West Coast Main Line
Posted by Graham Stringer, MP for Blackley and Broughton, at 10:31, Mon 10 September 2012:
Richard Branson of Virgin has yet again proved himself to be the most media savvy capitalist of his generation. Who else could have motivated 170,000 people to sign the e-petition urging the Government to reconsider its decision to award the West Coast Main Line franchise to First Group?
The purpose of this petition is not just to reopen the tendering process but to reinstate Virgin as the franchisee. While Branson has not yet achieved this final objective he has made real progress in recapturing the contract from First Group by securing a Judicial Review of the decision, a special meeting of the House of Commons Transport Select Committee which will quiz him and Tim O’Toole Chief Executive of First Group, and is well on his way to a full debate in the Commons Chamber. Branson has a straightforward task because it is easy to paint First Group as the villain of the piece; their local, national and international reputation is appalling.
First Group have a near monopoly of bus services in North Manchester and Salford and boy do my constituents suffer because of it: the Traffic Commissioner recently fined First a quarter of a million pounds for poor punctuality. Previously First had been forced to take buses off the road because they were unsafe; the wheels literally came off! For the privilege of riding with First passengers are exploited with fares considerably higher than in South Manchester.
First’s reputation with rail passengers is no better. They expressed higher levels of dissatisfaction with the Great Western franchise between London, Bristol and South Wales run by First than virtually anywhere else in the rail system. First Group not only failed to perform with this franchise it negotiated a deal which gave it a significant subsidy in the early years turning to a premium towards the end of the franchise. First trousered the subsidy and then walked away when payments of the premiums became due.
Five or six years ago I went on a trade union sponsored visit to the United States of America and talked to bus drivers employed by First in Jacksonville and Minneapolis St Paul. These trade union activists told horrific stories of aggressive and dangerous union breaking activities.
It is difficult to fathom the mind of a government that awards the contract for the busiest rail route in Europe to a company with a negative International image, poor management performance and a record of having already abandoned a franchise.
First Group then are an easy target for Virgin, but what of Virgin themselves? On taking over the franchise Virgin doubled standard and first return fares from London to Manchester, the standard return now stands at an eye watering £296. It is of course possible to get a cheaper advance ticket but this still leaves a huge financial burden on those people who have to travel at the last minute or make the mistake of boarding a train for which their bargain ticket is not valid. Virgin are now infamous for their jack booted attitude to passengers who have genuinely made a mistake by boarding the wrong train. Tales are legion of old ladies being threatened with being dumped at the next station for having a now invalid ticket.
Like First Group Virgin is also a subsidy junkie. A cool £200million in profit has been taken by Virgin since rail privatisation, £15million last year and an astonishing £24million four years ago when tax payer subsidy reached a record £6.8billion. You pay Branson takes. What other industry would receive the colossal investment of £9billion from the public purse (used to upgrade the West Coast Main Line) in order that a private business could make a fat profit? With bare faced cheek, while creaming off these profits, Virgin cut routes to Shrewsbury and Blackpool.
How then to choose between bad and badder? There is merit to Branson’s accusation that the Government would be ‘insane’ to award a franchise to First, which relies on an unachievable 10% growth in passengers every year for ten years. As there is credibility to First’s claim that Virgin have had their chance and have now came second in the bidding competition. It is like a United fan said when Liverpool played City recently “I want them both to lose”.
Unlike a football match however both can lose because what is exposed by this commercial spat is the absurdity of the rail franchise system. This is really the insane part of the process where the winning bidder either is granted a huge public subsidy or passes their costs onto the passengers via higher fares.
Rail privatisation has failed. The Conservatives promised the privatised railways would require zero subsidy, in fact the cost has been paid in lives lost as well as tens of billions of pounds of taxpayers’ money. The solution is blindingly obvious rather than letting the franchises the Government should allow them to lapse and run them itself thus recreating a safe publicly owned rail system. Public opinion may just favour Virgin over First Group but renationalisation commands much larger support in opinion polls. Labour should grab this opportunity with both hands and renationalise the railways at no cost.
Comments
If you are subscribed to HearFromYourMP in this constituency,
log in to post a reply.
Otherwise, if you live in the UK,
sign up in order to
HearFromYourMP.
Posted by Bernadine Collins-Nurse, 11:02, Mon 10 September 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
I PERSONALLY HAVE NEVER HAD TROUBLE WITH VIRGIN TRAINS AND HAVE ALWAYS MANAGED TO GET DISCOUNTED RATES, HOWEVER I HAVE ACCESS TO A COMPUTER KNEW WHEN I WAS TRAVELLING AND WHERE TO; I WAS ALSO PREPARED TO TRAVEL EARLY IN THE MORNING AND RETURN LATE AT NIGHT AS IT WAS FOR PLEASURE NOT BUSINESS. HOWEVER IF I HAD TO PAY THE EXTREMELY HIGH FARES THAT ARE PAYABLE ON THE DAY I WOULD HAVE TRAVELLED BY CAR OR EVEN AIR. ALSO I DID NOT REALIZE JUST HOW HIGH THE SUBSIDIES ARE. I THINK THAT IN THIS CASE PRIVATISATION WAS COMPLETLY WRONG AND THAT THE RAILWAYS SHOULD BE RE NATIONALISED
Posted by simon Benjamin, 11:43, Mon 10 September 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
Renationalising the railways is a good idea as is renationalising the water board. We pay high taxes in this country, so we the taxpayer should at least own our own infrastructure. This would also reduce costs for families and businesses by reducing prices to the cost of supplying said infrastructure rather than making money for shareholders. The government and local councils should also build more houses owned by the state for the people. By taxes building housing and infrastructure we could get out of this recession and have more assets that will bring in money to the public purse for years to come. I hope Labour goes back to these values of state ownership of at least this part of the economy. That Tony Blair and crew throw away when he changed clause 4 in 1993. What we need today is to take the best of socialism some nationalisation but also to allow business to have minimal red tape. The best of the left and the right in other words.
Posted by John Biggs, 11:45, Mon 10 September 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
As an Over 60's person, I would think that the Renationalisation of the trains would be a great step forward at no cost. If I as a Community worker applied for a grant of £5,000.00 only, not millions as it is with Virgin and First.I would have to present 3 quotations or tenders for the bidding. Doesn't this apply in this instance especially with the vast amount of investment it entails.I've not read anything about a third party? Should not the public have a say as to the best way forward as it is us who have to pay the enormous fees on the trains. I have travelled by train recently to North Wales,Llandudno,(Riva)and Blackpool and we the public are herded on like cattle,can't get a seat,have to contend with pushing passed bikes and buggies cases etc. Never mind faster trains we want more carriages putting on. More people are booking in advance so surely the technology today should let British Rail no how many people are expected at that time. Think of the public who have to pay to keep most of these workers in employment. CONSULT PEOPLE PLEASE INSTEAD OF VIRGIN REAPING ALL THE PROFITS AND FIRST NOT PUTTING ENOUGH INVESTMENT INTO THE RAIL, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S ANYTHING LIKE THE LACK OF INVESTMENT IN BUSES AS IN NORTH MANCHESTER.
Posted by syed ali, 12:04, Mon 10 September 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
The trains should be a national asset for people and freight,freight by rail would reduce the congestion caused by HGV,s on the road, Graham Stringer has a genuine interest in what happens in the North West and should be supported in his efforts
Posted by KARMA BROWN, 12:08, Mon 10 September 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
I HAD "SKIPPED OVER" THE BUSINESS PAGES OF THIS WEEKS SUNDAY TELEGRAPH BUT AFTER RECEIVING THIS EMAIL READ THE MAIN STORY HEADED "BRANSON IN ATTACK ON RAIL BID "CHAOS"
IT WOULD APPEAR THAT THIS AUTUMN A THIRD OF THE UK's RAIL FRANCHISES WILL BE AT SOME STAGE OF THE BID PROCESS AT THE SAME TIME AND THERE COULD BE "MELTDOWN" AT THE DEPARTMENT FOR TRANSPORT-
SO BRANSON IS PROBABLY CORRECT TO QUESTION THE FRANCHISING PROCESS BUT OF COURSE NOT FOR THE SAME REASONS AS I WOULD QUESTION IT- I.E. HAS PRIVATISATION WORKED- APPARENTLY NOT HAS IT BEEN COST EFFECT - APPARENTLY NOT
DO WE HAVE AN EFFICIENT INTEGRATED TRANSPORT SYSTEM- DEFINITLEY NOT
SO WHAT IS THE ALTERNATIVE-RENATIONALISE
Posted by Joanne Burke, 16:22, Mon 10 September 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
Before Virgin - travel from Manchester to London took 4 hrs. Now it's just over 2 hrs. The trains are always clean and the staff helpful. Virgin have always been helpful to customers. The tickets are easy to book online and the fares reasonable if you book in advance. When a service has been transformed and runs this well there is absolutely no reason not to allow it not to continue. If it ain't broke don't fix it.
Posted by Michael Rigby, 09:03, Tue 11 September 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
The public once owned a great deal in this country and it's mostly been given over to private organisations using the lie that the taxpayer will be better off. Renationalisation means lower costs for the public because it then becomes a none profit institution. The whole privatisation saga as just been a ruse for the rich to take from the poor. How could it be possible for a private company to charge less than a public owned company when private company's are driven by only profit and not service? Branson is also making a grab for as much of the health service as he can now that is being tendered. Do you really think this means a better cheaper health service or that your taxes will go down? If anybody does I'd like to hear how?
Posted by PHILIP MICHAEL ROCHE, 10:22, Tue 11 September 2012: (Is this post abusive?) #
I have for a long time believed that public transport should be just that public. I have worked for along time in transport. When the buses in greater manchester were run by the corporation it was the biggest profit making organisation in europe. Private enterprise lobbied the then conservative government to privatise it, to give the public more choice. All that has happened is fares have risen and service has deteriorated. If public owned, profits would be plied back into the bussiness. More money would be available for infrastructure. Lack of investment in the early years of privatisation was due to the corporation losing the control. Why spend money if you were not togain anything. The money it would cost to compensate the private sector would be gained back by not subsidising the operators. The local people would have a real say on fares etc. I agree with Mr Stringer use the oportunity and put transport back in public ownership. Philip Roche(philiproche6@aol.com0