Virgin lose West Coast franchise to First Group
Discussion
Blue62 said:
Eric Mc said:
How can he be responsible when he wasn't the Minister at the time all this happened. He has just taken over the department - he has spotted a problem - and he is sorting it out.
Sounds to me like he is doing what he should be doing.
Sorry, he is the minister responsible for that department, ergo responsible minister. I didn't mean that all this was his fault. Sounds to me like he is doing what he should be doing.
I note that you're giving him the credit for spotting the problem though, same guy who can't carry the can because he's been in the job 5 minutes, he's spotted the problem, apportioned blame and now he's sorting it out, you seem to have the inside track Eric.
McLoughlin: I've reviewed the numbers in detail and I noticed that you forgot to carry a 3 in this calculation.
Civil Servant: f
ksocks!...but I can't help but think that Ministers are placed in an impossible situation where when presented with an answer by their Department they have 2 choices:
1. accept it and then have to carry the can if it is wrong
2. reject it and then be accused of being partisan or lacking faith in the capaibility of the civil service.
Blue62 said:
I note that you're giving him the credit for spotting the problem though, same guy who can't carry the can because he's been in the job 5 minutes, he's spotted the problem, apportioned blame and now he's sorting it out
He's the first person to acknowledge the problem, which isn't quite the same thing. For all we know there has been a whistleblower who decided Greening's departure was the moment to speak out.Blue62 said:
Sorry, he is the minister responsible for that department, ergo responsible minister. I didn't mean that all this was his fault.
I note that you're giving him the credit for spotting the problem though, same guy who can't carry the can because he's been in the job 5 minutes, he's spotted the problem, apportioned blame and now he's sorting it out, you seem to have the inside track Eric.
So - do you want him to resign for doing the RIGHT thing?I note that you're giving him the credit for spotting the problem though, same guy who can't carry the can because he's been in the job 5 minutes, he's spotted the problem, apportioned blame and now he's sorting it out, you seem to have the inside track Eric.
There is no law saying that a minister has to resign when a problem pops up in his department - especially when the problem comes to light only a couple of weeks after he has taken on the post and is not linked to anything he has done.
The minister responsible was Justine Greening - and she's already gone.
hornet said:
He's the first person to acknowledge the problem, which isn't quite the same thing. For all we know there has been a whistleblower who decided Greening's departure was the moment to speak out.
This might have some bearing on the timing:Richard Branson said:
From the moment we found out that FirstGroup had been made the preferred bidder with a completely unrealistic bid, we questioned the way the offers had been assessed, and asked government to review and explain how it came to its decision.
We were convinced the process was flawed but despite our best efforts we were met with silence by the DfT. We also asked for government to appoint an independent adviser to look at the situation, which was turned down. Reluctantly we were forced to seek a judicial review. On Thursday, the DfT were meant to have given their evidence to the court.
I am pleased to say that the DfT has looked at all of the facts and found significant flaws in the way its officials handled the process. They have basically acknowledged that what we had been saying is correct. The same procedures were not followed and "deeply regrettable and completely unacceptable mistakes" were made by the department.
ETA: LinkWe were convinced the process was flawed but despite our best efforts we were met with silence by the DfT. We also asked for government to appoint an independent adviser to look at the situation, which was turned down. Reluctantly we were forced to seek a judicial review. On Thursday, the DfT were meant to have given their evidence to the court.
I am pleased to say that the DfT has looked at all of the facts and found significant flaws in the way its officials handled the process. They have basically acknowledged that what we had been saying is correct. The same procedures were not followed and "deeply regrettable and completely unacceptable mistakes" were made by the department.
Blue62 said:
TallbutBuxomly said:
Eric mc is the first person on this thread today to get it right. Would you rather gov of old strategy of seeing a fkup and burying it. Hell in this case that would for the cons have been by far the best idea since they stand a good chance of losing the 2015 elections and this would most likely surface only afterwards when it really wouldn't be a problem.
I would rather we lose 40 million now than hundreds of millions 3/4/5 years down the line when it surfaces that the contract was incorrectly awarded.
The only reason there has been such a frank announcement is because Virgin went to court, forcing the department for transport to go over their numbers with a little more care, thereby exposing their howling gaffes. They really had no option other than to come clean once they realsied they would be taken to the cleaners when it got to court, this is not some new dawn of open government mate, quite the opposite, they've moved quickly to put the blame on the civil servants, how refreshing. The £40m is the tip of the iceberg, that's just recompense for the original bidders.kup and burying it. Hell in this case that would for the cons have been by far the best idea since they stand a good chance of losing the 2015 elections and this would most likely surface only afterwards when it really wouldn't be a problem.I would rather we lose 40 million now than hundreds of millions 3/4/5 years down the line when it surfaces that the contract was incorrectly awarded.
ked up. Why shouldn't they get the blame?Greening was either ignorant of the facts when she assured the House of Commons the process was robust and fair, or she knew the process was flawed and (and I'm putting it politely) declined to reveal the full story. Either way her credibility as a Cabinet Minister is shot to pieces.
There is one bit I'm not getting.
