Corbyn front bench 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".
Owen Smith On 24 August 2016,
Owen Smith said Corbyn had a legitimate point about train overcrowding, but sided with Virgin Trains over the specific incident, stating "I think the evidence is there on the CCTV footage, obviously Jeremy did have a seat and went to sit on the floor in order to make a point about overcrowding.". He also stated that he was not entirely sure what Corbyn's version of events was, as it had appeared to change a couple of times on 23 August. Responding to calls for Branson to lose his knighthood, he said "I can't imagine we'd strip somebody's honours for telling the truth". A 24 August tweet, "My campaign remains on track. Proud to be genuinely standing up for ordinary people." was interpreted as a reference to the row. According to the
Guardian's own analysis in the wake of the row, the East Coast route is relatively free of capacity issues compared to other franchises, with 80% of passengers rating it "satisfied or good" in terms of space to sit or stand, and that it has more issues with the train's other facilities, due to the length of the journey. By comparing the cost of new trains and the money paid on fares, it concluded that taking operators back into state control would not solve much in the grand scheme of things, with savings of hundreds of millions being unlikely to make a dent in costs of tens of billions, and so the answer instead lay in Corbyn finding some way to make taxpayers increase their contribution from the present £3.5 billion a year. 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. 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. It also acknowledged that although the original text had been clear that Corbyn had taken a seat later in the journey, this detail was omitted from the published version, and the headline had erroneously suggested that Corbyn had sat on the floor for the entire journey.
Social media On
Twitter, several people who said they were on the train came to Corbyn's defence, backing his account and sharing pictures of them sitting with him in the corridor. Others made the point that many trains are overcrowded, regardless of whether Corbyn's had been. 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").
Media analysis Simon Calder, travel correspondent for
The Independent, wrote that overcrowding on intercity routes (such as the one Corbyn was travelling on) is much less frequent than on commuter routes, and he argued that in fact the bigger problem for the East Coast franchise was too many empty seats on off-peak trains (making them inefficient) rather than too few. 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". It argued that this made it an incident which "fuels the impression that, at the most critical moments – such as during the referendum campaign – the Labour leader is absent". 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. Noting its "oddly partisan" nature,
Private Eye also questioned the neutrality of ''The Guardian's'' original story, based on research into their bylined Guardian video producer which showed they were a Corbyn supporter and had a working relationship with the freelance filmmaker, something they noted the paper did not disclose. 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.
Public opinion A
YouGov poll, on 24 August 2016, found that, of the 4,454 UK adults surveyed, 57% thought that Corbyn was being dishonest, compared with 18% who thought that he was not; 58% thought that the row did matter, compared with 19% who thought it did not. However, amongst current Labour voters, 39% believed him against 34% who did not. Other YouGov polling data showed the row had impacted negatively on VTEC in terms of brand awareness, brand impression and perceptions of value for money among the general public, showing a negative score for the first time in brand impression, although this was balanced by no change when looking only at the views of current customers.
Labour leadership election Polls showed that 11% of those eligible to vote in the leadership election said that the incident had improved their view of Corbyn, while 20% said that it had given them a more negative view. However, amongst Corbyn supporters, 18% said that it had given them a more positive view of him, against 5% who said that it had given them a more negative view.
The Independent suggested that this was due to Corbyn being seen to make a stand against an unpopular operator. ==See also==