Should Corbyn remain as Labour leader?

[Strontium]

7 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

On rail privatisation.

 

Nearly 2 billion rail journeys were taken in britain last year. It's reasonable to assume it would be a lot more if rural services were restored, prices were fair and services were improved. 

 

How do passenger numbers now compare to passenger numbers under full public ownership?

[Bjornebye]

12 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

How do passenger numbers now compare to passenger numbers under full public ownership?

More trains and higher fuel prices equal more passengers on the train. 

[cloggypop]

23 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

On rail privatisation.

 

Nearly 2 billion rail journeys were taken in britain last year. It's reasonable to assume it would be a lot more if rural services were restored, prices were fair and services were improved. 

 

An effective and efficient transport system would also help boost the economy because of the increased job opportunities reliable and affordable rail travel would bring to commuters up and down the country.

 

Add in the benefits to the environment of rail travel compered to most other forms of transport and Corbyn is right to make Rail and Energy privatisation a priority. 

 

 

https://dataportal.orr.gov.uk/popular-statistics/how-many-people-use-the-railway/

All for nationalisation of the railways myself 

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nederlandse_Spoorwegen

[Gnasher]

31 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

How do passenger numbers now compare to passenger numbers under full public ownership?

I don't know, why do you ask? How is it relevent?

[Strontium]

24 minutes ago, Gnasher said:

I don't know, why do you ask? How is it relevent?

 

You're the one who wants to make things like they used to be, surely you should have an idea of how things used to be.

[Jose Jones]

16 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

You're the one who wants to make things like they used to be, surely you should have an idea of how things used to be.

As a man fond of evidence based decision making, it must be fairly easy to acknowledge that publicly owned railways across Europe and other similar developed countries all perform a lot better - more efficient, better pricing, better service - than the UK's confused 27 private operators model?

[Strontium]

42 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

As a man fond of evidence based decision making, it must be fairly easy to acknowledge that publicly owned railways across Europe and other similar developed countries all perform a lot better - more efficient, better pricing, better service - than the UK's confused 27 private operators model?

 

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

 

According to the Railway Performance Index, Britain's railway is the 8th best out of the 25 measured in Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Jose Jones]

22 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

Er, yes, I know.  I was asking you a different question.

[Strontium]

8 minutes ago, Jose Jones said:

Er, yes, I know.  I was asking you a different question.

 

I thought the graph I posted showed that the "nationalisation will make everything great" argument is, at best, a gross simplification.

[Jose Jones]

6 minutes ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I thought the graph I posted showed that the "nationalisation will make everything great" argument is, at best, a gross simplification.

That's why I didn't ask whether you thought nationalisation will make everything great.

 

I'll try again; As a man fond of evidence based decision making, it must be fairly easy to acknowledge that publicly owned railways across Europe and other similar developed countries all perform a lot better - more efficient, better pricing, better service - than the UK's confused 27 private operators model?

[aRdja]

4 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

 

According to the Railway Performance Index, Britain's railway is the 8th best out of the 25 measured in Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The TFL owned tube must have propped you up.

[Numero Veinticinco]

I’m not sure looking back at decades old rail use is going to be that enlightening to how future privatisation could work, anymore than it would be enlightening to talk about how it used to be before the NHS when talking about private involvement in current medical services. 

 

The ideal that if things were poor years ago that they’d be poor now is a flawed one. Even if I personally wouldn’t do it, at least as part of the next parliament. It’s not like it’s currently horrendous and people are dying all over the place and fares are ridiculous or there’s no trains or something. It’s not perfect but it’s serviceable for now. 

 

Much more important is getting Brexit either avoided or the impact of it reduced. We also need to have a proper look at how democracy is working in the UK. Hint: it isn’t. We need to protect the NHS and make sure it is well funded. We need to make sure the social safety net is there and working for those who need it. For me, although us paying a lot to subsidise the private enterprise in the rail services, and to my mind that blows, it’s just not a pressing issue. 

[Jairzinho]

https://www.bcg.com/en-gb/publications/2017/transportation-travel-tourism-2017-european-railway-performance-index.aspx 

 

Some context on Stront's graph. 

 

The UK's reasonable score is down purely to the service being safe. Spain's, for example, is lower purely because it isn't utilised as much. Obviously the relative sizes of the country, history of infrastructure spending, overall wealth of a country, etc, etc will contribute towards this. 

