Last week OnTheWight ran the first in series of email exchanges between Nick Finney, Isle of Wight Conservative MP Andrew Turner‘s transport advisor, and David Pugh, who is connected with the Keep Island Line in Franchise (KILF) group.
As mentioned before, the Island Line franchise is a complex subject, so we feel that it’s only right that the exchanges are published unedited, so details are not missed out.
Here’s the fifth exchange that took place last week. The email is from David Pugh in response to Nick Finney’s earlier email.
Oh Nick, you are getting yourself into a terrible confusion about these matters.
I note your further reply below, which appears to repeat some of the points made in your more extensive email of 7:21am this morning.
Please read the reply I sent to you at 8:49am, which addresses the financial aspects of what you reference below.
I have already addressed the point of the £301.3m received by Stagecoach in revenue support, and the fact that this is a smaller sum than the £599m they paid in premium to the government. So the net position is one of a payment to the government, not a public subsidy the other way. And this position – as I have already shown – is even more pronounced with South West Trains as their most profitable service, as the information from the House of Commons Library shows.
With regard to your claim that I am “so economically illiterate”, I would urge you to reflect on the incorrect analysis set out in your 7:21am email and then conclude to whom such a description best applies. What I do recognise is that if Island Line was not in the South Western rail franchise then an even higher annual premium could probably be paid to the government, so in this sense there would be a benefit to the taxpayer (through the Treasury) of doing so.
The fundamental question, though, is whether it is socially desirable for an even higher premium to be sought at the expense of Island Line’s exclusion from the franchise (as you are promoting), or should the government instead encourage the franchise bidders to put forward proposals that seek to improve the revenue vs costs ratio for Island Line within the efficiencies of a wider franchise. It would seem obvious that the professionals with the train operating companies (the prospective franchisees), competitively bidding through a franchise process, would be far better placed (and incentivised) to do this than a bunch of well-meaning local amateurs who would not be able to draw on the economies of scale that a large operator can.
And no, I must repeat, I am not expert – but crucially I do not purport to be one. However I do consider that I have made a good fist of understanding the accounts of Stagecoach, which you thus far have failed to do.
You refer to my so-called Conservative credentials. I can assure that my Conservative credentials are impeccable, not least because I support the sound Conservative principles set out in the Railways Act 1993, and how the franchising arrangements are well placed to drive efficiencies and improvements. I don’t think you can get much sounder than that!
On this point, I note how you seek to caricature KILF and our efforts as being made up of “trade unions and socialists”, but I can advise you that the recent public meeting had many Conservative voters (and indeed members) in the audience who fully agree with me on this. You would be wise to have regard for that, as would Andrew.
I will ignore the other elements of your tirade / ranting, and perhaps I could helpfully suggest that you calmly sit down, and read the Stagecoach Annual Report, as well as the information from the House of Commons Library, in full.
I would be more than happy to debate this issue further, but I would much prefer for the MP himself to actually join the debate. After all he is the MP, not you – although sometimes it doesn’t seem like that.
Best wishes
David
Image: alexmartin81 under CC BY 2.0
