in peoples pockets to spend in the economy.

The idea that poor people use buses and rich people use trains is a very skewed Westminster/Tory/Motorist centric point of view. Come and travel on the train up here, you will see that many working class people use and rely on the train. Infact if train fares weren't so expensive, lower income households would have more opportunities for their work, education and leisure enabled by rail. Countries such as Germany/Austria.Switzerland get this. Unfortunately our Westminster/Tory/Motorist establishment doesn't.

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



Then that sounds like a rather silly way to calculate it.

Then why did Gordon Brown make bus passes for pensioners with no similar scheme for rail?

 

[tomuk]

The idea that poor people use buses and rich people use trains is a very skewed Westminster/Tory/Motorist centric point of view.

Pre covid it very much was the reality that as a whole richer people used trains than buses. They was some disquiet in progressive circles that rail subsidies were basically subsidising the rich. Here is report from back in 2015 when passenger rail was paying its own way.
Richest households receive three times the rail subsidy of the poorest says new report

Richest households receive three times the rail subsidy of the poorest says new report

Report calls on Department for Transport to review impact of existing policies on inequality

www.railmagazine.com

 

[yorksrob]

Pre covid it very much was the reality that as a whole richer people used trains than buses. They was some disquiet in progressive circles that rail subsidies were basically subsidising the rich. Here is report from back in 2015 when passenger rail was paying its own way.
Richest households receive three times the rail subsidy of the poorest says new report

Richest households receive three times the rail subsidy of the poorest says new report

Report calls on Department for Transport to review impact of existing policies on inequality

www.railmagazine.com

Well, the way to solve that is to make the railway more affordable to lower income households.

The PTE's manage this in their areas.

 

[tomuk]

Well, the way to solve that is to make the railway more affordable to lower income households.

The PTE's manage this in their areas.

How do you target the rail subsidy at lower income households who mainly use the bus?

 

[yorksrob]

How do you target the rail subsidy at lower income households who mainly use the bus?

Do they mainly use the bus because the bus suits them more than the train or do they use it because they're priced off it.

If you make rail travel more affordable, more people on lower incomes will use it.

 

[tomuk]

Do they mainly use the bus because the bus suits them more than the train or do they use it because they're priced off it.

If you make rail travel more affordable, more people on lower incomes will use it.

You really are missing the point. Take two people from say Castleford, Dave works minimum wage in a distribution warehouse and uses the bus to get to work. John commutes into Leeds by train to his job as an accountant. How does further increasing rail subsidies help Dave?

 

[GRALISTAIR]

To answer OP I don't think the current government hates rail but it is certainly not pro rail.
1) The car represents freedom - conservative governments have always been very pro road.
2) If you did massive shift to rail, it would give unions too much power to disrupt in the minds of a conservative government.
3) They are not anti-rail otherwise many of the things that have happened would not have.

 

[zwk500]

To answer OP I don't think the current government hates rail but it is certainly not pro rail.
1) The car represents freedom - conservative governments have always been very pro road.

It's not so much about what it represents, but how it operates - the beauty of roads is that all you have to do is provide roads and then people will use it as they see fit. The OpEx is soooo much lower than for railways.

Fundamentally, that is what conservatives don't like - the government being on the hook for long-term costs. Short-term expenditure can be covered by gilts, but long-term OpEx needs to be covered (largely) by tax revenue to be sustainable. So if the Tories want to be able to reduce the tax bill, they need to cut government long-term Opex.

 

[yorksrob]

You really are missing the point. Take two people from say Castleford, Dave works minimum wage in a distribution warehouse and uses the bus to get to work. John commutes into Leeds by train to his job as an accountant. How does further increasing rail subsidies help Dave?

And what about Ed from Castleford who works in PC World in Leeds or Diana from Normanton who undertakes secretarial work in Leeds ?

Why should Ed and Diana be fleeced, or worse, be prevented from accessing better employment, just because Dave works locally ?

 

[zwk500]

And what about Ed from Castleford who works in PC World in Leeds or Diana from Normanton who undertakes secretarial work in Leeds ?

Why should Ed and Diana be fleeced, or worse, be prevented from accessing better employment, just because Dave works locally ?

I fear you are still missing the point.

It is not about individuals and fairness, but about what costs the government more overall. Subsidising bus fares is cheaper up front for the government, and helps people in lower-paid jobs keeping employment up in local areas and preventing people who would otherwise need to fall back on taxpayer support in between jobs.
Whereas people who are in jobs that can support a rail season ticket (and tbh a PC world commuter would likely be a manager and driving in not getting the train but that's a different discussion) will likely have some measure of savings behind them and also have some kind of skill, such as Retail experience (Ed), Secretarial skills (Diana) or a qualified accountant (John), which will see them pick up work again relatively quickly compared to Dave, who would struggle to interest employers having worked as a warehouse labourer.

 

[yorksrob]

Then why did Gordon Brown make bus passes for pensioners with no similar scheme for rail?

You'd have to ask the labour party.

That said, at least the service more or less ran under Gordon.

 

[zwk500]

You'd have to ask the labour party.

That said, at least the service more or less ran under Gordon.

Overall, punctuality was improving but not actually peaking until 2011/12, after Labour had left office. 2018/19 is the interesting dip.

 

[yorksrob]

I fear you are still missing the point.

It is not about individuals and fairness, but about what costs the government more overall. Subsidising bus fares is cheaper up front for the government, and helps people in lower-paid jobs keeping employment up in local areas and preventing people who would otherwise need to fall back on taxpayer support in between jobs.
Whereas people who are in jobs that can support a rail season ticket (and tbh a PC world commuter would likely be a manager and driving in not getting the train but that's a different discussion) will likely have some measure of savings behind them and also have some kind of skill, such as Retail experience (Ed), Secretarial skills (Diana) or a qualified accountant (John), which will see them pick up work again relatively quickly compared to Dave, who would struggle to interest employers having worked as a warehouse labourer.

I see various people commuting to retail type jobs on my train and they don't all look like management.

The point which you are missing is that those people may have transferrable skills, however they need a decent train service to access the full range of opportunities.

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

View attachment 135968
Overall, punctuality was improving but not actually peaking until 2011/12, after Labour had left office. 2018/19 is the interesting dip.

We didn't have the endless litany of industrial action and cancellations that we do now. It was a golden age in comparison.

 

[zwk500]

I see various people commuting to retail type jobs on my train and they don't all look like management.

PC world tend to be based on big out-of-town retail parks, but I fully accept city centre-located stores will see train commuters

The point which you are missing is that those people may have transferrable skills, however they need a decent train service to access the full range of opportunities.

I don't think I missed that point at all, just that for the government it's cheaper to fund the bus service to prevent people falling back on taxpayer support whereas people who have transferrable skills will find something even if it isn't their optimum job, and the government can get away with a less than decent train service as long as the bases are covered.

 

[tomuk]

2018/19 is the interesting dip.

Its the point at which the industry became over confident. A lot of highly geared franchise bids came into force. DfT on the money side requiring over optimised costs to increase premiums\reduce subsidy and local stakeholders TfN TfWM etc requiring undeliverable timetables aided by NR not delivering promised, or at least what was believed to be promised, infrastructure improvements after pouring all the budget into GW Electrification.

 

[A0]

How do you target the rail subsidy at lower income households who mainly use the bus?

Do they mainly use the bus because the bus suits them more than the train or do they use it because they're priced off it.

If you make rail travel more affordable, more people on lower incomes will use it.

@yorksrob - how about you try answering the question (in bold) rather than just distracting or using whataboutery ? The question was concise and straightforward - you've dodged it (again).

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

I see various people commuting to retail type jobs on my train and they don't all look like management.

Out of interest, what does "management" "look like" ?

Intrigued as to how you know who is or isn't management by how they look. Particularly given upthread the accusation you levelled against me: "The idea that poor people use buses and rich people use trains is a very skewed Westminster/Tory/Motorist centric point of view." only for evidence that rail subsidies support the better off more than the poorest was provided a couple of posts later.......