Jeremy Corbyn's Traingate

[miami]

I'll bite. How ?

Public ownership surely means its funded by the taxpayer and private ownership means the cost is funded through the ticket price.

In theory all state ownership would mean is the £200m of dividends taken by shareholders would instead be taken by the taxpayer.

In reality it's more complex than that - especially if the government uses the railway for it's own ends (like lowering season ticket prices for 'hard working commuters'), and that's before the cost of capital.

However no matter who owns the rail, it's still possible to have an extra train self funding. For example, if there are currently 200 people who refuse to travel because the train is overcrowded, and they would pay £150 each for the trip, another train would mean that's an extra £30,000 of revenue.

You'd have to work out the cost of that train over the course of a year, the actual number of people currently not travelling or travelling by other means, the diagramming to ensure it's in place, etc, but if the railway can't run a train that earns say £10,000 an hour in revenue 18 hours a day 5 days a week without making a loss, then perhaps it deserves to die?

 

[ExRes]

Dangerous Tory thinking that. People who think that often become members of certain organisations that I won't mention.

If you've got a point to make then make it

 

[matt_world2004]

In theory all state ownership would mean is the £200m of dividends taken by shareholders would instead be taken by the taxpayer.

In reality it's more complex than that - especially if the government uses the railway for it's own ends (like lowering season ticket prices for 'hard working commuters'), and that's before the cost of capital.

However no matter who owns the rail, it's still possible to have an extra train self funding. For example, if there are currently 200 people who refuse to travel because the train is overcrowded, and they would pay £150 each for the trip, another train would mean that's an extra £30,000 of revenue.

You'd have to work out the cost of that train over the course of a year, the actual number of people currently not travelling or travelling by other means, the diagramming to ensure it's in place, etc, but if the railway can't run a train that earns say £10,000 an hour in revenue 18 hours a day 5 days a week without making a loss, then perhaps it deserves to die?

An average delay of one minute across the London buses network causes a revenue drop of 1% based on people deciding not to travel this is on a network with 50% of users with some form of concessionary or season ticket travel.

 

[DT611]

Corbyn just wants a old-fashioned monopoly. Monopolies are just bad. They only suit those scared of the competition and the real world, and those wishing to exercise power over everyone else.

You would have a point if the railway as a whole had competition. Only some of it has, and that was effectively by accident. For the rest it's your operator and like it or lump it.

What's wrong with wanting competition?

Absolutely nothing. Competition is good and works well in certain sectors. Unfortunately the railway isn't one of those, or at least for what competition does exist, it doesn't justify the cost in my view.

 

[Domh245]

I'll bite. How ?

Public ownership surely means its funded by the taxpayer and private ownership means the cost is funded through the ticket price.

Just like the rest of Corbyn's schemes:

Raise taxes
Crack down on tax evasion and loopholes
Hope there is enough left for everything else you've pledged

 

[Starmill]

The thing that concerns me by far the most is why was the train full and standing...

 

[Harbornite]

Absolutely nothing. Competition is good and works well in certain sectors. Unfortunately the railway isn't one of those, or at least for what competition does exist, it doesn't justify the cost in my view.

I'd admit that competition works better in the railfreight sector than passenger.

 

[313103]

Everything you have is thanks to invention, innovation and trade, not socialism. It's a failed system. Competition is good for consumers, the most important people, based on wants and needs. Couldn't care less if the companies are owned by the state, are mutuals or private companies.

Shame that there isnt that much competition on the railway, its the big four but in different colours and different areas. In Wales do i have a choice of train providers from my local station? No is the answer. DB run the only train service
Do i have control on how often my train service is (One train every two hours, no service east between 07:01 and 09:28, no service west from 19:45 until 00:01, no service on Sundays) not much of a choice and certainly no competition,so does the consumer win here? NO!

