How Much is a Corbyn?

BobQ

martinsurrey wrote: »

well rail travel is a bit of a funny one if you look at the data

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/73093/rail-trends-factsheet-2010-11.pdf

The use of the railways held steady for 50 years under the government at around 20billion passenger miles per year (and given the rising population, that is less per person per year).

As soon as the private sector was involved this has climbed year after year after year, to today, were we are are at nearly 40 billion passenger miles.

The government subsidy per mile travelled has halved since 2010, so we're getting a lot more bang for our buck

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile

Why the sudden increase in miles travelled if the service is so significantly worse than it used to be? Trains are more punctual, more frequent, and safer, we now have the second safest Railway in Europe (shakes fist at Luxembourg).

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/doc/swd(2014)186_final___en.pdf

we are also some of the MOST satisfied people in Europe with our railways (tables 12a, 12b 12c d e f g (we're in the top 5 for all)

we are most satisfied with accessibility (13c d e f)

all in all, compared to a lot of European publicly run railways we're doing a good job.

one of the main problems we have is we make the most use per mile of our railways (table 9a), this leads to overcrowding.

as for prices, we run a scheme more like airlines, if you book in advance ours are some of the cheapest in Europe, but if you buy on the day, some of the most expensive.

not saying its perfect, but we certainly are a lot further forward than we were 25 years ago under British Rail.

So if we get rid of the subsidy the number of miles travelled would increase?

CLAPTON

BobQ wrote: »

and what about people who are incapacitated through age or otherwise?

I think it does not work for many more because however many times you change the big firms use the same methods to keep prices higher than they need to be. At any one time one is better than the other but they are all making too much profit.

what's the right profit for a company?

michaels

martinsurrey wrote: »

well rail travel is a bit of a funny one if you look at the data

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/73093/rail-trends-factsheet-2010-11.pdf

The use of the railways held steady for 50 years under the government at around 20billion passenger miles per year (and given the rising population, that is less per person per year).

As soon as the private sector was involved this has climbed year after year after year, to today, were we are are at nearly 40 billion passenger miles.

The government subsidy per mile travelled has halved since 2010, so we're getting a lot more bang for our buck

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/rail-subsidy-per-passenger-mile

Why the sudden increase in miles travelled if the service is so significantly worse than it used to be? Trains are more punctual, more frequent, and safer, we now have the second safest Railway in Europe (shakes fist at Luxembourg).

http://ec.europa.eu/transport/modes/rail/market/doc/swd(2014)186_final___en.pdf

we are also some of the MOST satisfied people in Europe with our railways (tables 12a, 12b 12c d e f g (we're in the top 5 for all)

we are most satisfied with accessibility (13c d e f)

all in all, compared to a lot of European publicly run railways we're doing a good job.

one of the main problems we have is we make the most use per mile of our railways (table 9a), this leads to overcrowding.

as for prices, we run a scheme more like airlines, if you book in advance ours are some of the cheapest in Europe, but if you buy on the day, some of the most expensive.

not saying its perfect, but we certainly are a lot further forward than we were 25 years ago under British Rail.

And funnily enough the overcrowding, far from being a market failure is actually what you get when the govt intereferes with the market, in this case by capping communter pricing. the market would use price differentials between the 06:05 and 07:30 in order to spread the demand accross the peak more effectively.

martinsurrey

michaels wrote: »

And funnily enough the overcrowding, far from being a market failure is actually what you get when the govt intereferes with the market, in this case by capping communter pricing. the market would use price differentials between the 06:05 and 07:30 in order to spread the demand accross the peak more effectively.

There is a high quality service being provided by a private company, which has enabled more people to use it.

some people will use the excuse that they have to use the railway as its the only way, and that raising prices is unfair, which in my mind is a bit confused.

back in the day doing a commute from Southampton to London by train everyday would have been unthinkable as it was too slow and unreliable to even be considered, so if you lived in far flung areas, you worked near there.

Nowadays, you can live 60+ miles outside London, and still work in the city as the trains are in the most part, reliable and frequent, the trains have made themselves indispensable by offering a good service. I would fear that a return to British rail would see this ebb away, and the country would get a bit bigger again.

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

what's the right profit for a company?

