RDG response to RMT's recent "road map" proposal.

[Solent&Wessex]

Mods: Feel free to merge this with the original thread, which is locked, as I can't post this response there.

I haven't seen the RDG response to the RMT posted anywhere, so here it is.

In summary form their response is as expected - "we've made our offer and that is that as far as we're concerned ".

Full text and copy below:

Dear Mick,

Defend Jobs, Pay and Conditions – Train Operating Companies

I refer to your letter of 25th August 2023 setting out your union’s position on the above current dispute.

We are agreed that we need to navigate a way through these disputes. The continuation of industrial action is disrupting passengers’ lives, damaging confidence in using the rail network and costing your members significant lost earnings that they will never recoup.

Whilst we appreciate you clarifying your union’s position, unfortunately, the suggested stages that you have set out for a 1-year straight pay deal ignores the crippling financial challenge the industry faces, with an excess of £2bn shortfall in passenger revenues that must be addressed in order to fund the pay rise we want to give our people. Nor does it remove the on-going threat of strike action or commit to ending this dispute.

As I know you are aware, we were extremely disappointed that our last offer of a proposed 2-year deal set out in a Dispute Resolution Process, built in collaboration with your negotiating team, was not put out to a referendum of your members after review by your Executive. It included a number of concessions you had requested, including removal of Driver Controlled Operation (DCO) and respected individual TOC collective bargaining arrangements.

This offer remains on the table and provides a reasonable compromise that would see RMT members receive a 5% pay increase, or a minimum increase of £1,750 for 2022, and a further 4% in 2023 -equating to a 13% increase for the lowest paid, with the latter increase subject to engaging in meaningful discussions on specified workforce reform areas. While you have since argued that no union would agree to terms which would have seen them resolve the current dispute before year 2, our position has always been that a pay increase is conditional on removing the constant threat of industrial action.

Notwithstanding the above, we are encouraged that you are seeking to move forward, and we continue to remain available for industry talks next week to explore options that would enable us to be able to give our employees a pay increase while ending the industrial action that will see your members lose further earnings.

Yours sincerely,
Steve Montgomery
Chair Rail Delivery Group

 

[Ashley Hill]

Looks like a two fingered salute to me!

 

[scouseyb123]

Dont know how Steve Montgomery is allowed that post considering he’s also a senior manager in FirstGroup, total conflict of interest. He should resign.

 

[yorksrob]

Ultimately this is the Government failing to compromise.

Someone in the RDG needs to break ranks and spell out exactly who is pulling their strings.

 

[Robertj21a]

No doubt I'll be unpopular for saying this but the letter seems fairly ok to me. The response explains what has been done to date and re-confirms that the key issues remain.
If the Union just continues - without any significant changes to their current approach - we'll be in much the same situation in 12-24 months time.

 

[Bantamzen]

Ultimately this is the Government failing to compromise.

Someone in the RDG needs to break ranks and spell out exactly who is pulling their strings.

We all know its the government.

I'm afraid this is pretty much the reality of things right across the public sector, or more accurately across the publicly funded sector. Whether unions and their memberships agree or otherwise, funds are at a premium (trust me on this!) and along with any pay deals which will be in or around the 4-6% range (for 2023-24) for the most part, & everywhere is expected to provide more efficiencies for that. That is not what the government is hoping for, it is core part of the deal, and without them there is clearly not going to be a deal. Quite how efficiencies are delivered across the board will vary, but I can certainly say with confidence that it is not just the railways that are expected to come up with them for a deal. I can't yet say what is coming for my little corner of the public sector, but watch this space in the coming 12 months, a lot is going to change!

Therefore the debate comes down to whether or not the unions can or are willing to negotiate the terms of these efficiencies. If not then the dispute will rumble on until the next general election, and probably well beyond because any incoming new government are in for a nasty shock when they open the Treasury books! And of course with rail revenues potentially staying below pre-covid levels for at least another 18 months, that situation may only be a lot worse.

 

[yorksrob]

We all know its the government.