But as is usual for me i have digressed from the original point of this post (must learn to keep on track, no more infringements otherwise a banning order could happen). Jeremy Corbyn is dammed if he upgraded to first, and dammed that he didnt upgrade. All i will say can you imagine the diatribe from certain press companies, if he did upgrade to first, it would join the likes of the RMT President and Assistant General secretary (heaven forbid they have a holiday, they would of had a field day, but as he sat on the floor its become a nothing story for them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Corbyn just wants a old-fashioned monopoly. Monopolies are just bad. They only suit those scared of the competition and the real world, and those wishing to exercise power over everyone else.

There is competition. The car.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'd admit that competition works better in the railfreight sector than passenger.

It is by and large bad for passenger operations. Coordinated monopolies provide a better and more effective network to get people out of cars.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[physics34]

Having worked on the privatisation of our railway and having been involved subsequently with a couple of legal cases on the privatised network I can confidently say that public ownership would immediately free-up funds which currently go in the pockets of consultants, lawyers and the huge number of directors on private sector salaries.

TOCs don't do it because they care about public transport. It's a good earner with very little risk (See how Metronet's backers walked away to pick up new contracts on Government projects like London 2012 within weeks).

If you think that private ownership means no expense to the taxpayer, I recommend you do some reading on the history of the subject since the 1990's. It's simply not true.

And Corbyn? Yep, I'd vote for him in an election. I don't want style, I want substance.

Certainly much much more should be done "in house".

Its scary how much CONsultants get, for doing something a well paid rail expert could easily do.

 

[Clip]

Shame that there isnt that much competition on the railway, its the big four but in different colours and different areas. In Wales do i have a choice of train providers from my local station? No is the answer. DB run the only train service
Do i have control on how often my train service is (One train every two hours, no service east between 07:01 and 09:28, no service west from 19:45 until 00:01, no service on Sundays) not much of a choice and certainly no competition,so does the consumer win here? NO!

I thought it was now understood on here that the competition comes in the bidding process and not the services by any one TOC or line?

But as is usual for me i have digressed from the original point of this post (must learn to keep on track, no more infringements otherwise a banning order could happen). Jeremy Corbyn is dammed if he upgraded to first, and dammed that he didnt upgrade. All i will say can you imagine the diatribe from certain press companies, if he did upgrade to first, it would join the likes of the RMT President and Assistant General secretary (heaven forbid they have a holiday, they would of had a field day, but as he sat on the floor its become a nothing story for them.

.

Which press companies? I seem to remember when Osbourne did it every news outlet including the Murdoch press run storys of outrage about it?
https://www.thesun.co.uk/archives/n...he-sits-in-first-class-with-standard-tickets/

Oh look, so they did.

 

[thewiltog]

I'll try and get this thread back on track (no pun intended).

The leader of the opposition travels to an arranged event accompanied by a film crew.
He complains he can't get a seat and has to sit in a vestibule.

Why didn't he(or his support team) book tickets in advance?
Presumably the other standard class passengers who had seats did.

 

[Starmill]

TBH I think anyone who travels walk-on from London to Newcastle should have a reasonable expectation of a seat. It's not as if its £125 single...

 

[Domh245]

I'll try and get this thread back on track (no pun intended).

The leader of the opposition travels to an arranged event accompanied by a film crew.
He complains he can't get a seat and has to sit in a vestibule.

Why didn't he(or his support team) book tickets in advance?
Presumably the other standard class passengers who had seats did.

Because a PR stunt will probably win more voters than sitting down and working on policies, speeches, etc.

 

[miami]

I'll try and get this thread back on track (no pun intended).

The leader of the opposition travels to an arranged event accompanied by a film crew.
He complains he can't get a seat and has to sit in a vestibule.

Why didn't he(or his support team) book tickets in advance?
Presumably the other standard class passengers who had seats did.

Although he appears to be retired, he isn't. Some leisure passengers can afford to book in advance, but VTWC and thus I suspect VTEC don't do on the day reservations, and when you pay £150+ for a ticket that's flexible you should be able to rely on a seat.

You get a seat on the coach, and in a car, and on a plane (when buying walk up)

 

[Hadders]

You get a seat on the coach, and in a car, and on a plane (when buying walk up)

But if the coach (or car) is full then you can't travel.