As much as it is allowed to get away with.

chewmylegoff

michaels wrote: »

And funnily enough the overcrowding, far from being a market failure is actually what you get when the govt intereferes with the market, in this case by capping communter pricing. the market would use price differentials between the 06:05 and 07:30 in order to spread the demand accross the peak more effectively.

Well, it's not like the only restriction on a free market operating is the govt's price caps and if only they were removed a fair and efficient pricing structure would erupt spontaneously.

The price cap is there because most train companies are operating monopolies and there is therefore no competition to control prices.

Most commuters have to get to work by a certain time and many cannot leave home before a certain time. (eg those with childcare issues can't just dump the kids at school at 5am). Without effective competition anyone who has no choice about when to travel would be at the mercy of the train operators.

MS1950

'Labour received more than 160,000 applications to vote in its leadership contest in the final 24 hours of registrations, the party has said.

The number of applications via trade unions more than doubled and the number of party members and £3 registered supporters also rose'.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33892407

However, to put these numbers in perspective there is a spreadsheet of the numbers eligible to vote in the 2010 leadership election here:

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2010/sep/26/labour-leadership-results-election

In 2010 2,727,378 ballot papers were issued to individual affiliated trade union members (with no requirement to check whether any were 'members' or had been 'candidates' of other parties). Of that number only 238,588 actually voted - around 10%.

So the 'latest figures' of '189,703 affiliated union members' now reported in the BBC article is way down on the numbers eligible to vote in 2010 under the old system and also around 50,000 below those affiliated union members who actually voted in 2010.

(also posted in the 'Arms')

BobQ

CLAPTON wrote: »

surveys show that most people haven't got a clue about the difference between railtrack and the operating companies.
surveys show that people don't know who sets prices, who determines how many trains run etc..
If subsidies were removed price would go up as the whole system doesn't pay its way.

Yes people do not understand. Of course prices would rise, but why privatise something and pretend it is profitable when that firm relies on subsidies? If it is running at a loss the public should know and then would realise that privatisation is not an easy option.

Although I'm not against, why does separating generation from retail supply improve anything or make the total cheaper?

It is just an idea. If we are going to have privately run energy firms, they should not be able to rig the market. At preesnt they have no incentive to bring prices down.

how can retain supply have competition as there is only one cable to my house : do you mean competition in marketing and billing services? (i.e. basically just like now)

At present they operate power stations and sell power to their retail groups. I am saying that power production ought to be competed and sell to retail suppliers. We already have suppliers selling energy through the single infrastructure.

why would the common ownership of all generation reduce price (obviously no point in internal competition)

It introduces more competition particularly if the retailers are not allowed to operate the power stations. What is your solution?

Have you read the OFT report?

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2014/03/assessment_document_published_1.pdf

cells

chewmylegoff wrote: »

Well, it's not like the only restriction on a free market operating is the govt's price caps and if only they were removed a fair and efficient pricing structure would erupt spontaneously.

The price cap is there because most train companies are operating monopolies and there is therefore no competition to control prices.

Most commuters have to get to work by a certain time and many cannot leave home before a certain time. (eg those with childcare issues can't just dump the kids at school at 5am). Without effective competition anyone who has no choice about when to travel would be at the mercy of the train operators.

Even if you are a monopoly you have some competition for non direct competitors

so if train prices are to high or too unreliable people might use the buses or just live closer to work or use theor car.

Anyway the railways will die a slow painful death once the self drive car kicks in which imo is likely within 10 years

cells

BobQ wrote: »

Yes people do not understand. Of course prices would rise, but why privatise something and pretend it is profitable when that firm relies on subsidies? If it is running at a loss the public should know and then would realise that privatisation is not an easy option.



It is just an idea. If we are going to have privately run energy firms, they should not be able to rig the market. At preesnt they have no incentive to bring prices down.



At present they operate power stations and sell power to their retail groups. I am saying that power production ought to be competed and sell to retail suppliers. We already have suppliers selling energy through the single infrastructure.



It introduces more competition particularly if the retailers are not allowed to operate the power stations. What is your solution?

Have you read the OFT report?

https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/sites/default/files/docs/2014/03/assessment_document_published_1.pdf

Why would the power companies not owning power stations help prices be lower?

Its like saying aldi should not own its own biscuit factories it would be cheaper if aldi spun off its biscuit factories into a separate entity and bought biscuits off the market instead