Traingate
As a result of increased demand on an ageing network largely built in the Victorian era, train overcrowding has become a significant issue and a source of public discontent.
According to The Guardian, its adoption as official party policy had been a significant boost for Corbyn, who had suffered a series of setbacks over the European Union and the renewal of the Trident nuclear deterrent.
[9] On 11 August 2016, Corbyn boarded the 11:00 VTEC service from London King's Cross to Newcastle, travelling to a leadership hustings event with Owen Smith in Gateshead.
"[13][14] Subsequently, The Guardian acknowledged that the text originally submitted to the paper had been clear that Corbyn had later taken a seat, but that this detail had been removed in the editing process prior to publication.
"[18] It also said the company would be delighted to work with ministers if they proposed changing the rather "blunt instrument" of fares regulation so that it allowed the operator more freedom to effectively manage demand during exceptionally busy periods, such as sporting events.
[19] The same day minority VTEC shareholder, Richard Branson also tweeted an image of and link to the CCTV footage, with the message "Mr Corbyn & team walked past empty unreserved seats then filmed claim train was ‘ram-packed".
[22] Explaining VTEC's decision to respond to Corbyn's accusations with CCTV footage, Branson stated on 3 September that the company had known from its IT system that there were "something like a hundred and forty empty seats on the train".
[11] Tarry also stated in a radio interview that "The bigger story is that a tax exile of more than 10 years decides to lay into [Jeremy Corbyn] on social media in a very public way.
"[25] In July 2017, the Information Commissioner's Office ruled that Virgin was allowed to correct Corbyn's accusations by publishing the video but "should have taken better care to obscure the faces of other people on the train".
[26][27] Writing in the Sunday Mirror on 28 August 2016, Corbyn's most senior ally, Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, called for Branson to be stripped of his knighthood, describing him as a "tax exile who thinks he can try and intervene and undermine our democracy".
It also concluded other avenues, such as cost savings, would also encounter difficulties, as it would require better employee relations (to avoid disputes such as the concurrent Southern strike) or Network Rail taking on more debt.
[33] On 7 October 2016, The Guardian published a review of its own coverage of the incident by its readers' editor, Paul Chadwick, which concluded that the paper was to some extent responsible for the story generating the controversy that it did.
Chadwick said that the paper should have made clearer at the time that the video and accompanying text had been submitted by a Corbyn supporter rather than as a piece of news reporting by an independent freelance journalist.
[34] According to The Independent, reactions on Twitter elicited a "multitude of viewpoints" rather than just the usual pro or anti-Corbyn stances – distilling 28 perspectives, ranging from dismissal to conspiracy theorising, even pointing out that "ram-packed" is not a word (it is either "rammed or jam-packed").
[36] According to The Independent, "as the traingate saga seemed to spiral out of control" and "while Twitter had a field day", aides were unable to contact Corbyn for a response to Virgin's claims because he was at home, making jam, making the situation worse in their opinion, as it resulted in confusion and doubt as various different explanations emerged from different team members about what had happened on the train – "whether there were bags or children on unreserved seats or whether he had just wanted to sit with his wife".
[37] The BBC postulated various reasons why Branson might have taken the "risky gambit" of making a public attack on a politician, and more than a week after the event, ranging from a desire to overshadow British Airways, an expected response given his long-standing record of reacting aggressively to attacks on his brand's reputation, or as a method of most effectively quashing the idea of renationalisation which "has an appeal to a wide range of voters", or because the franchise itself was under financial pressure and any lessening of profits would risk yet another default on this troubled route.
[39] Citing various public relations professionals, PRWeek concluded that the row had caused damage to Corbyn, reinforcing impressions that he is not a capable operator when it comes to media management, made all the worse as it was self-inflicted, and that Virgin had done a good job protecting its reputation by acting decisively and across both traditional and social media in their response, and that ultimately they would still benefit from creating doubt about Corbyn's version of events, even if he was right.
