Another Government Mess with the incompetent Chris Grayling

[Altobelli]

Chris Grayling gave Stagecoach the London to Scotland rail line as it won the bid, now Stagecoach cannot run it as it bid too high and is losing money hand over fist.

The ever incompetent Chris Grayling is maybe giving Stagecoach another rail line and is even thinking of letting Stagecoach still run the London-Scotland line on better terms.

Do they make it up as they go along ?

[oldcolner]

Alto
This is a dogs Breakfast but isn’t entirely correct. The East Coast line is actually run by Virgin Trains East Coast a comsortium of Stagecoach (90%) and Virgin Trains (10%) - why does it use Virgin - perhaps to allow Virgin trains to run on both lines?
The West coast line which operates at a profit is also jointly owned by Virgin (51%) and Stagecoach (49%)

Virgin Trains East Coast admitted overbidding after it pledged to pay £3.3bn to run the service until 2023, with passenger numbers failing to rise in line with expectations.

However cancelled infrastructure upgrades by Network Rail meant that a significant number of additional seats on new trains expected after 2020 would not be operating, making the government partially responsible.

https://www.theguardian.com/business...rayling-admits

As tax payers we want the maximum income from these schemes but if companies gone bust you’re stuffed. So it needs to be flexible so it’s worthwhile for the company. If National Rail screw things up for them then they aren’t entirely responsible.

I remember Scottish Premiership chose a TV offer from an Irish group over Sky as they offered more money. The went bust after 6 months leaving the SP with no money and had to beg Sky to buy the rest of the games. It was a disaster from which SP has failed to recover.

[Altobelli]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenter...g-devastating/

[The Bedlington Terrier]

http://www.lbc.co.uk/radio/presenter...g-devastating/

The answer my friends is municipal socialism. No argument, keep it in house and let the users benefit and not some fat bollox supping Pina Coladas in the Cayman Islands.

[sinkov]

It's a right dogs bollox, but I can remember the Labour Party Conference in 1993, not long after the railways had been nationalised, Shadow Transport Minister John 'Two Jags' Prescott, announced to thunderous applause that the next Labour Government would re-nationalise the railways.

Labour came to power four years later, did the sums, and decided it was too late, it would be too costly, and moth-balled the idea. So for thir**** years it was in Labour's power to sort out the privatisation shambles, and re-nationalise the railways but they never did. I can't imagine it's going to be less costly now to sort out the mess than it was twenty years ago, so you've got to be deluded if you think that these Labour w@nkers have the answer. They didn't then, they don't now.

[1959_60]

I don't think we have ever had such a lack of Parliamentary talent.

The big hitters in both the Labour and Tory parties are pathetic. Corbyn, McDonnelll, Abbott, May, Boris, Rees-Mogg.

I think that these days people with talent realise that they can earn more money, and probably achieve more, outside politics.

Both the Tories and Labour are in disarray over Brexit.
NHS/Social care needs major surgery.
Our transport systems are off the rails.
Corruption and inappropriate behaviour of the politicians (nowt new here, admittedly).
Plus countless other issues.

And the people running our affairs (and their counterparts) are not fit for purpose.

They are all career politicians, more worried about their own future, and the political advantage of their own party, than they are about the good of our country.

I don't expect to get much support with this idea, but I would pay MP's the going rate as an executive in a large company. Perhaps we would attract better talent then.

Of course, I leave the Lib Dems out of this. If they were true career politicians then they would not have joined the Lib Dems. I have met many in the party and they are all well grounded people who are genuinely in politics to try to make peoples lives better. They do not rely on unions or big business for funding and can therefore act in an unfettered way.

The current state of affairs cannot and will not continue for long.

[Altobelli]

Agree with you 59, apart from the last 3 paragraphs.

[Norder]

.....keep it in house and let the users benefit and not some fat bollox supping Pina Coladas in the Cayman Islands.

the more wealth that leaves (is sat on or invested eleswhere) - the more they'll find blame in the people - and the more of an excuse they'll have to suck more from them...to make up for the loss.






..

[sinkov]

"I don't think we have ever had such a lack of Parliamentary talent."

I think everyone would agree with that 59/60, but it does so happen that we currently have far more women MPs in parliament now than ever before. Do you think these two facts are connected in any way, or would you say it's just co-incidental ?

[1959_60]

Morning Sinkov, Morning everyone.

I don't think that gender has very much to do with it - I just think we have a generally useless bunch of MP's.

I am sure that there are many good constituency MP's who do a good job for their area, but at "exec" level they are dire.

If some of our brightest talent could be persuaded to go into politics then this could change. But why should they take a job for relative peanuts on a five year rolling contract?

Whereas if they got a job at Carillion or ......oh, hang on...