crookedspire Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 I mentioned fares generally - indeed I mentioned that 'on the day' ticket prices have increased markedly since privatisation. I do not believe however that that is because of privatisation. As I mentioned, advance rail fares have decreased significantly since privatisation, and season tickets (although more expensive than in Europe) have increased roughly in line with inflation. If you believe that the drive for profit has led fares to increase, why then have advance ticket prices dropped, and season ticket prices only increased with inflation? Why not just increase prices across the board? It seems likely to me that the increase in 'on the day' ticket prices is due to the success of the railways. Numbers of passengers have increased dramatically since privatisation (from about 750 million to 1.7 billion) and so it seems likely that 'on the day' prices have increased in response to that. Regarding getting rid of guards, - both The Rail Safety and Standards Board and the Office of Rail and Road have concluded that driver only trains are safe. There might be an argument about the reduction in guards meaning that they cannot assist in other tasks, but that is less about safety and more about general support. https://fullfact.org/economy/are-driver-only-trains-safe/ Clearly railway staff would disagree on your stand on guards hence the strikes they know if a accident did happen you would need someone to take control of the situation especially if the driver is unable to help or killed. To me it's about making more profit at the expense of safety. With regards to fares in my experience the fare structure is all over the place sometimes it was cheaper to travel further than too a near by town or city. If the railway is renationalised it could make fares fairer and encourage people to use the trains I keep hearing people moaning about British Rail how it was. It's time to give it another chance. When one railway company got into trouble it was nationalised it made a profit and was well run this proved it can work plus opportunities to create more employment and use the profits to fund things like the NHS for example or help to fund social care nationalising should not be seen has doom and gloom it can be a positive thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 What bankrupted the country is the belief that a free market will ultimately look after itself - this was proven to be completely wrong. The bankers who were given free reign took too many risks and it all went boom. Brown and Blair believed in this and so do the tories. There's not much difference between them. Corbyn is not new labour. Tories in power and we have unbridled capitalism - ahousing market doing EXACTLY what it was doing just before the last crash and no evidence whatsover that anything has been learnt from it. Wake up! A massive tory majority will just mean more and more money for the wealthy. Everything you read in the papers about corbyn is put there by rich people who care only about their own wealth. It is propaganda..........I have never met anyone who openly or secretly would not wish to be more wealthy in some form or other!......never! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 .........I have never met anyone who openly or secretly would not wish to be more wealthy in some form or other!......never! do you think Corbyn would wish to be more wealthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 do you think Corbyn would wish to be more wealthy? I know this doesn't answer your question, but Corbyn doesn't believe he is wealthy, despite earning £138,000 a year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/jeremy-corbyn-backs-managed-fair-migration-brexit/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 I know this doesn't answer your question, but Corbyn doesn't believe he is wealthy, despite earning £138,000 a year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/jeremy-corbyn-backs-managed-fair-migration-brexit/ i am not quite sure of the point you are making? or is there not a point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 i am not quite sure of the point you are making? or is there not a point? There isn't really a point. It was a statement. The discussion was about Corbyn and wealth. I found it rather hypocritical for Corbyn to state that he doesn't think of himself as wealthy at the same time as that the Labour manifesto defined anybody as wealthy as someone earning over £80,000. I think the manifesto's definition is probably correct, due to what percentile that places you in, and so I was somewhat confused by Corbyn's denial.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 I know this doesn't answer your question, but Corbyn doesn't believe he is wealthy, despite earning £138,000 a year. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/05/15/jeremy-corbyn-backs-managed-fair-migration-brexit/ Well, he'll be having to pay the higher rate of tax. It's all about comparison really isn't it? Compared to me he's wealthy, but compared to Martin Sorrel who took home £45 million last year, he's not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin-H Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 Well, he'll be having to pay the higher rate of tax. Yes, which therefore by Labour's own definition makes him wealthy, does it not.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mossdog Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 Well, he'll be having to pay the higher rate of tax. It's all about comparison really isn't it? Compared to me he's wealthy, but compared to Martin Sorrel who took home £45 million last year, he's not. .........but surely in Jeremy's one size fits all take on politics........HE'S WEALTHY! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
banjodeano Posted May 16, 2017 Share Posted May 16, 2017 There isn't really a point. It was a statement. The discussion was about Corbyn and wealth. I found it rather hypocritical for Corbyn to state that he doesn't think of himself as wealthy at the same time as that the Labour manifesto defined anybody as wealthy as someone earning over £80,000. I think the manifesto's definition is probably correct, due to what percentile that places you in, and so I was somewhat confused by Corbyn's denial.. well, thanks for making a pointless statement erm..what did he deny? he said he didnt think he was wealthy because of where he puts his money (or something to that effect), perhaps he gives a some to charity, just because he gets paid a lot, it doesnt mean he has a lot ---------- Post added 16-05-2017 at 20:54 ---------- .........but surely in Jeremy's one size fits all take on politics........HE'S WEALTHY! i'll ask again....do you think Corbyn would wish to be more wealthy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now