But the pressure is there, not just health and education - social care, benefits, pensions.
That may well be your opinion, but a large percentage of voters have, have access to or aspire to cars which are seen as a more desirable alternative, for all but certain journeys. This will have an effect on the decisions of priorities.
It is, but again it's highly unlikely that we would be in a position where everyone always has access to motor transport.
I would argue that for a small, densley populated country like this one, it would be highly undesirable for everyone to have access to motor transport due to the congestion/additional road infrastructure that would be required.
That means that public transport will always be vital.
The word ‘essential’ is tricky when it comes to government spending. I’d suggest anything concerned with a possible life or death situation (health, defence, security, police, welfare etc) would be deemed far more essential, if push comes to shove, than rail. Rightly or wrongly, there is only so much government budget (if managed properly) and railways will always be competing for funds in the ‘other’ section.
Education, however, isn't a life or death situation, yet it is deemed essential.
Loads of people paying £1 for train travel isn't a sustainable transport model, unless the government of the time decides that extra subsidy is an acceptable model (spoiler: they don't). There is limited "value of passengers" if they don't pay that much (unfortunately). Also too many cheap passengers - without an uplift in passengers - leads to overcrowding, which isn't going to give those people much "value". That being said, few TOCs would list 6 subsequent cancellations and would try their best to have them spread.
Obviously there's a perfect equilibrium between demand, supply and pricing to get the maximum revenue but it is in constant flux and there are pricing and revenue managers who are experts at this sort of thing with a vast array of data at their fingertips.
I as much as many on these forums would love to see big advances and improvements in staffing, infrastructure, systems and customer service but I am also a realist of the framework the railway industry (and indeed many sectors) sit within.
I agree. I think there is far too much emphasis on gimmicky offers, rather than having fares that are consistently competitive to people. I would start by introducing a national railcard which would enable people of working age across the country, to make a sunk contribution to the system and access discounted fares which, whilst not the gimmicky one pound offers, will still offer a sense of value to passengers.
Getting the railway system we have working properly would be a good start, before embarking on hefty infrastructure projects.