Rail Franchise

[One Day Soon]

It is almost impossible to believe that a contract of this scale and visibility can have turned into such a public shambles.

Given that Virgin were the losing bidders and were always likely not to go down quietly it seems incredible that the people involved can have left any serious margin for error over the costings. Presumably now both First and Virgin will be very unhappy.

It won't exactly enthuse potential bidders for other rail contracts either.

[Johnny0762]

Another crass example of what is abhorrently wrong with the politics of the Westminster controlled Union.

Your post seems to write Virgin's legal challenge off as sour grapes despite them launching legal action determined to prove that the award of the contract to First was fundamentally flawed and corrupt.

[One Day Soon]

Another crass example of what is abhorrently wrong with the politics of the Westminster controlled Union.

Your post seems to write Virgin's legal challenge off as sour grapes despite them launching legal action determined to prove that the award of the contract to First was fundamentally flawed and corrupt.

Not at all. I just felt that the likelihood of Virgin getting any movement on this after the decision had been taken was quite low - but in terms of the positions being taken by both companies over the bids I thought Virgin had a lot of right on their side. I'm more amazed that the people involved - whether officials or politicians - have managed to make such a mess of what was always going to be a really high profile policy matter. Its not as though it was a small contract that no-one would be paying much attention to. David Cameron must be climbing the walls over this.

[Johnny0762]

Not at all. I just felt that the likelihood of Virgin getting any movement on this after the decision had been taken was quite low - but in terms of the positions being taken by both companies over the bids I thought Virgin had a lot of right on their side. I'm more amazed that the people involved - whether officials or politicians - have managed to make such a mess of what was always going to be a really high profile policy matter. Its not as though it was a small contract that no-one would be paying much attention to. David Cameron must be climbing the walls over this.

If they can prove that the contract award is not above board then it will open a big can of worms but Virgin obviously couldn't mount any kind of challenge to the decision until after that decision had been made.

[One Day Soon]

If they can prove that the contract award is not above board then it will open a big can of worms but Virgin obviously couldn't mount any kind of challenge to the decision until after that decision had been made.

I think that position has effectively been conceded by the government with today's announcement. It really is a monumental screw up. Branson could run riot with this and given that he will feel he has been proven right I can't see any reason why he wouldn't.

I think it suspends all other rail franchise competitions too because they were being run on a similar basis.

[steakbake]

It is almost impossible to believe that a contract of this scale and visibility can have turned into such a public shambles.

Given that Virgin were the losing bidders and were always likely not to go down quietly it seems incredible that the people involved can have left any serious margin for error over the costings. Presumably now both First and Virgin will be very unhappy.

It won't exactly enthuse potential bidders for other rail contracts either.

A monumental shambles but then successive governments have excelled in the art of public maladministration: the tax system systematically enables multinationals to dodge tax while if you or I make a mistake we'd be hit for every last penny, the banking system deregulated to such a point that several banks collapse, the education system and the exam shambles, the immigration system made so ridiculously complex that it creates chaos with students and skilled workers who bring millions to the country while the same undesirables who its set up to filter out run rings around it, the NHS in chaos with some trusts teetering on the brink of administration... so many other examples.

This shower seem particularly inept.

Cost to the tax payer on this one is going to be several millions. So much for cutting government waste.

[hibsbollah]

Something like this was inevitable in the current system, which should be called 'free and open competition to create transport monopolies'. The incentive is on the tenderer to submit unrealistically low bid, which the Government is obliged to accept. The successful bidder is then pressurised to cut costs by running less trains, which then become overcrowded, by increasing fares on busy lines, and cutting corners on safety. As the period of the contract comes to an end and it becomes clear that the Government is going to lose billions from the deal, a renegotiation takes place and the taxpayer signs away these billions to the shareholders of the train operating companies, who usually have a number of ex-cabinet ministers on their boards. See the example of First Trains running the East Coast mainline as an excellent working example.

Compare our shambles of a 'network', and the charade of ever-changing operating companies that the public really doesn't care about, with the Amtrak system in the US. The US federal government owns all the shares in this great company, which still manages to return a profit, charge reasonable affordable fares, is comfortable and efficient and is just a pleasure to use. The loony lefty that brought this massive state organisation into existence? Richard Nixon :greengrin

Unfortunately, in this country bringing the trains back into public ownership seems to be the policy that dares not speak its name.


Oh, and for the Tories to suspend the DoT civil servants in charge of the process is a disgrace.

[Eyrie]

Oh, and for the Tories to suspend the DoT civil servants in charge of the process is a disgrace.

Why? If the civil servants were in charge then they need to take responsibility for making such a mess of it. It would only be a disgrace if the politicians overruled them and were attempting to pass the blame.

[Johnny0762]

Why? If the civil servants were in charge then they need to take responsibility for making such a mess of it. It would only be a disgrace if the politicians overruled them and were attempting to pass the blame.