At least with trains if it is full you have a choice of whether to travel (and stand) or wait for a later service.

 

[LateThanNever]

Everything you have is thanks to invention, innovation and trade, not socialism. It's a failed system. Competition is good for consumers, the most important people, based on wants and needs. Couldn't care less if the companies are owned by the state, are mutuals or private companies.

If Socialism is a failed system perhaps you could tell us when it was tried and by whom?
Competition can be good for consumers but works properly only when it is perfect competition and it rarely if ever is.
The idea that the state never invents anything is popular wisdom but completely incorrect. The internet was a state invention for a start!
See Mariana Mazzucato's book "The Entrepeneurial State -debunking public versus private sector myths" for further details.

 

[Richard_B]

I doubt it was a deliberate PR move, given the general PR performance of JC and his PR team.

Everything you have is thanks to invention, innovation and trade, not socialism. It's a failed system. Competition is good for consumers, the most important people.

Everything we have including a weekend, universal schooling, universal healthcare and safety regulations, police, fire services were all provided by the free market...

Not advocating communism, but society has to be a mix of socialised systems and fairly free - markets to work well

 

[Harbornite]

Not advocating communism, but society has to be a mix of socialised systems and fairly free - markets to work well

I agree.

 

[route:oxford]

The thing that concerns me by far the most is why was the train full and standing...

Indeed. I did ask earlier in the thread what day it was - but it remains unclear.

If this was Sunday, when there was chaos on the line due to the vulnerable person planning self-harm on the RBB...

Then it is utterly sick and twisted that Guardian and Labour Party are using it for political gain.

 

[najaB]

The internet was a state invention for a start!

That statement may or may not be true - define what you mean by 'the Internet'.

 

[richw]

I'll try and get this thread back on track (no pun intended).

The leader of the opposition travels to an arranged event accompanied by a film crew.
He complains he can't get a seat and has to sit in a vestibule.

Why didn't he(or his support team) book tickets in advance?
Presumably the other standard class passengers who had seats did.

Where is he complaining? From what I read he was quite happy staying standard and taking it as it was.

Everything you have is thanks to invention, innovation and trade, not socialism. It's a failed system. Competition is good for consumers, the most important people, based on wants and needs. Couldn't care less if the companies are owned by the state, are mutuals or private companies.

What competition? There isn't any! Very few lines have competition and the nature of most walk up tickets I've used are they are valid with any operator so you just jump on the next suitable train to your destination.
There is no way on earth there is any competition on the uk railway.

 

[highdyke]

There's competition for franchises, on some lines (EG ECML and WCML), and there should be more of it not less.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Everything we have including a weekend, universal schooling, universal healthcare and safety regulations, police, fire services were all provided by the free market...

Not advocating communism, but society has to be a mix of socialised systems and fairly free - markets to work well

Agree, but ultimately it comes from taxes levied on private businesses, which do need to pay their fare share to fund these things they indirectly benefit from. If you want decent healthcare and railways, police, army etc, that money has to be generated from ideas for products and services, with taxes paid on profits and salary. These can be state run, but without competition they tend to be inefficient.

The R101 and Lada, failed NHS databases, various weapons sum up state innovations to me. As for the internet, was that was designed for communications in the event of a nuclear war originally then used by universities. It was its commercialisation in the 1990s that grew it to what it is now.

 

[Richard_B]

We can list examples from both sides, highdyke, that 30 million Americans aren't guaranteed Heathcsre if they are ill in the richest country in the world sums up the free market to me. My point was that you need both - society needs the incentives that market based economies provide to spur innovation but it can't be extreme and unmanaged.

 

[DT611]

There's competition for franchises, on some lines (EG ECML and WCML), and there should be more of it not less.

How can they're be more of it. The franchises are what they are. competition for franchises is just competition for franchises, it's not everyday competition like everything else. For the most part if you believe your operator doesn't offer you a good service, you are stuck with it until the next time they're is another competition for the franchise, and then they're may be no guarantee things will change. Car/bus and airlines in some cases, are the competition to the railway.

