It's probably A Good Thing if we have more bidders/ organisations operating UK TOCs (a wider pool, greater talent, more competition etc)...
...so Trenitalia coming to the UK is probably A Good Thing...
...and if you want to bid for a new franchise then it's probably a nice idea to run a stable/ straightforward/ consistent TOC for a year or two to "prove" that you are to be trusted - i.e. taking on C2C will hopefully allow them to show that they would be a safe pair of hands when bidding for other franchises (rather than the potential risk of a "new" operator).
I think I should clarify, the way we privatised has let foreign state owned businesses run our railways, at least some of the money is going to fund foreign states almost directly. Our state is subsidising it. It is insane. Trenitalia is 100% Italian government owned. We are effectively giving the Italian Government money to run our trains because our Government can't.
There's two options:
- We have a privatised railway, where organisations are free to bid to run franchises (meeting a certain quality/ standard) at the best cost to UK taxpayers
- We have a nationalised railway
If we have a private railway (something I'm agnostic about) then I believe that we ought to allow as many reputable organisations to bid as possible, to ensure that we get the best value for the taxpayer/ the most innovation/ the best option for quality etc.
IF you want to argue for nationalised railway then I get that, there are some good argument for a nationalised railway (e.g. the BR that introduced lots of colourful liveries and ordered lots of new trains). There are also arguments against a nationalised railway (e.g. the BR that closed lines, introduced Pacers, got stuck in a cycle of cuts). You can pick and choose the bits you want to suit your argument.
But the "nationalisation" argument is separate to whether Trenitalia should be allowed to bid. If we are paying someone a million pounds to provide a franchise then does it matter whether that million pounds goes to a "bus" company/ Virgin/ Serco/ an experienced train operator owned by a foreign government?
Because, if you don't want foreign governments (with all of their experience in running trains) then who is acceptable? Hedge funds? Outsourcers like Serco? A bank like Macquarie? A Trades Union?
I get the "nationalisation" argument, sure. But I don't get why (
if we are going to have a privatised railway) you'd want to limit the pool of organisations capable of bidding, why you'd rather have to pay a higher subsidy because you refuse to allow subsidies of DB/ SNCF/ Trenitalia (etc) to compete.
Because, under a privatised railway, someone is going to make a profit - and I don't honestly mind whether that profit goes to a subsidy of a foreign government or to a "bus" company (like Stagecoach) etc.
I'm not surprised to see another knee-jerk reaction from Mick Cash ("plundering passengers" etc etc), but I'd be interested if someone more intelligent than him could explain to me which kind of organisations should be allowed to bid for franchises (and why you'd rather pay higher subsidies due to a less competitive market).
There's a case for nationalisation - there's a case for privatisation. What I don't understand is this awkward halfway house compromise of "privatisation but only some organisations should be allowed to bid, and we don't want overseas train operators using their expertise in the UK".