Yet more Evidence that the Coalition is incompetent

kabayiri

I don't mind losing £40m if they admit they made a mistake.

The cost of a Virgin rival operator going bust because they over egged the last 2 years of the contract would be much much greater.

Railways need subsidy, this is a fact. It's just how you choose to subsidise which varies.

vivatifosi

angrypirate wrote: »

No problem. I did say in my post about Browns lack of understanding of money - i thought that would have given it away

sorry ap, I bit too. I should have re-read your earlier post, the two put together does make it obvious. Doh!

ILW

kabayiri wrote: »

I don't mind losing £40m if they admit they made a mistake.

The cost of a Virgin rival operator going bust because they over egged the last 2 years of the contract would be much much greater.

Railways need subsidy, this is a fact. It's just how you choose to subsidise which varies.

Who?..............

kabayiri

ILW wrote: »

Who?..............

The government, specifically the people behind the tendering process.

princeofpounds

Does anyone actually have any clue whatsoever was actually wrong with the tender process?

All our media sources have shown just how superficial and poor they are. Big splash about all the problems, but absolutely ZERO explanation of what the problems actually were. I hate it when the media do that, report a headline with zero effort to provide some substance underneath it.

But we have hundreds of lines of copy on the political ramifications blah blah blah and posts like the first one here, all of which are likely derived from zero real understanding.

Yeah probably the current Tory-led ministry messed up. Based on staff and processes from the Labour-led ministry. I don't think anyone really covers themselves in glory but for me the most disappointing thing is the flimsy media coverage.

angrypirate

kabayiri wrote: »

The government, specifically the people behind the tendering process.

[bangs head against the wall] - Its Whitehall Civil Servants who have made the mistake. Not the Government MPs. The MPs simply drive the legislation that Whitehall implement which cranks out the results. Whitehall have simply been resisting change and this is proof

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9584259/Three-suspended-over-West-Coast-contract-fiasco.html

Mr McLoughlin conceded that “deeply regrettable and completely unacceptable” mistakes by his officials would never have come to light if Virgin had not taken the government to court.
His criticism of officials in his own department follows claims that too many civil servants obstruct ministers’ decision and fail to implement government policy.
Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office Minister, said yesterday it was “unacceptable” that some senior civil servants had “blocked” policies they were being paid to enact.

Moneybot

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2012/10/03/uk-westcoastrail-firstgroup-virgin-idUKBRE89201Q20121003

Looks like they didn't assess the risks relating to the bids or could the companies actually do it for the money.

kabayiri

princeofpounds wrote: »

Does anyone actually have any clue whatsoever was actually wrong with the tender process?
...

Branson's main complaint was that the FirstGroup tender looked more attractive because it generated more revenue over the life of the contract by predicting a peak in passenger numbers in the last 2 years.

kabayiri

angrypirate wrote: »

[bangs head against the wall] - Its Whitehall Civil Servants who have made the mistake. Not the Government MPs. The MPs simply drive the legislation that Whitehall implement which cranks out the results. Whitehall have simply been resisting change and this is proof

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/transport/9584259/Three-suspended-over-West-Coast-contract-fiasco.html

C'mon, give your head a rest

We all know it's the civil servants that enact government policy, and they carry the can when it goes wrong. Argument over nothing.

ChiefGrasscutter

It probably depends on how you mathematically model the effects of inflation and umpteen other variables like passenger numbers and the rest towards the far end of the franchise term.
I'd guess that small changes to the models used can produce very different results. The initial years will be not too complex but what happens towards the end when mathematically translated back to arrive at todays "net present value" can make a huge difference - due to the long time span.