I thought he meant the buck should stop higher up the chain of command?

[Eyrie]

I thought he meant the buck should stop higher up the chain of command?

Depends on the basis that the politician took the decision. I very much doubt that they have had time to read the full applications, then rigorously challenge the assumptions and finally reach a conclusion. The politician has a department to run and a constituency to look after, so they will be reliant on the advice of civil servants well versed in the minutiae of the tendering process.

On the other hand, if the politician has ignored that advice then they should take the blame and do the honorable thing. Not that any politicians do that now, as we saw with that pleb Mitchell.

[Johnny0762]

Depends on the basis that the politician took the decision. I very much doubt that they have had time to read the full applications, then rigorously challenge the assumptions and finally reach a conclusion. The politician has a department to run and a constituency to look after, so they will be reliant on the advice of civil servants well versed in the minutiae of the tendering process.

On the other hand, if the politician has ignored that advice then they should take the blame and do the honorable thing. Not that any politicians do that now, as we saw with that pleb Mitchell.

I see what you're saying. This, however, was not a run of the mill job delegated down the chain. This has cost the tax payer a so far estimated £40 million. You can rest assured that whenever such figures are quoted that the true cost will run much higher. The buck must stop at the top of the chain.

I have my suspicions that there is much more sinister going-ons than just some civil servants getting their arithmetic wrong. This stinks of corruption and pay offs for First to win the order, and I think that someone just hoped that it would be accepted by Branson.

The fact that the National Lottery is the "champion of good causes", and the award going to Camelot, rather than Branson who offered a much fairer share to the good causes, just goes to show exactly what is going on in the corridors of power.

Car insurance companies are now under investigation for what is tantamount to fraud on a colossal scale. This, and the Libor fixing scam suggests that it was okay for this to happen until the whistle was blown.

All these things are happening under successive UK governments made up of all three major parties.

Anyone voting to remain in the union is turning a blind eye to all this for a reason. They're either unintelligent and don't really care about the news, or they have an ulterior motive.

The facts are, that all those in the corridor of power have lost or abandoned their political ideologies and principles of common decency in order to get themselves rich.

The Iraq war and the awarding of oil contracts to UK companies is another blatant example of corruption at the highest level where they will willingly use the deaths of thousands of people form both sides, just to make money.

Another reason why I feel that those voting for this same old same old, have no self respect.

[Eyrie]

If there is corruption and payoffs, then those responsible must be sent to jail, whether they are a civil servant or a politician.


The facts are, that all those in the corridor of power have lost or abandoned their political ideologies and principles of common decency in order to get themselves rich.
I'd agree with that, but point out that it also applies in Scotland (for example the SNP watering down independence to little more than some form of devo-max, but that is best in the other thread).
By the way, you're a much nicer person when you're agreeing with me :thumbsup:

[hibsbollah]

Why? If the civil servants were in charge then they need to take responsibility for making such a mess of it. It would only be a disgrace if the politicians overruled them and were attempting to pass the blame.

...Because a) its the tendering system as a whole that is at fault, not the specifics of this decision b) i know from experience that this tendering mania in the public sector has led to civil servants being asked to do things that theyre not qualified to do-contract management is a complex skill and c) ministerial accountability. Blaming the civil service for every mistake seems to be this coalitions default position always.

[Eyrie]

...Because a) its the tendering system as a whole that is at fault, not the specifics of this decision b) i know from experience that this tendering mania in the public sector has led to civil servants being asked to do things that theyre not qualified to do-contract management is a complex skill and c) ministerial accountability. Blaming the civil service for every mistake seems to be this coalitions default position always.
Tendering for rail franchises has been going on since 1996 so it's reasonable to expect the civil servants to have a grasp of it by now, and there has been plenty of time to ensure that the appropriate staff are trained or recruited.

And it turns out that the Transport Secretary Justine Greening who approved the deal with First Group has already lost that job in the recent reshuffle. If it turns out that she followed the recommendation of the civil servants in good faith, then they have to take responsibility just as she has to take the responsibility if she overruled their objections.

[Johnny0762]

Tendering for rail franchises has been going on since 1996 so it's reasonable to expect the civil servants to have a grasp of it by now, and there has been plenty of time to ensure that the appropriate staff are trained or recruited.

And it turns out that the Transport Secretary Justine Greening who approved the deal with First Group has already lost that job in the recent reshuffle. If it turns out that she followed the recommendation of the civil servants in good faith, then they have to take responsibility just as she has to take the responsibility if she overruled their objections.

I wholeheartedly agree about the civil servants doing the leg work, but isn't it such a major financial issue that the top level bosses should at least have checked things were right before it was put out?

All they had to do was read the documents.

Like I've said previously, I don't believe they didn't check. I think they tried to pull a fast one and it back fired big time. That's why big heads should roll.