 

[highdyke]

We can list examples from both sides, highdyke, that 30 million Americans aren't guaranteed Heathcsre if they are ill in the richest country in the world sums up the free market to me. My point was that you need both - society needs the incentives that market based economies provide to spur innovation but it can't be extreme and unmanaged.

Nobody disagrees and all western economies are mixed economies in any case. My original point was state run monopolies are not the answer BR was not as wonderful as people make out for those that remember it. Even the so-called successful sectorisation period was quite short lived and traffic declined in the 1990s.

Passenger numbers millions, 1825-2016

 

[WatcherZero]

Its even more stark when you compare it with buses which shows apart from London until very recently where its plateauing (where its growth is more to do with population density and inability to use cars) and the Met counties in the late 70's (when they had money to invest shortly after being created but was taken away a few years later) bus ridership hasn't stopped declining since the second world war.

The growth in London bus ridership has also been since privatisation 94/95. Since 1984/5 deregulation outside London, London +5%, Non-Met areas -17%, Met Areas -44%.

 

[Wivenswold]

Competition is great if you've got companies competing to be the best at what they do. By the very nature of Privatisation they're competing to make the biggest profit.

Add some light-touch supervision from Westminster and you end up with taxpayers underwriting the risk and companies not even bothering to pay UK corporation tax on the profits.

It's a triple whammy. Our taxes paying for profits that in some cases aren't declared in the UK leading to increased dividends helping the lavish lifestyles of Directors and major shareholders many of whom themselves aren't domicled here for tax purposes.

Meanwhile we fund it all and have to suffer from cuts to the essential services that in all probability wouldn't be needed if we also didn't have soft-touch regulation on tax loopholes.

If the press weren't snuffling around in the same trough, they might just start asking questions and raising awareness.

And that, ladies and gentlemen, explains the guff written about Corbyn too. He's a threat not to our economy and security but the economic health and security of those who gain the most.

It's all broke I tells yer.

 

[yorkie]

I thought it was now understood on here that the competition comes in the bidding process and not the services by any one TOC or line?

Understood by most, yes!

Why didn't he(or his support team) book tickets in advance?
Presumably the other standard class passengers who had seats did.

Maybe they didn't know which exact train he would catch? There is a frequent service to Newcastle, and it is not a reservations compulsory service.

Indeed. I did ask earlier in the thread what day it was - but it remains unclear.

If this was Sunday, when there was chaos on the line due to the vulnerable person planning self-harm on the RBB...

Then it is utterly sick and twisted that Guardian and Labour Party are using it for political gain.

That's a ridiculous claim.

The article refers to "commuters" (perhaps somewhat erroneously, but by any definition it wouldn't be appropriate to use that term for Sunday travel) and refers to the "hustings" in Gateshead, which were on Thursday 11 August (source).

Even if it had been on Sunday - which it wasn't - it's unlikely the train concerned (London - Newcastle) was directly impacted by the incident (north of Newcastle) and passengers would not necessarily be made aware of it. The incident would have potentially impacted trains from King's Cross to Newcastle at a much later time than while it was occuring, as trains which were on their way South would have not made it to King's Cross, possibly leading to cancellations. But maybe not, as trains turned round at Newcastle may have been able to form trains heading back north a few hours later. Either way, by that point it would be far removed from the original incident, people may simply be told it was due to "earlier delays".

And come on, it's not untypical of the overcrowding on this route (and many others) which occurs on a regular basis, it certainly does not only happen at times of disruption!

So how is that "self funding" Someone has to pay for the services. Does the railway have another source of income outside ticketing ?

Yes, you've mentioned it before:

I would say that the millions paid to the TOCS in terms of subsidy ...

But this is getting a bit off-topic; for further reading more info can be found here: http://orr.gov.uk/statistics/publis...b-rail-industry-financial-information-2014-15

 

[HH]

I doubt it was a deliberate PR move, given the general PR performance of JC and his PR team.

Naivety, thy name is Richard!