 

Anyone who has ever been on a train in the two countries would obviously tell you the service is immeasurably better in Spain. Cheaper, the trains arrive on time, and you actually have a seat.

 

 

 

[aRdja]

27 minutes ago, Numero Veinticinco said:

I’m not sure looking back at decades old rail use is going to be that enlightening to how future privatisation could work, anymore than it would be enlightening to talk about how it used to be before the NHS when talking about private involvement in current medical services. 

 

The ideal that if things were poor years ago that they’d be poor now is a flawed one. Even if I personally wouldn’t do it, at least as part of the next parliament. It’s not like it’s currently horrendous and people are dying all over the place and fares are ridiculous or there’s no trains or something. It’s not perfect but it’s serviceable for now. 

 

Much more important is getting Brexit either avoided or the impact of it reduced. We also need to have a proper look at how democracy is working in the UK. Hint: it isn’t. We need to protect the NHS and make sure it is well funded. We need to make sure the social safety net is there and working for those who need it. For me, although us paying a lot to subsidise the private enterprise in the rail services, and to my mind that blows, it’s just not a pressing issue. 

Fares *are* ridiculous though. I think @Sixtimes Dog posted a link a few months ago showing that because how expensive it is, trains are by and large only used by the middle class these days. 

[Rico1304]

26 minutes ago, viRdjil said:

Fares *are* ridiculous though. I think @Sixtimes Dog posted a link a few months ago showing that because how expensive it is, trains are by and large only used by the middle class these days. 

 Virgin first class is great, the breakfast is lovely. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

6 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

I thought the graph I posted showed that the "nationalisation will make everything great" argument is, at best, a gross simplification.

How about "nationalisation will allow more efficiency, by ensuring that surpluses are reinvested and removing wasteful transactions such as Track Access Agreements, etc."?

[AngryOfTuebrook]

31 minutes ago, Rico1304 said:

 Virgin first class is great, the breakfast is lovely. 

cough *Tory* cough

[moof]

10 hours ago, Sixtimes Dog said:

 

That's not an answer to the question I asked.

 

According to the Railway Performance Index, Britain's railway is the 8th best out of the 25 measured in Europe.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Who the hell came up with this idiocy?

[moof]

4 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

 Virgin first class is great, the breakfast is lovely. 

 

[lifetime fan]

On 03/08/2019 at 08:12, Boss said:

A vote for 16 year olds is the dumbest thing ever. As if the country doesn't have enough uninformed people voting as it is. 

 

Bollocks. 

 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

4 hours ago, Rico1304 said:

 Virgin first class is great, the breakfast is lovely. 

Virgin Trains are a decent analogue of the whole country: a privileged minority using up disproportionate amounts of the resources (many of which they are not even paying for) and the majority squabbling over the inadequate resources that are left.

 

And there's a pervasive stink of piss.

[A Red]

I've come round to the way of thinking that the real reason Corbyn wants to nationalise the 5 different things in that previous list is not primarily down to improving things, it is to benefit the Labour party. I, as well others on here, would have thought there are lots of greater priorities than taking ownership of utility companies

 

As I mentioned before, industries that are owned under 1 roof by the government. with Labour supporting unions representing the workforce. can be mobilised to make it difficult for non socialist governments. This has happened before.

[Rico1304]

33 minutes ago, AngryofTuebrook said:

Virgin Trains are a decent analogue of the whole country: a privileged minority using up disproportionate amounts of the resources (many of which they are not even paying for) and the majority squabbling over the inadequate resources that are left.

 

And there's a pervasive stink of piss.

In the cheap seats maybe. 

[AngryOfTuebrook]

42 minutes ago, A Red said:

 I, as well others on here, would have thought there are lots of greater priorities than taking ownership of utility companies

There are, what, 5 nationalisations on a list of over 120 policies.

[AngryOfTuebrook]

42 minutes ago, A Red said:

I've come round to the way of thinking that the real reason Corbyn wants to nationalise the 5 different things in that previous list is not primarily down to improving things, it is to benefit the Labour party. I, as well others on here, would have thought there are lots of greater priorities than taking ownership of utility companies

 

As I mentioned before, industries that are owned under 1 roof by the government. with Labour supporting unions representing the workforce. can be mobilised to make it difficult for non socialist governments. This has happened before.

What's your reasoning for coming round to that way of thinking?