If on a whim I decided to go to Leeds on a weekday morning it would cost me £96.80 standard class to catch the off peak 11.05 am. If I could delay my journey for a month I could buy a ticket on the same train for just £22.95. If I went on the 11.35 in a month’s time it would cost me just £14.60.

If I wanted to go to Manchester it would cost me £80.60 standard class. If I wanted to go after 3.20pm it would cost me £164.50. If I book in advance to go to Manchester off peak in November it would cost me just £20.

Rail fares are bizarre. Half of them are regulated, mainly to try to prevent the rail industry overcharging for scarce commuter seats into London at the peaks. Regulation has not stopped the imposition of high fares on popular commuter services. The railway gives people huge discounts for buying tickets well in advance, charges the traveller buying a ticket on the day high prices, and imposes a simple cliff edge on fares with big increase in fares at around 3pm and a big drop around 7pm, with a similar peak in the morning.

This system leaves commuters feeling they pay more than their fair share of a heavily subsidised industry. It leads to heavily overcrowded trains on popular routes on the first train after the ending of the peak fare, and still leaves the main commuter lines with insufficient capacity. It clearly fails to maximise revenues or sell the many empty seats I see on many of the trains I use outside the London and Reading area commuter services.

It is curious that the very low advance fares are not more successful in selling off peak seats on long distance trains. Maybe they are insufficiently known. Maybe there is simply too much capacity on these routes. It is also curious that many pay the high single and return fares charged if you buy on the day of travel, given the high premium charged for late purchase.

What seems likely is a revised pattern of fares and service provision could improve seat sales, reduce costs, and give commuters a fairer deal. Can the rail industry rise to that challenge?

The complex system which fails to deliver enough seats on busy routes at popular times and provides many unsold empty seats elsewhere is a reminder of how price regulation can both be well intended and unsuccessful. We need more competition in the railway, to innovate on services and bring in more popular fares and services.

Leaving will be better for business.

Business now agrees we were right to quit the Exchange Rate Mechanism, which damaged jobs and closed factories.

Business now agrees we were right to say No to the Euro, which has helped to create mass unemployment and property crashes in several countries of the EU.

Out of the EU the UK can negotiate her own free trade agreements with China, the USA and India, after 43 years in an EU which has stopped us doing that and has not done it for us.

Out of the EU the UK can decide what regulations and taxes to impose on all our domestic business and all our exports to non EU countries, which represents around 85% of our total income and output.

The UK will continue to trade with the EU, and they will not wish or be able to impose new tariff barriers on us and certainly will not want us imposing barriers on them.

The UK will avoid new taxes like the Financial Transactions Tax, and unfriendly changes to Corporation Tax and VAT which the EU currently carries out.

Some have wrongly argued here that the government has failed to set out what it wishes to achieve from the current renegotiation with the EU. This is not the case, so I will remind people of what the government has said about its plans.

My view is I want “the fundamental change” in the UK’s relationship with the EU that the PM talked about. I want to trade and be friends with them, but to be outside the centralising treaties which force laws and policies on us that we would not choose for ourselves.

More recently the government has identified four big areas for change. They say they are negotiating over each of these areas.

Competitiveness and Regulation – the government wants an EU based on the primacy of more jobs and prosperity, that regulates and interferes less

Sovereignty and competences – the government wants powers back and more ability to stop mandatory policies from the EU through the actions of national Parliaments

A new and clearer relationship with the Eurozone – so the Uk does not have to accept Eurozone requirements on banking, finance etc

More UK control over migration and access to welfare – removing the “pull” factors that are swelling migrant numbers into the UK.

The current debate is over whether the government is asking for enough to satisfy the many voters in the middle of this argument who have not made up their minds on whether to leave the EU or not, and whether the EU will give the UK anything meaningful under these various headings to enable the government to recommend the deal. The government recognises that Treaty change will be needed, but may settle for a promissory note on treaty change which then raises the issue of the powers of the ECJ, what happens in the interim, and the ability of the rest of the EU to deliver given the complexities of securing the consent of all 28 to treaty changes.

Many will conclude leaving is an easier way of resolving the lack of power and democratic control the UK currently suffers from under the present treaties. If it looks as if the UK will vote to leave there will be more chance of securing that fundamental change Mr Cameron has talked about.

Out of the EU the UK will regain her own seat on the World Trade Organisation, and be able to press for world agreements that we want.

The UK will gain a seat or have more influence on world standards bodies which in turn inform EU standards.

The UK will have her own seat and policy at World Summits like the World Climate summits.

The UK will be better treated by France and Germany who will need our support on various issues in the future and will not be able to outvote us in the EU to stifle our opinion.

The UK is the world’s fifth largest economy and one of the world’s most important military powers after the USA, China and Russia. It is high time we were fully represented in our own name in all important world fora.

I would be interested to receive comments on Mr Corbyn’s “new style” of handling PMQs.

Last week I met the Chairman and Chief Executive of the Office of Road and Rail. This body spends £32 million a year of our money on acting as economic and safety regulator of the railways, and acting as a new regulator of the Highways Agency, the government body that runs England’s roads.

I asked them why they had taken no action over Network Rail’s decision to take out foreign currency borrowings which I have warned against before. I asked why they had apparently taken no action over Network Rail’s derivative trading and hedging, nor intervened to stop losses or to complain about them. They reminded me that Network Rail’s finances are now under the control of the Treasury and they will not be making any more foreign currency loans, as if I was unaware of that change. They had no answer on the broader questions, and were taking no action over derivative losses.

They have been agonising over £2m of fines to Network Rail for poor performance. They wish to express their displeasure, but they do not wish to take too much money off a company owned by taxpayers and funded by taxpayers. They clearly have no sense of significant numbers. Network Rail happily lost more than £2m a day every day last year on financial derivatives , so I guess a single £2m fine is neither here nor there to them.

They were also asked about their attitude towards the prolonged closure of the M20 this summer in Operation Stack. They were asked about other options to allow this crucial highway to continue in use. Again they had no helpful answers, and showed no sign of wishing to change things for the better by using their powers.

I came away seeing little value in much of the £32 million spent each year on this body, as it is quite incapable of keeping a major motorway open, and uninterested in stopping major financial losses at Network Rail despite being their economic regulator. I think they said they had to add road regulation to their rail remit to meet EU requirements.Maybe their safety role for rail is better done than the financial regulation.

Two weeks ago Mrs Merkel told the world that Germany would invite in all Syrian refugees who wished to come. Many commentators waxed lyrical about Germany’s generosity. Some in the UK wrote pieces contrasting Germany’s compassion favourably with the UK government’s wish to avoid false hope and encouragement to people to undertake dangerous journeys. Anyone who raised problems with Germany’s approach was in danger of being condemned as heartless.

This week the German approach has suddenly changed. Germany now wishes to place a limit on how many refuges she can take. Germany now wants other EU member states to undertake proper border checks at the EU’s external border, denying economic migrants access. Just in case they do not manage to do this, Germany has placed new border controls at her frontier, against the spirit of the Shengen open borders policy she subscribes to.

Some of us queried at the time how Germany would distinguish between Syrian refugees, refugees from other countries and economic migrants. We asked how she would avoid a very large number of people deciding they wanted to take advantage of Germany’s apparent generosity. We wanted to know how EU law could be changed overnight by a German statement of policy, when EU law seemed to say in most cases Italy or Hungary or Greece had the task of deciding entry into the EU if the migrants turned up there first.

There remain serious problems with Germany’s latest policy statements. How can a quotas system work? What if the refugees allocated to some of the countries have no wish to stay there, but insist on travelling on to another EU country like Germany with more jobs on offer? For how long will Germany suspend her open borders required of her by the Shengen agreement? As Germany is now cancelling trains that come in from Italy, how much impact will this new policy have on the movement of people and goods other than refugees and economic migrants? Above all, does Germany now regret her previous statements.? What does Germany say to a genuine refugees that has been attempting the dangerous journey to the EU, encouraged by Mrs Merkel’s statement? Why is there now a limit on numbers when before there was no limit?

Venezuela currently produces no official inflation or national income and output figures, because the government does not like the truth to emerge about the damage its economic policy is doing. Analysts reckon inflation in Venezuela is well over 100% per annum, with some thinking it is now running at several hundred percent. The bolivar, their currency, has plunged drastically on the black market.

The government has printed large sums to try to keep the economy growing. It is likely output will decline by at least 10% this year.Prices of some essentials have been fixed at low levels to try to help the poor. As a result there are great shortages, and many of the poor cannot get the items they need at all. People have been banned from forming queues outside shops in the streets to try to buy things. There is a military crack down on smuggling, as people seek to buy up scarce products like flour and petrol to smuggle the output to Columbia where prices are closer to world levels. Basics like milk, soap, toilet rolls and bread are often out of stock in the shops. The leader of the Opposition has been in prison.

This year Venezuela may find it impossible to service her foreign currency debts. The country is short of foreign exchange to buy the imports they need in a range of basics for daily life. Venezuela is demonstrating that a combination of controls and overrides of the markets and prices, and printing extra money, leads to a break down in the supply system. The poor suffer as well as everyone else. Far from creating plenty, stimulating the economy and getting people out of poverty, these policies do the exact opposite.

I mention this today, because Mr Corbyn is an admirer of the politics and government of Venezuela. He wrote an article praising it in 2009, and renewed his favourable comments this year. I recommend he looks at the poverty, the scarcity of goods and the difficulties for many people in their everyday lives created by this socialist paradise. Just as the Europhile left need to explain or condemn mass unemployment in Greece, so Mr Corbyn needs to explain or condemn the impact of high borrowing and money printing on Venezuela. Venezuela suffers deep and severe cuts in living standards, from a government which claims to be an opponent of austerity.

Mr Corbyn has defeated a Labour party prepared to make compromises to win elections. Now watch as he goes on to attack middle England. He will condemn success, tax achievement and seek to undermine self reliance.

Mr Corbyn promises to make inequality the main issue. The government should reply by making poverty the main issue.

Mr Corbyn’s policy is to reduce inequality by taxing the rich more. If, for example, he went the whole way and said all income and wealth held by the top ten percent in excess of the rest would be taxed away he would immediately make the UK a much more equal society. He would also make it much poorer.

Many of the rich would go, taking their assets with them. Some of the rich who stayed would work less, cut their income, find legal ways of reducing their wealth, make fewer riskier investments, create fewer jobs. This would in itself cut inequality and make the rich poorer, in line with Mr Corbyn’s aims.

It would also make many lower income people poorer. It would mean fewer jobs in the luxury trades, fewer jobs providing goods and services for the rich and famous. Great footballers, singers, actors would leave the country, and with them would go the demand they create for goods and services. We would all be poorer. It would mean fewer new and successful companies and the career opportunities they offer.

Most people in the UK are not jealous of success. They accept that great entertainers, sports people, entrepreneurs should earn large sums based on their skills, subject to progressive taxation at sensible levels.

Most of us want the state to help tackle poverty. We want inequality to reduce because people on low or no incomes are becoming better off. That is the purpose of the Conservative tax cuts, taking people on low incomes out of Income Tax altogether. That is the purpose of welfare reform, to make work worthwhile. That is the purpose of education reform, to give more people the chance of a good schooling. That is the purpose of pro enterprise policies, encouraging more people to work for themselves or to set up in business and create jobs for others.

Conservatives should answer Mr Corbyn’s politics of jealousy with our politics of aspiration. We need to show we can help lift more people out of low and no incomes, and help more people to own their own homes, businesses, and savings. Conservatives want an inclusive society, where everyone can become an owner, and where the many have the opportunity of a good education and a good job. Mr Corbyn wants a divided society, where the better off are hounded, and everyone ends up worse off.

On November 13th at 4 pm I will be giving a public lecture on why the Euro needs a political union, and the EU plans to do this, in the Old Library of All Souls College High Street Oxford.

This is an advance notice for those interested.