Won't a significant element of the work done on the new tenders, ie this time around, be exactly the same as the work done on the last set of tenders that were assessed incorrectly?
Unless they are going to change the tender model completely and utterly onto a new planet / rail network.
OK I can imagine there might be an update of certain figures and projections, and there may indeed be some things deleted and some added, and some to be analysed in a different way, but surely it's not a whole 40 millions worth of new work?
How does one get onto this bloody gravy train?
Won't a significant element of the work done on the new tenders, ie this time around, be exactly the same as the work done on the last set of tenders that were assessed incorrectly?
Unless they are going to change the tender model completely and utterly onto a new planet / rail network.
OK I can imagine there might be an update of certain figures and projections, and there may indeed be some things deleted and some added, and some to be analysed in a different way, but surely it's not a whole 40 millions worth of new work?
How does one get onto this bloody gravy train?
It most certainly is a gravy train, consisting of retired consultants sitting in on interminable meetings about fk all involving people who know fk all apart from reasons to prevent anything happening, the advancement of technology is stagnant in the UK compared to europe thanks to the endless beurocracy and red tape from NOBOs who have to veto anything in order to justify their existence. A simple piece of trackside equipment requires a safety case to change the text on a label, the change of a line of code on a trainborn computer would need so much money that it precludes the change ever happening.
k all involving people who know fk all apart from reasons to prevent anything happening, the advancement of technology is stagnant in the UK compared to europe thanks to the endless beurocracy and red tape from NOBOs who have to veto anything in order to justify their existence. A simple piece of trackside equipment requires a safety case to change the text on a label, the change of a line of code on a trainborn computer would need so much money that it precludes the change ever happening. 
audidoody said:
Greening was either ignorant of the facts when she assured the House of Commons the process was robust and fair, or she knew the process was flawed and (and I'm putting it politely) declined to reveal the full story. Either way her credibility as a Cabinet Minister is shot to pieces.
I hope she was stupid enough to have left an email trail if she is up to her neck in it and I hope the three civil servants were clever enough to keep all correspondence.Have all other franchises been awarded the same way? just wondering if other companies will take the government to court.
Edited by Pesty on Wednesday 3rd October 19:07
Eric Mc said:
So - do you want him to resign for doing the RIGHT thing?
There is no law saying that a minister has to resign when a problem pops up in his department - especially when the problem comes to light only a couple of weeks after he has taken on the post and is not linked to anything he has done.
The minister responsible was Justine Greening - and she's already gone.
Nothing of the sort, I'm sorry but you've completely missed my point, i only stated that he's the responsible minister because it is his department, if there is ministerial blame it would naturally be Greening. Do you still think he 'spotted the problem' Eric?There is no law saying that a minister has to resign when a problem pops up in his department - especially when the problem comes to light only a couple of weeks after he has taken on the post and is not linked to anything he has done.
The minister responsible was Justine Greening - and she's already gone.
Edited by Blue62 on Wednesday 3rd October 19:37
Blue62 said:
Eric Mc said:
So - do you want him to resign for doing the RIGHT thing?
There is no law saying that a minister has to resign when a problem pops up in his department - especially when the problem comes to light only a couple of weeks after he has taken on the post and is not linked to anything he has done.
The minister responsible was Justine Greening - and she's already gone.
Nothing of the sort, I'm sorry but you've completely missed my point, i only stated that he's the responsible minister because it is his department, if there is ministerial blame it would naturally be Greening. Do you still think he 'spotted the problem' Eric?There is no law saying that a minister has to resign when a problem pops up in his department - especially when the problem comes to light only a couple of weeks after he has taken on the post and is not linked to anything he has done.
The minister responsible was Justine Greening - and she's already gone.
Edited by Blue62 on Wednesday 3rd October 19:37
We dont have all the detail all we know is the right thing has been done and time has been called. A review into this farce has been called by the new minister and he has apologised.
He is under no obligation to do either and in most cases neither would be forthcoming initially. In a "normal" scenario the minister would refuse to apologise or order a review.
I think this is a step in the right direction.
As I have said I suspect MS Greening had her hands shoved way down deep in FGW pockets and that is why this occurred.
It was odd to me when FGW were presented as the winners as one of the two factors that won them the contract was customer satisfaction which is apparently something they and their existing customers are unfamiliar with.
TallbutBuxomly said:
Blue we dont know who spotted it. What we DO know is that as soon as he knew about it he put a stop to it knowing full well he would pick up massive flack for doing so. As I have already stated the simple fact is they could easily enough have buried this until a later date and then it would be someone elses problem but HE chose not to.
I'm sure Branson's call for a judicial review forced McLoughlin's hand, but in reality, what did he have to lose? I can't see how his stock is at all damaged, given the problem isn't of his making. The conspiracy angle says they've been having behind closed door chats with Branson to see how serious he was and engineered Greening's departure to enable the new guy to make the discovery with minimal political damage. The DfT still look like idiots, but the new man in charge instantly looks like he's the one to sort it all out. Not only do they now have the perfect opportunity for a serious clearing of the decks within DfT, they have also removed a vocal third runway critic from the position of transport minister, which might come in quite handy at a later date.Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff