ECML franchise to be broucht back under Public Ownership

[rockershovel]

... for the same reason that skilled workers and technical professionals have flocked to the USA, Canada and Australia since 1945; they are not valued at home, and they know it, and have no particular compunction about repaying the compliment.

 

The more enterprising minority, packed their bags and left. The majority focussed upon security of tenure, and stability of earnings, as such people tend to do. This brought them into a state of persistent, ingrained confrontation with a management that did not value them, or see any reason to encourage them to think otherwise.

[Robin2]

persistent, ingrained confrontation with a management that did not value them

If a business is not working it is ALWAYS the fault of the management.

 

In the excellent motor museum in Coventry there is (I assume it is still there) a large space given over to the demise of the British motor industry in the British Leyland days. Lots of press cuttings and photos from the times. However no attempt has been made to identify the causes of the problems or show that anyone has learned anything or can learn anything from the experience.

 

...R

[Hobby]

It's far to easy to blame one particular part of a company for the demise of BL, and similar companies from that era, despite some people's agendas it was a combination of all of them, Management, Workforce/Unions/Forward Planning and Marketing... You could easily throw in a few others I suspect such as successive Government intervention, the Press, customers that didn't like the more advanced features seen on the BL era cars in the 60s and 70s, the list goes on...

[Mike Storey]

Much of this nostalgic wallowing into British shortcomings v The Rest of the World in business and industrial methods, is all very interesting.

 

But perhaps of less relevance compared to where we are today.

 

The UK is worldbeating in pharmaceuticals, high end engineering, computing software and in the financial and service industries (not Costa Coffee, but architecture, consultancy, legal and similar). It is also pretty good at a number of other things, such as adopting just-in-time manufacture/assembly, with an army of SME's supplying the larger firms at home and abroad. It is a very different country to 50 years ago. Otherwise we would not be making/assembling more cars than at any time in our history.

 

But we became too expensive for most medium and heavy industrial production output, becoming more and more reliant on imported raw materials and failing to invest anyway in more efficient production or modernising our products. 

 

Is it that people believe UK management remains krap? The Japanese, Indians and many Yanks, would disagree, having tried bringing their own in, but having decided local people can do it better, in most cases. Witness Toyota Derby being more productive than any Japanese plant (and I think maybe the same for Nissan in Sunderland?). We all know what krap management looks like, and feels like, and I guess we all see too much of it in our own situations.

 

But our railways became the most productive in the world, outside of Japan, for a while, and are in the top five for sure even now. Our airlines led the world, outside the USA, in making flying affordable. Our agriculture became one of the most efficient in the world and our financial sector still challenges New York for the world top spot.

 

So is the real problem that so few of these successful companies are UK owned, or UK majority-owned, relying very heavily on massive foreign investment? Why has UK capital been used far more to seek returns in the USA and until fairly recently, in the EU, Australia and South America? 

 

How does this relate to UK railway organisation, ownership, funding and purpose? Is that driven politically or financially, by the markets or by the taxpaying electorate? Answers on an enormous postcard, 'cos I am no longer as confident as I once was, that I have the faintest idea.

[Hobby]

Well said, Mike, I'd also add that many people are far too quick to talk the Country down (especially recently) which is a real shame...

 

I'd also add that there's something else we are really good at, Tourism, in particular entertaining people in a multitude of ways about our history. I've noticed over the past few decades of travelling in Northern Europe that it's only recently the rest of Europe are beginning to catch up. The Chinese and Japanese especially flock to us for our "olde worlde charm"!

Edited October 29, 2018 by Hobby

[rockershovel]

Re #754, above, so many companies are foreign-owned because our political leaders, if that’s the word, allow it to be so.

 

It comes back to the lack of basic competence. Our erstwhile PM had the most expensive education money can buy, and to what end? He has no identifiable trade or profession other than “political careerist”, and THAT started at the Treasury under Norman Lamont, and ended with the Brexit Referendum. He speaks no foreign languages to the best of my knowledge, practices no identifiable handicrafts or sports. He has only had one position outside politics, and THAT was widely attributed to patronage, whilst his achievements in post seem difficult to define.

 

The worrying thing is that given the speed of his rise to office, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the system is more-or-less intended to work in that fashion.

[Barry O]

no Rockershovel..we..the great British Public allow others to buy our companies. Why..well we do like money and are prepared to sell our soul for short term gain...

 

Baz

[caradoc]

Well said, Mike, I'd also add that many people are far too quick to talk the Country down (especially recently) which is a real shame...

 

I'd also add that there's something else we are really good at, Tourism, in particular entertaining people in a multitude of ways about our history. I've noticed over the past few decades of travelling in Northern Europe that it's only recently the rest of Europe are beginning to catch up. The Chinese and Japanese especially flock to us for our "olde worlde charm"!

 

Agree, and we've not even mentioned Britain's greatest gift to the world; Not railways, progressive rock !

[jjb1970]

If a business is not working it is ALWAYS the fault of the management.

Not if management don't have much of a say in any important decision making and are expected to implement idiocy decided by somebody else it isn't. I really don't blame Southern management for their labour relations meltdown.

[Zomboid]

The worrying thing is that given the speed of his rise to office, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the system is more-or-less intended to work in that fashion.

The contents of the commons (all colours) suggests that that is indeed how the system is presently supposed to work.

 

But let's not get any more political than that...

[Mike Storey]

Re #754, above, so many companies are foreign-owned because our political leaders, if that’s the word, allow it to be so.

 

It comes back to the lack of basic competence. Our erstwhile PM had the most expensive education money can buy, and to what end? He has no identifiable trade or profession other than “political careerist”, and THAT started at the Treasury under Norman Lamont, and ended with the Brexit Referendum. He speaks no foreign languages to the best of my knowledge, practices no identifiable handicrafts or sports. He has only had one position outside politics, and THAT was widely attributed to patronage, whilst his achievements in post seem difficult to define.

 

The worrying thing is that given the speed of his rise to office, it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that the system is more-or-less intended to work in that fashion.

 

The same could be said of Clement Attlee, except a brief period as a...er...Brief, and a fleeting association with, association football. He was, arguably, the most radical PM we ever had, but not radical enough for some.

 

But he was privately educated, from a middle class family, and went to Oxford, and was staunchly conservative until his social work in the East End. But he was no revolutionary. Simply a bl00dy good chap, and a very clever one. He was the Theresa May of his time, the least worst leader of his party (as no-one else could summon enough votes to impose their views), but just a little more enlightened and effective.

 

Accident of birth does not necessarily proscribe the path you take.

 

Cameron was just an utter rotter, with a penchant for marketing - presentation over substance, although I believe you have ignored his adolescent hobbies, concerning animal welfare and the mandatory redecoration of certain hostelries. You have clearly understated his parenting skills, in remembering how many were in the car on the way to somewhere (but to give him his due, we have to give credit for raising one of his children with a severe disability and ultimately, a young death - that must have been a severe burden and emotionally horrific). Nonetheless, I cannot immediately recall another example of how the British electorate has been so deceived in recent times, but perhaps some of you can enlighten us?

Edited October 29, 2018 by Mike Storey

[Coryton]

Scot Rail is losing money I read on the BBC website that Caledonian McBrayne were interested in the next deal and they are a government company so the government up there are g thinking out of the box.Not sure if a shipping company could run rail but at least its the way back to connected transport.

 

Sea Containers? GNER did pretty well first time round.

[lmsforever]

The company I worked the last fifteen years of my working life is a good example of how british companies are sold down the river.When I joined it was owned by the chap who started it and the atmosphere was fantastic we were then the largest wholesale supplier of fish in the UK but it needed a cash injection to expand to the next level  and was bought by another family firm which expanded the company and looked after the workers. Then  they were bought by a mysterious US company and things got bad vehicles were not looked after wage rises and staff relations went into freefall ,the verdict on the americans was they were the mafia! These people were bought by another US company and things settled down but management were at war with the workers sackings occurred at alarming rates plus long service management was made redundant .We all expected to be fired daily  but I beat them I retired six months early and my boss said I was going at the right time.I found out recently that the depot I worked at is a shadow of its former self with a declining sales and the telesales closed not good ,I think this typical of what has happened all over the UK and the country has suffered as a result.  Oh and now about LNER I watched a video today of an Azuma in the latest livery it looks very good.

[Robin2]

Not if management don't have much of a say in any important decision making

They always have the option of resigning.

 

...R

[jjb1970]

They always have the option of resigning.

 

...R

Indeed they do. That's a good answer to civil service incompetence.

[Robin2]

Indeed they do. That's a good answer to civil service incompetence.

As a retired civil servant I resent that slur on my profession.

 

...R

[rockershovel]

.... incompetence, a word with many meanings. It’s often used a pejorative, but its core meaning is that someone does not have the necessary expertise, authority or position. Language changes over time, and THAT meaning tends to be expressed as “not competent to do such-and-such a thing” or “.. outside my experience/expertise”.

 

The traditional system was that Ministers made the executive decision, and civil servants advised them in making that decision (Sir Humphrey often appears in this role, usually by steering Jim Hacker away from actions which, in Sir Humphrey’s considerable experience, are unlikely to end well). Civil Servants also carry out much of the implementation of executive decisions.

 

The problem with this, in the modern context, is that Ministers are rapidly rotated through positions which no one understands, and/or try to impose decisions which simply aren’t workable, because insufficiently conceived. They are also rapidly promoted for reasons which are often, not obvious. David Cameron was often accused of stupidity, but no one who gets a 1:1 at Oxford is “stupid” in that sense. He was often accused of laziness, but as a younger man he had a great reputation for hard work and grasp of detail. So how did he end up as a PM whose time in office was essentially defined by a huge and fundamental misjudgement - of precipitating a great political and constitutional crisis, for essentially internal party reasons, for which he had no viable plan?

 

The answer is, that he was not competent to hold the office he was elected to. That is, in the literal sense that having been promoted without the traditional background of holding the Great Offices of State, he did not have the necessary grounding and would go on to demonstrate this through lack of judgement, and lack of confidence in his decisions at times (the Scottish Vote was a clear example, in which he plainly lost his nerve when it mattered most, and also failed to appreciate the crucial role which Scottish Labour figures like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling would play).

 

So are Civil Servants incompetent (using the term in the sense of relatively senior members of the Service)? Well, yes, they probably are, in the sense of lacking expertise which they shouldn’t be expected to possess, or find themselves charged with implementing unrealistic or insufficiently defined goals. But that is no doing of theirs, it rests with their political masters.

 

The Blair administration created much of this situation. Politicisation of the Civil Service, erosion of its traditional independence and the introduction of a degree of activist thinking commonly seen in Europe but much less so here, was a central policy of the Blair administration, and followed through by the Coalition. Sir Humphrey, whose suave machinations are the external gloss on a very clear sense of purpose, is a pre-Thatcherite, let alone Pre-Blair figure.

[jjb1970]

As a retired civil servant I resent that slur on my profession.

 

...R

Why? Are you claiming that causing a labour relations meltdown is a sign of competence? The evidence of DafT incompetence is there for anybody with eyes to see, the whole IEP procurement process is pretty much a text book example in how not to manage a major procurement program.

[Robin2]

Why? Are you claiming that causing a labour relations meltdown is a sign of competence? 

I have no knowledge of the details underlying that (and I suspect few people outside the system do). However I would be surprised if the problems are as directly the responsibility of the civil service as you imply.

 

If I told your friend that the shop he was looking for was on the other side of the street and he got killed crossing the street you would hardly blame me for his death.

 

By the way I am not suggesting that the civil service never makes mistakes - just that they are no more prone to doing so than any other big organization.

 

...R

[locoholic]

.... incompetence, a word with many meanings. It’s often used a pejorative, but its core meaning is that someone does not have the necessary expertise, authority or position. Language changes over time, and THAT meaning tends to be expressed as “not competent to do such-and-such a thing” or “.. outside my experience/expertise”.

The traditional system was that Ministers made the executive decision, and civil servants advised them in making that decision (Sir Humphrey often appears in this role, usually by steering Jim Hacker away from actions which, in Sir Humphrey’s considerable experience, are unlikely to end well). Civil Servants also carry out much of the implementation of executive decisions.

The problem with this, in the modern context, is that Ministers are rapidly rotated through positions which no one understands, and/or try to impose decisions which simply aren’t workable, because insufficiently conceived. They are also rapidly promoted for reasons which are often, not obvious. David Cameron was often accused of stupidity, but no one who gets a 1:1 at Oxford is “stupid” in that sense. He was often accused of laziness, but as a younger man he had a great reputation for hard work and grasp of detail. So how did he end up as a PM whose time in office was essentially defined by a huge and fundamental misjudgement - of precipitating a great political and constitutional crisis, for essentially internal party reasons, for which he had no viable plan?

The answer is, that he was not competent to hold the office he was elected to. That is, in the literal sense that having been promoted without the traditional background of holding the Great Offices of State, he did not have the necessary grounding and would go on to demonstrate this through lack of judgement, and lack of confidence in his decisions at times (the Scottish Vote was a clear example, in which he plainly lost his nerve when it mattered most, and also failed to appreciate the crucial role which Scottish Labour figures like Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling would play).

So are Civil Servants incompetent (using the term in the sense of relatively senior members of the Service)? Well, yes, they probably are, in the sense of lacking expertise which they shouldn’t be expected to possess, or find themselves charged with implementing unrealistic or insufficiently defined goals. But that is no doing of theirs, it rests with their political masters.

The Blair administration created much of this situation. Politicisation of the Civil Service, erosion of its traditional independence and the introduction of a degree of activist thinking commonly seen in Europe but much less so here, was a central policy of the Blair administration, and followed through by the Coalition. Sir Humphrey, whose suave machinations are the external gloss on a very clear sense of purpose, is a pre-Thatcherite, let alone Pre-Blair figure.

The reason for the appalling lack of judgement that Cameron exhibited was because he was totally out of touch with the citizens of the country he was governing, which I suspect also applies to senior civil servants. Thus he was clever, but ignorant - otherwise known as lacking common sense. The difficulties that people from less priviledged backgrounds face when entering both politics, the civil service and senior business management mean that such common sense is widely lacking. It is ironic that the political left are to some extent responsible for this by abolishing grammar schools, which (for all their faults) proved to be an excellent way of introducing people of different backgrounds into the higher echelons of business and government. Our rail network, along with almost every facet of UK life, is now reaping the consequences.

['CHARD]

 He has only had one position outside politics, and THAT 

 

.... involved a pig's head 

[phil-b259]

They always have the option of resigning.

 

...R

 

Only to be replaced by others that will do that is asked

 

Does anyone seriously think that had the entire GTR management resigned when Mr Wilkinson started picking ideological fights with the RMT, that the Government / Civil Service would have gone "oooh, maybe we need to rethink this policy"

Edited October 30, 2018 by phil-b259

[phil-b259]

As a retired civil servant I resent that slur on my profession.

 

...R

 

Technically that Mr Wilkinson who boasted to his conservative chums "I'm going to break the unions" is a Civil Servant........

[phil-b259]

I have no knowledge of the details underlying that (and I suspect few people outside the system do). However I would be surprised if the problems are as directly the responsibility of the civil service as you imply.

 

If I told your friend that the shop he was looking for was on the other side of the street and he got killed crossing the street you would hardly blame me for his death.

 

By the way I am not suggesting that the civil service never makes mistakes - just that they are no more prone to doing so than any other big organization.

 

...R

 

The civil service does what its political masters want.

 

If said politicians instigate a train procurement attitude based on "private industry is fleecing us and we know best" or "we want to cut costs by breaking the power of the unions" you cannot expect the Civil service to dodge all the blame.

 

And given I work on the frontline for NR, I know a thing or too about organisations being castigated for politically imposed initiatives....

[rockershovel]

Re #770 above, up to a point, Lord Copper.

 

I have no faith in “common sense”, mostly on the grounds of Voltaire’s aphorism about it being so uncommonly encountered.

 

The political parties governing this country have, over the last forty years or so, so arranged their selection procedures as to exclude candidates distinguished by independent thinking and/or lack of ideological conformity. They have also largely excluded candidates distinguished by fixed principles.

 

Add in that foreign owned companies tend not to contribute MPs to public life, and no one need be surprised that life in Westminster

Is so cloistered, and that practical experience is so thin on the ground there.