Labour slams FGW

[whole diary]

[Btline]

Shadow Transport Secetrary, Maria Eagle, has launched a scathing attack on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) live on BBC2's flagship programme Newsnight.

Talking about fare rises, she said that rises could be avoided if companies didn't hand the keys back early and default on later year payments.

[Ollie]

Sorry but what has fare rises got to do with First Group doing what it was contractually allowed to do? AFAIK^▸ ('as far as I know') First haven't defaulted on any payments, but happy for someone to correct me.

[Oxman]

I just watched that. Shows how little she knows. FGW^▸ (First Great Western) did not default.

You could have lead on her refusal to answer the question about renationalisation. Ignored it completely and continued to answer the question she wish she had been asked.

God help us if she ever gets control.

[JayMac]

Most disingenuous of Ms Eagle. It was her party that awarded to current Greater Western Franchise with it's heavily back loaded premiums toward the end of the franchise. The end date of which was flexible on both sides. DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) under Labour allowed that contract term.

Look at all the money saved by First Group in walking away early from Greater Western. I wonder what they'll do with that?

Oh, I know. Use it to outbid Beardie. 

So, providing First Group stay the course on the ICWC^▸ (InterCity West Coast), HMG still get their pound of flesh.

And just to be accurate, Labour didn't slam FGW^▸ (First Great Western). Ms Eagle didn't mention them. Although for those in the know the subtext was clear.

[Btline]

And just to be accurate, Labour didn't slam FGW^▸ (First Great Western). Ms Eagle didn't mention them. Although for those in the know the subtext was clear.

True, but as you say it was blindingly obvious she meant First.

I bet she'd moan about reducing the costs of the railways too (ie. staff).

[mjones]

It is brazen cheek though, given how long her party had in government to sort out the rail franchising system if they didn't like it!

[paul7575]

When the HLOS^▸ (High Level Output Specification - the DfT's High Level Output Specification, which has specified to Network Rail the outputs that need to be delivered within a Control Period (CP))/SoFA announcement happened a few weeks ago, all Eagle could really come up with was that it was all about future spending over the 5 years from 2014, and therefore of little use to today's issues.

She completely and conveniently ignored the fact that the HLOS procedure and timetable was a specific legal requirement of the 2005 Railways Act, and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) were following the process exactly as laid down by Labour...

Paul
 
 

[HexDriver]

True, but as you say it was blindingly obvious she meant First.

I bet she'd moan about reducing the costs of the railways too (ie. staff).
[/quote]

She could also have been referring to National Express as the government are still operating the service they abandoned.

As for criticising First for using a clause in their contract, it was her partys government that agreed that contract so maybe its another example of labour trying to rewrite history

[LiskeardRich]

And just to be accurate, Labour didn't slam FGW^▸ (First Great Western). Ms Eagle didn't mention them. Although for those in the know the subtext was clear.

True, but as you say it was blindingly obvious she meant First.

I bet she'd moan about reducing the costs of the railways too (ie. staff).

Almost certainly speaking about NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast), FGW have neither defaulted or handed any service back early. Terrible uneducated assumption to make that she was referring to FGW. Remember to Assume makes an ASS out of U and ME

[Btline]

She referred to NXEC^▸ (National Express East Coast) first.

She then definitely referred to FGW^▸ (First Great Western). FGW have handed the keys back early. They have been BANNED from doing so on West Coast or face losing all their franchises.

Thus not a "terrible uneducated assumption", but an accurate educated one.

[ellendune]

She then definitely referred to FGW^▸ (First Great Western). FGW have handed the keys back early. They have been BANNED from doing so on West Coast or face losing all their franchises.

This was rumoured beforehand, but I have not seen it in any of the statements.  Given the complete inaccuracy of some of the rumours do we have any evidence for this?

[TonyK]

Whilst FGW^▸ (First Great Western) look like they have pulled a fast one by ending the franchise early and avoiding the ^850 million payment, they have done nothing wrong. If the intention had been to prevent that, then the franchise contract would have prohibited it. Maria Eagle is, like Theresa Villiers and Justine Greening, a politician, not a railway expert. We have DafT to translate the political aspiration into legal agreements. I don't think First can even be accused of exploiting a loophole here, and it looks an even more astute move now they have the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) gig.

[vacman]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have not ended the franchise early, they have simply declined their right to a 3 year EXTENSION of the 7 year franchise! Thats how it is!

[LiskeardRich]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have not ended the franchise early, they have simply declined their right to a 3 year EXTENSION of the 7 year franchise! Thats how it is!

I commented this on another forum, and had responses flying back that I was incorrect, and it was a 10 year franchise all along and they have just cut the contract short

[Andy W]

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) have not ended the franchise early, they have simply declined their right to a 3 year EXTENSION of the 7 year franchise! Thats how it is!

I commented this on another forum, and had responses flying back that I was incorrect, and it was a 10 year franchise all along and they have just cut the contract short

Yes they exercised their right to early contract termination - nothing illegal and to be honest it would have been commercially silly not to do so. That being said I see no reason whatsoever to allow them to re-bid. If they do not want the franchise so be it, let it go to a company that wants it. The taxpayer is almost a billion pounds out of pocket because of this tactic.