peterms Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Interesting piece here on the rail contract fiasco from someone with directly relevant experience of a parallel situation. Conclusion: Secretaries of State shouldn't be checking spreadsheets. If DFT civil servants got their modelling wrong, and internal checks failed to pick this up, then it is DFT senior management - not Ministers, or the junior staff who made the actual mistakes - who are directly responsible. But this doesn't mean Ministers didn't do anything wrong or have nothing to apologise for. Ultimately, they took the decision to award the franchise to First Group. This decision was hardly uncontroversial or low profile - even leaving aside Virgin's sour grapes, many informed commentators clearly thought that First Group's revenue projections were hopelessly optimistic. So Ministers had months in the run up to the franchise award in August, and two months since, to require DFT senior management to explain to them - not with pages of numbers, but with convincing analysis - why this view, now apparently vindicated, was wrong. No remotely competent Minister would accept the explanation "That's what the model says" on an issue like this. So either they didn't ask the right questions, or they were incapable of understanding that they were getting the wrong answers. Neither interpretation reflects well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Funny how in a week where a large number of MPs are exposed for not knowing the probability of flipping two heads in a row, we also have civil servants being unable to weight the probability of future revenues correctly. We really do have some real brains in our political system. Portes is of course spot on, it should ultimately fall on management, don't they check these things? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterms Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Funny how in a week where a large number of MPs are exposed for not knowing the probability of flipping two heads in a row, we also have civil servants being unable to weight the probability of future revenues correctly. We really do have some real brains in our political system. Portes is of course spot on, it should ultimately fall on management, don't they check these things? Thing is, assessing the volume and value of ticket sales seven years into the future is guesswork rather than science. Projecting 15 years, as they are now required to do because of a political decision to award contracts for that long, is even further into the realms of fantasy. Having complex mathematical models with quantified risk factors may give the illusion of scientific precision, but at root, it depends on making assumptions about the future travel habits of millions of people many years into the future, as well as a whole set of other assumptions about what the economy as a whole is doing, inflation, a raft of things which we all know fine well tend not to turn out as predicted. It's guesswork, cloaked in formulae. What would probably have made more sense is to recognise that First are a bunch of thieving opportunistic shits who walked away from another contract early because they got their sums wrong, and either not let them bid or demand massively bigger security. And what makes most sense of all is to renationalise the damn thing, and stop shipping out public money to these chancers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjmooney Posted October 4, 2012 VT Supporter Share Posted October 4, 2012 And what makes most sense of all is to renationalise the damn thing, and stop shipping out public money to these chancers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Funny how in a week where a large number of MPs are exposed for not knowing the probability of flipping two heads in a row, we also have civil servants being unable to weight the probability of future revenues correctly. We really do have some real brains in our political system. Portes is of course spot on, it should ultimately fall on management, don't they check these things? Thing is, assessing the volume and value of ticket sales seven years into the future is guesswork rather than science. Projecting 15 years, as they are now required to do because of a political decision to award contracts for that long, is even further into the realms of fantasy. Having complex mathematical models with quantified risk factors may give the illusion of scientific precision, but at root, it depends on making assumptions about the future travel habits of millions of people many years into the future, as well as a whole set of other assumptions about what the economy as a whole is doing, inflation, a raft of things which we all know fine well tend not to turn out as predicted. It's guesswork, cloaked in formulae. What would probably have made more sense is to recognise that First are a bunch of thieving opportunistic shits who walked away from another contract early because they got their sums wrong, and either not let them bid or demand massively bigger security. And what makes most sense of all is to renationalise the damn thing, and stop shipping out public money to these chancers. From what I understand they barely accounted for inflation, and weighted the probability of future revenues rather highly. Without being able to get my hands on the model it's difficult to really judge fully the mistakes they made, I am relying on what has been reported here. As a humble econometrician myself I do realise these things aren't a science though lol. But yes I completely agree with your sentiment. Renationalisation is a powerful weapon that should be utilised over the medium term. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 a) it don't matter where you're from it's where you're planning on taking us Very much ....This Real life, is not really about being a special adviser, then an MP, never having done anything else, never having had anything other than politics as a background. It's not about class, but about having lived outside the political bubble. I'm slightly unagreeable with you on that point as I think I've documented here before ... I think somebody that grows up inside Westminster knows how it works better than somebody who works in say big business and makes the move over. The advisors clearly need to be experts in their area , so the Defence secretary is advised by Field Marshals and so forth with the MP being the one who knows the inner workings of Westminster to play the game and make sure the armed forces get what they need without some other numpty thinking we can defend ourselves playing rock , paper , scissors Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 a) it don't matter where you're from it's where you're planning on taking us Very much ....This Real life, is not really about being a special adviser, then an MP, never having done anything else, never having had anything other than politics as a background. It's not about class, but about having lived outside the political bubble. I'm slightly unagreeable with you on that point as I think I've documented here before ... I think somebody that grows up inside Westminster knows how it works better than somebody who works in say big business and makes the move over. The advisors clearly need to be experts in their area , so the Defence secretary is advised by Field Marshals and so forth with the MP being the one who knows the inner workings of Westminster to play the game and make sure the armed forces get what they need without some other numpty thinking we can defend ourselves playing rock , paper , scissors I guess that on that basis getting a Jaguar track worker from Coventry to be Defence Secretary at a time of war wasn't the brightest thing to do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Demitri_C Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 have to say camerons words about the missing welsh child was a really nice touch. well done dave Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
LondonLax Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 And what makes most sense of all is to renationalise the damn thing, and stop shipping out public money to these chancers. The department for transport have made quite a mess of this and the answer is to give them total control of the running of the whole network? It seems like Virgin would be a better candidate for running the whole train network then the government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 have to say camerons words about the missing welsh child was a really nice touch. well done dave In the interests of balance Ed's live link up interview on BBC Breakfast yesterday was interrupted for a news conference from Machynllech, for which the Labour leader was quite understanding when they got back to him. Both Ed and Dave are parents, so this is one thing that they can both be very genuine about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 With no apology for the plagiarism :winkold: It seems like Virgin would be a better candidate for running the whole train network then the government! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 With no apology for the plagiarism :winkold: It seems like Virgin would be a better candidate for running the whole train network then the government! Virgin would (and do) run their trains service in the interest of Virgin, and their shareholders, not the public. Their primary concern is to maximise revenue for the company. IMO, trains should be run in the interest of the public at large, society as a whole, and they simply aren't. I don't doubt that Virgin run their operation well, but I'd rather have something run well in the interests of the people/the taxpayer, rather than in the interests of the shareholders. Thanks a lot Major, you grey canut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The profits that Virgin makes for its shareholders and a transport network for the benefit of the public are inextricably entwined with one another. If they were mutually exclusive, as you suggest, then they’d have gone bump. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 It seems like Virgin would be a better candidate for running the whole train network then the government! they are the second most complained about rail company out of all of them they have a 83% punctuality rate , one of the lowest , only East coast are worse in that regard Beardy seems to frequently overlook this when bigging himself up via the media Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thetrees Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Virgin would (and do) run their trains service in the interest of Virgin, and their shareholders, not the public. Their primary concern is to maximise revenue for the company. IMO, trains should be run in the interest of the public at large, society as a whole, and they simply aren't. I don't doubt that Virgin run their operation well, but I'd rather have something run well in the interests of the people/the taxpayer, rather than in the interests of the shareholders. Thanks a lot Major, you grey canut. I don't disagree with you. But then a nationalised industry was run by self-serving civil servants and staffed by people who really didn't give a shit about the company or the customers. We certainly agree in having something run efficiently and cost effectively in the interests of the people/taxpayer, but under public sector ownership we know that can never happen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ads Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The railways need to be bombed into oblivion and then re-built from scratch like our European neighbours. We can tender the contract to the Germans and ask them to finish off Coventry while they're at it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Virgin would (and do) run their trains service in the interest of Virgin, and their shareholders, not the public. Their primary concern is to maximise revenue for the company. IMO, trains should be run in the interest of the public at large, society as a whole, and they simply aren't. I don't doubt that Virgin run their operation well, but I'd rather have something run well in the interests of the people/the taxpayer, rather than in the interests of the shareholders. Thanks a lot Major, you grey canut. I don't disagree with you. But then a nationalised industry was run by self-serving civil servants and staffed by people who really didn't give a shit about the company or the customers. We certainly agree in having something run efficiently and cost effectively in the interests of the people/taxpayer, but under public sector ownership we know that can never happen. The railways are a natural monopoly so it shouldn't be taken as a given that the 'private sector', in this case, will be several-fold more efficient and cost effective than a government. For example I've always been more impressed with Renfe than London-Midland or Virgin. Virgin offers a very poor service, it must be said. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 The profits that Virgin makes for its shareholders and a transport network for the benefit of the public are inextricably entwined with one another. If you are suggesting that as the latter is a factor which has to affect the former (as would the minimum wage, the weather, inflation and so on) then yes they are. The inference I draw, from your remarks, however, is that you are suggesting that there is an inextricable and corresponding link between profit maximization for shareholders and benefit maximization for the public which I would maintain is as unconvincing as saying that they were mutually exclusive (something I'm not sure Jon was actually suggesting). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dr_Pangloss Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 To quote Jack Welch, maximising shareholder value is the "dumbest idea in the world". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted October 4, 2012 Share Posted October 4, 2012 Maybe this"working class Ed" routine working class Ed whojust happens to live in a £1.6m house ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts