Nationalisation of public assets, electricity, water railways etc. Surely better than the way we are being screwed by the likes of southern rail who take taxpayers money dont provide a good service yet still turn a tidy profit.

Where does corbyns help for small business and entrepreneurs fit into your labour = communist twaddle?

Rail privatisation was promoted in the early 1990s in the UK with promises of a better, cheaper service for rail users and reduced taxpayer subsidy. Private rail companies, it was argued, would bring in capital and business expertise which would transform the sector’s performance while competition would drive efficiency and innovation.

Action for Rail has published new analysis which comprehensively debunks these ‘myths’ of rail privatisation. To see the new, short report – The Four Big Myths of UK Rail Privatisation, please click here.

On each of the above measures, UK rail privatisation has been a failure. Today’s railways require billions more in government funding, private investment has failed to materialise and passengers face the highest fares and travel on some of the oldest rolling stock in Europe. Private train operating companies are net recipients of public subsidy while distributing nearly all their operating profits as dividends to the shareholders of their parent companies.

Advocates of rail privatisation adhere to the myth of franchising as a success story for the passenger and the taxpayer. This document busts those myths.

Here are some key facts from the mythbusting report:

Myth 1 – UK rail privatisation has created passenger growth

Growth in rail passenger journeys is driven by three key factors that have nothing to do with train operating companies: longterm growth in GDP, changing commuting patterns as employment has concentrated in major urban areas, particularly in London and the South East, and increase in motoring costs.
The 59 per cent increase in passenger growth on the UK railways has also been stimulated by the 300 per cent increase in public subsidy since privatisation.

Myth 2 – UK rail privatisation has resulted in new investment and innovation

Over 90 per cent of new investment in the railways in recent years has been financed by public sector body Network Rail, and comes mainly from taxpayer funding or government-underwritten borrowing.
Genuine at-risk private investment in the railway in 2010–11 lay somewhere in the range of £100m–£380m, with the figure most probably lying at the lower end. In the same year, other sources of income for the railway – public money and the fare box – contributed £10.6bn.

Myth 3 – UK rail privatisation has resulted in cheaper and better services for passengers

Since rail privatisation in 1995 up to 2015, all tickets (regulated and unregulated) have increased by an average of 117 per cent, or by 24 per cent in real terms.
UK railways are slower and more overcrowded than predominantly publicly owned
rail services in Germany, France, Italy and Spain.

Myth 4 – UK rail privatisation is a better deal for the taxpayer

The cost of running the railway has more than doubled in real terms since privatisation from £2.4bn per year (1990–91 to 1994–95) to approximately £5.4bn per year (2005–06 to 2009–10).
Official figures show that all but one of the private train operators in the UK receive more in subsidies than they return in the form of franchise payments to the government. In 2013–14, the government contributed £3.8bn to the UK rail industry.
The top five recipients of public subsidy alone received almost £3bn in taxpayer support between 2007 and 2011. This allowed them to make operating profits of £504m – over 90 per cent (£466m) of which was paid to shareholders.
[Link]

Ain't right is it?

Talks a lot of truth if you listen, probably one of the few who does, on the other side we had a pm in cameron letting a company, uber, free role breaking taxi laws as his childs godmother was head of them in uk, even thou they pay no tax, most of there 125000 drivers are not paid minimum wage so get tax credits and rent paid by you, and companys worth 60 billion, big profit in letting taxpayer pay your employees wages, genius! And the chancellor and mayor of london in on the deal, although to be fair to boris he did try and point out it was illegal and wrong, but was shouted down by cameron and six jobs with numerous phone calls and e mails! Jeremy? couldnt be any more useless or corrupt!

That is a massive stretch.

"This morning we learnt that Jeremy Corbyn would refuse to strike against terrorists, dismantle our nuclear defences and fail to control our borders," said Home Secretary Amber Rudd.

I can see Jeremy's problem over being mis-reported as he actually said the opposite of what Ms Rudd says.

He actually said he would never authorise 'first strike'. That is the position all PMs are in as the missiles can only ever be used in defence.

He also agreed that free movement would end when England and Wales leave the EU shame IMO but that's what he said.

I don't think thousands of viewers will ring to complain as its a given these days that Mrs May and Ms Rudd are not capable of being truthful in any matter including calling the election.

Mrs T hated women in her government I think there were only ever 2 and they were got rid of perhaps this is why.

OK I am anti May and anti Rudd too for that matter but if they stopped lying I would have less reason to be.

No that is exactly what I mean.