I'm afraid this is pretty much the reality of things right across the public sector, or more accurately across the publicly funded sector. Whether unions and their memberships agree or otherwise, funds are at a premium (trust me on this!) and along with any pay deals which will be in or around the 4-6% range (for 2023-24) for the most part, & everywhere is expected to provide more efficiencies for that. That is not what the government is hoping for, it is core part of the deal, and without them there is clearly not going to be a deal. Quite how efficiencies are delivered across the board will vary, but I can certainly say with confidence that it is not just the railways that are expected to come up with them for a deal. I can't yet say what is coming for my little corner of the public sector, but watch this space in the coming 12 months, a lot is going to change!

Therefore the debate comes down to whether or not the unions can or are willing to negotiate the terms of these efficiencies. If not then the dispute will rumble on until the next general election, and probably well beyond because any incoming new government are in for a nasty shock when they open the Treasury books! And of course with rail revenues potentially staying below pre-covid levels for at least another 18 months, that situation may only be a lot worse.

However, the evidence with other settled pay disputes in the public sector (teachers, nurses etc) is that the Government is willing to genuinely negotiate when it wants to, however this doesn't appear to be the case with the railway.

The ticket office closure fiasco is further illustration that this Government holds railway passengers needs in contempt, because as usual, they are only interested in their core voting base, the majority of whom they believe to be motorists whom they believe to be willing to accept disruption indefinitely.

 

[father_jack]

Looks like a two fingered salute to me!

Here here.

Dont know how Steve Montgomery is allowed that post considering he’s also a senior manager in FirstGroup, total conflict of interest. He should resign.

And "Here Here" again !!!

 

[Bantamzen]

However, the evidence with other settled pay disputes in the public sector (teachers, nurses etc) is that the Government is willing to genuinely negotiate when it wants to, however this doesn't appear to be the case with the railway.

Trust me, everywhere where pay deals of been offered are expected to deliver efficiencies. Maybe these don't always become clear when discussed publicly, but they are. In my sector (where by the way the deal has been imposed regardless of a final vote on it) there is a lot of discussion already underway on how to actually deliver some serious savings, and I do mean serious.

From what I've seen on here and elsewhere, the rail unions are currently not willing to negotiate changes in T&Cs but want the same level of increases offered to other sectors expected to deliver efficiency changes. Hence the stalemate.

The ticket office closure fiasco is further illustration that this Government holds railway passengers needs in contempt, because as usual, they are only interested in their core voting base, the majority of whom they believe to be motorists whom they believe to be willing to accept disruption indefinitely.

Frankly the government doesn't give much of a fig about the railways, and I thought that was obvious to all. Ticket office staff lie a very, very long way down the list of things that concern them on the railways. And the public have by and large shown that they don't either over the years, you only have to sit on any number of trains and listen to the number of scans of QR codes going on to realise that this is a fight that was all but lost before it began.

As I've said all along fights need to be picked, going up against a government determined to make savings (for their election campaign by the way, so they are very invested in this) was always going to be a crapshow. The variance between the different disputes seems mainly to centre around the rail unions still believing that they are unbeatable, which clearly they are not. Ultimately it will be up to their members to decide whether or not to carry on for a year and a half at least, but the unions need to be quite honest and tell their members what is ahead, i.e. they are going to have to wait at least 18 months for any pay rise. And that assumes a) A change of government in early 2025, b) That a new government will prioritise the railways over most, if not all the other fires burning around the public sector & c) The industry doesn't start to collapse in on itself in the meantime resulting in even more revenue losses.

Personally, I would cut my losses and regroup in 2025. But its not up to me.

 

[Krokodil]

Dont know how Steve Montgomery is allowed that post considering he’s also a senior manager in FirstGroup, total conflict of interest. He should resign.

As other posters have intimated, both RDG and the TOCs are puppets of the DfT. So no conflict of interest.

 

[infobleep]

Trust me, everywhere where pay deals of been offered are expected to deliver efficiencies. Maybe these don't always become clear when discussed publicly, but they are. In my sector (where by the way the deal has been imposed regardless of a final vote on it) there is a lot of discussion already underway on how to actually deliver some serious savings, and I do mean serious.

Do you mind saying what sector you are in? If not is it central government or local government?

Local government will struggle to find efficiency savings. They have been doing this for over 10 years.

And that assumes a) A change of government in early 2025, b) That a new government will prioritise the railways over most, if not all the other fires burning around the public sector & c) The industry doesn't start to collapse in on itself in the meantime resulting in even more revenue losses.

Personally, I would cut my losses and regroup in 2025. But its not up to me.

Most commentators I've heard think the election will be next autumn.

If the government really wants to save money they would hold it in May 2024 when the local elections take place.

 

[Clarence Yard]

Dont know how Steve Montgomery is allowed that post considering he’s also a senior manager in FirstGroup, total conflict of interest. He should resign.

There is no conflict of interest. RDG is effectively a Government controlled body and that statement will have had huge input and final approval from the DfT.

It is always chaired by a current senior exec from the industry but it isn’t ATOC, which was seen as too independent by the DfT. So RDG was set up to be a subtly different body.

As TOCs are now effectively Government entities, loaned out to the Owning Groups to manage on the DfT’s behalf, independent decision making and dissenting public statements have all but gone. With 60%-70% of the TOC contract performance management fee relating to items other than running trains, if you want to pocket those fees and satisfy your shareholders (which as any Director you are obliged to do), then you tow the line.

Quite obviously, the DfT continue to want the staff to give away their right to dispute whilst the terms and conditions are drastically altered, in some cases negating the effect of any pay rise because, at the end of the day, any pay rise has to be self funding. There still seems to be no new money on the table.

 

[Bantamzen]

Do you mind saying what sector you are in? If not is it central government or local government?

Not at all, I work in central government for a very large department with access to a lot of data on the matter.

Local government will struggle to find efficiency savings. They have been doing this for over 10 years.

Local governments are on their knees, just look at Birmingham. All I can see is more service and jobs cuts in the coming years.

Most commentators I've heard think the election will be next autumn.

If the government really wants to save money they would hold it in May 2024 when the local elections take place.

I can't see them going as early as Spring, they are too far away in the polls at the moment. Autumn may be slightly more likely as the gap in the polls is narrowing slightly, but if it doesn't close sufficiently then I can see them going full term and scorched Earth doing it.

 

[Krokodil]

Trust me, everywhere where pay deals of been offered are expected to deliver efficiencies. Maybe these don't always become clear when discussed publicly, but they are.

What makes you think that the rail unions don't know this? Productivity agreements are not a new thing.

The government expects the proposed changes to self-fund the increase (rather than counting some of it as a cost of living rise) but they don't have a clue how much prodictivity would improve with their plans. I can assure you that many items on the government wishlist that we've seen before will offer marginal gains at best. Cutting those pointless strings would allow a compromise to be reached. Part of the issue is that the changes demanded are vague in many places and accepting them would effectively mean putting a signature on a blank piece of paper.

Look at the ticket offices. If the government just picked out the no-hopers - the single-manned, single shift ones only open for the morning peak for example - they would have been able to achieve some closures with little fuss. Instead they've gone in like a bull in a china shop and Avanti are proposing to close Euston and Man Picc.

See also the brief threat to impose nationwide DOO. TOC chiefs told the government that our trains & infrastructure weren't set up for much in the way of extensions, that the likes of Northern and TPE consider Guards to be a key asset to revenue protection, and that adding in such a divisive demand for very little gain was counter-productive. The government still tried it.

From what I've seen on here and elsewhere, the rail unions are currently not willing to negotiate changes in T&Cs

Then you observe wrong. The unions are pragmatic and open to sensible changes. ASLEF and TfW have managed to come to a wide-ranging agreement, including bringing Sundays inside the working week, with drivers taking on some dispatch responsibilities. Changes to the role of guards on Merseyrail were eventually made too.

but want the same level of increases offered to other sectors expected to deliver efficiency changes.

Rail staff would accept 4% (a significant real-terms cut) which is less than some sectors are holding out for. I would be interested to know what changes have been demanded of other public sector workers.

Local governments are on their knees, just look at Birmingham.

Birmingham CC are largely responsible for their own maladies.

All I can see is more service and jobs cuts in the coming years.

There's little left to cut service-wise, though some parts of local government are very inefficient. A woman who took a job as a PA to a Director of Social Services said that she cleared the three week backlog left by her predecessor's departure in a few days and suggested to her boss that she could drop her hours and work part-time. Oh no, all the other directors have full-time PAs and so must he.

 

[Bantamzen]

What makes you think that the rail unions don't know this? Productivity agreements are not a new thing.

The government expects the proposed changes to self-fund the increase (rather than counting some of it as a cost of living rise) but they don't have a clue how much prodictivity would improve with their plans. I can assure you that many items on the government wishlist that we've seen before will offer marginal gains at best. Cutting those pointless strings would allow a compromise to be reached. Part of the issue is that the changes demanded are vague in many places and accepting them would effectively mean putting a signature on a blank piece of paper.

Look at the ticket offices. If the government just picked out the no-hopers - the single-manned, single shift ones only open for the morning peak for example - they would have been able to achieve some closures with little fuss. Instead they've gone in like a bull in a china shop and Avanti are proposing to close Euston and Man Picc.

See also the brief threat to impose nationwide DOO. TOC chiefs told the government that our trains & infrastructure weren't set up for much in the way of extensions, that the likes of Northern and TPE consider Guards to be a key asset to revenue protection, and that adding in such a divisive demand for very little gain was counter-productive. The government still tried it.


Then you observe wrong. The unions are pragmatic and open to sensible changes. ASLEF and TfW have managed to come to a wide-ranging agreement, including bringing Sundays inside the working week, with drivers taking on some dispatch responsibilities. Changes to the role of guards on Merseyrail were eventually made too.


Rail staff would accept 4% (a significant real-terms cut) which is less than some sectors are holding out for. I would be interested to know what changes have been demanded of other public sector workers.

Well as far as my part of the world is concerned, most of the changes will be around how & when we work, with much more emphasis on digital channels and automation. You can probably guess what that will mean going forward.

As for your wider points, let's cut to the chase again. The rail industry is a mess, and left as it is will likely need more and more public money just to keep it limping along at it's current levels. If it had been left in private hands with no intervention from government, by now we would likely be talking about widespread closures and job losses. There's very little getting away from that. As I say its up to the unions and its membership to decide if they can hold on to their current position until a change of government, which could be 18 months away yet.

 

[james_the_xv]

Can someone explain to me why the RMT won't put the offer to their membership?

As far as I can work out, if they do, and the membership reject it, it strengthens the RMTs bargaining position and would have a good chance of bringing the govt back to the table? If the membership accepts, then this madness can stop and Lynch & co. are undermined by the fact they have tried and failed to play politics.

Is it just the case that the RMT leadership is trying to stick it to the tory government? Lets be honest, if the same terms were offered by a labour government it would be seen in a much better light by the RMT...

 

[dctraindriver]

Can someone explain to me why the RMT won't put the offer to their membership?

As far as I can work out, if they do, and the membership reject it, it strengthens the RMTs bargaining position and would have a good chance of bringing the govt back to the table? If the membership accepts, then this madness can stop and Lynch & co. are undermined by the fact they have tried and failed to play politics.

Is it just the case that the RMT leadership is trying to stick it to the tory government? Lets be honest, if the same terms were offered by a labour government it would be seen in a much better light by the RMT...

Financial cost putting it to their members when it’s expected to be voted down by the members. Maybe they should bite the bullet and let the members vote it down? Half term October 24 is where my moneys at for a GE.

 

[Robertj21a]

It appears that the RMT are more than happy to continue with their campaign in the hope that Starmer etc will make a big change - he won't.
Not only is it, say, 15 months away but Labour won't give Rail much priority and, in any event, they won't have more money available.

 

[Krokodil]

Well as far as my part of the world is concerned, most of the changes will be around how & when we work, with much more emphasis on digital channels and automation. You can probably guess what that will mean going forward.

Well if the RDG demands are anything to go by, it probably means treating the staff like automatons who have no need for rest or a family life. I'm sure that you're implying that they intend to remove staff entirely, but good luck doing that when there are so many Absolute Block lines and stations without step-free access from street to train.

The rail industry is a mess

Just like the rest of the public sector. What's the common denominator?

and left as it is will likely need more and more public money just to keep it limping along at it's current levels

If the government actually wanted to modernise the railway, such that it ran more efficiently, it would invest in some electrification. Diesel traction is far more expensive to run and maintain than electric, and offers poorer performance at the same time.

They could also look at taxation. Returning CGT to the principle set by Nigel Lawson that it's no different to any other income would raise around £14bn. That's half of the budget deficit. Capital gains of course are usually a perk enjoyed by the wealthy, not by the plebs who pay income tax at a far higher rate.

 

[Goldfish62]

I really do wonder where the RMT and ASLEF go from here. The government has well and truly called their bluff by showing a complete disregard and lack of interest in the railways. All the industrial action over the past few months has had absolutely no impact on moving the government or RDG.

I did think until recently that only an all-out strike would bring the government to its senses, but I now think it would just be prepared to sit it out.

 

[Mak1981]

Can someone explain to me why the RMT won't put the offer to their membership?

As far as I can work out, if they do, and the membership reject it, it strengthens the RMTs bargaining position and would have a good chance of bringing the govt back to the table? If the membership accepts, then this madness can stop and Lynch & co. are undermined by the fact they have tried and failed to play politics.

Is it just the case that the RMT leadership is trying to stick it to the tory government? Lets be honest, if the same terms were offered by a labour government it would be seen in a much better light by the RMT...

The offer wasn't put to the membership for a full referendum on, but it was put to the branches to provide their views on and those branches had meetings where the membership had a say on it going forward. So they have had a say on it, just not in the way rdg/dft want

After this the membership had a vote on continuing the action knowing this offer had been made, they could have voted to end the action there and defacto take the offer, they didn't they voted to keep the strike mandate going

Also the goverment was trying to bring in legislation that all pay offers must go to a vote of members, it shouldn't be for the goverment to decide that, as employers could simply undermine unions by tweaking pay offers to make them under take multiple costly ballots, the unions executives are democratically elected to enable them to make decisions on whether or note to put an offer to their members, just as members of Parliament are elected to make decisions rather than hold a public referendum every time they want to change something

 

[Bantamzen]

Well if the RDG demands are anything to go by, it probably means treating the staff like automatons who have no need for rest or a family life. I'm sure that you're implying that they intend to remove staff entirely, but good luck doing that when there are so many Absolute Block lines and stations without step-free access from street to train.

Err, I was talking about my sector.....

Just like the rest of the public sector. What's the common denominator?

Yep, just like the rest of the public sector. The common denominator is the government, which is what I'm sure you are implying. However let's not forget that the private industry had a play at the railways, and are now in the process of handing them back. That speaks volumes.

If the government actually wanted to modernise the railway, such that it ran more efficiently, it would invest in some electrification. Diesel traction is far more expensive to run and maintain than electric, and offers poorer performance at the same time.

I don't disagree with this, although they do seem to have been distracted by the promise of cheaping out with old units and batteries strapped underneath. I do rather wish that those working the battery tech would solve the problems before selling it as a possible alternative to wiring.

They could also look at taxation. Returning CGT to the principle set by Nigel Lawson that it's no different to any other income would raise around £14bn. That's half of the budget deficit. Capital gains of course are usually a perk enjoyed by the wealthy, not by the plebs who pay income tax at a far higher rate.

Again, not going to disagree. However I expect the policy makers at Tory HQ would have kittens at such a suggestion.

And just for the benefit of everyone, I'm not anti-union, anti-rail, anti-whatever. I just call it the way I see it, and honestly the state this country is in and given the state the railways are in I just don't see this dispute going the way many rail staff and unions hope. As fires burn all over the public sector, and more ignite all the time (RAAC take a bow), the railways slip further and further down the order of priority for the government. And this isn't anything new, the moment HS2 started to be scaled back, and NPR got kicked into a cupboard, the writing was very much on the wall. As I say at the end of the day the unions and their members need to brace for a very long dispute if the offer is rejected, and any new Labour government arriving isn't necessarily going to be an insta-solution.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Can someone explain to me why the RMT won't put the offer to their membership?

As far as I can work out, if they do, and the membership reject it, it strengthens the RMTs bargaining position and would have a good chance of bringing the govt back to the table? If the membership accepts, then this madness can stop and Lynch & co. are undermined by the fact they have tried and failed to play politics.

Is it just the case that the RMT leadership is trying to stick it to the tory government? Lets be honest, if the same terms were offered by a labour government it would be seen in a much better light by the RMT...

Because I suspect that the actual result wouldn't be as strong against as some people think and the RMT would like.

If it were voted upon, but rejected, but not by a huge or massive amount, it actually weakens the RMT'S position as the RDG can say "oh look, your members aren't as much against it as you say", then they will tweak it slightly, then it's re-balloted and just about gets over the line, which would mean lots of members get screwed over and would be royally p*ssed off. See Network Rail as an example.

Let's not forget that just like NR, because it is a national solution, the proposals don't affect everyone in the same way, and for some people it will just be a large pay rise for few if any changes to their ts and cs. They would likely vote yes to accept, as would those in the lowest paid roles who would be greatful of the payrise regardless of the consequences, if there even were any. Whilst other grades or those in other companies who will be affected to a greater extent would vote no, they could be outvoted by those who voted yes.


In reality the RMT calling it a national dispute and going at everything nationally was a bad idea. Simply, as dicussed on here many times, every grade in every company is in a different starting position and to expect every grade in every company to get to the same end result with the same increases is never going to work well.

 

[baz962]

Can someone explain to me why the RMT won't put the offer to their membership?

As far as I can work out, if they do, and the membership reject it, it strengthens the RMTs bargaining position and would have a good chance of bringing the govt back to the table? If the membership accepts, then this madness can stop and Lynch & co. are undermined by the fact they have tried and failed to play politics.

Is it just the case that the RMT leadership is trying to stick it to the tory government? Lets be honest, if the same terms were offered by a labour government it would be seen in a much better light by the RMT...

The same terms would absolutely not be seen differently if offered by anyone.

 

[Msq71423]

any new Labour government arriving isn't necessarily going to be an insta-solution

Indeed the Labour leader I understand recently said in a Sky News interview that there would be no increase in public spending under them (though I definitely read this I can't seem to find a link to it).

And according to this article it sounds like Labour are going to adopt Tory policies just under a different name (presumably they said this to win more Tory votes).

No wealth tax under a Labour government, Shadow Chancellor Rachel Reeves says

Left-wing group Momentum says Rachel Reeves' rejection of such a levy is "shameful", while the Tories claim she is "taking the British people for fools".

news.sky.com

I doubt the grass will be greener the other side of a general election assuming Labour win power.

 

[yorksrob]

Well as far as my part of the world is concerned, most of the changes will be around how & when we work, with much more emphasis on digital channels and automation. You can probably guess what that will mean going forward.

As for your wider points, let's cut to the chase again. The rail industry is a mess, and left as it is will likely need more and more public money just to keep it limping along at it's current levels. If it had been left in private hands with no intervention from government, by now we would likely be talking about widespread closures and job losses. There's very little getting away from that. As I say its up to the unions and its membership to decide if they can hold on to their current position until a change of government, which could be 18 months away yet.

The rail industry is in a mess primarily because won't bite the bullet and get the service running, with train operators empowered to grow the business.

All savings going directly back to the treasury is a cause of this - something all the industry recognises, yet the Government does nothing.

 

[JamesT]

They could also look at taxation. Returning CGT to the principle set by Nigel Lawson that it's no different to any other income would raise around £14bn. That's half of the budget deficit. Capital gains of course are usually a perk enjoyed by the wealthy, not by the plebs who pay income tax at a far higher rate.

I’d be wary of relying on predicted income from tax rises. People often change their behaviour in response.
CGT may have been aligned with income tax rates back in the 80s, but there was also indexation allowance and later taper relief.
If a large proportion of the gain in value is merely inflation, there’s not actually a gain to be taxed under the previous system.
“Plebs” may not pay CGT, but the insurance companies and pension funds do. Remember Gordon Brown’s tax raid on dividends which stuffed many pension funds?

 

[Merle Haggard]

I doubt the grass will be greener the other side of a general election assuming Labour win power.

In 1964 (though I was too young to vote then - had to be 21) , 1974 and 1997 I was elated at the prospect of a Labour government being more favourable to the railways than the previous Tory one.

That's 3 times I've been bitterly disappointed how things actually turned out but, who knows, maybe 4th time lucky

 

[Goldfish62]

In 1964 (though I was too young to vote then - had to be 21) , 1974 and 1997 I was elated at the prospect of a Labour government being more favourable to the railways than the previous Tory one.

That's 3 times I've been bitterly disappointed how things actually turned out but, who knows, maybe 4th time lucky

If the Shadow Transport Secretary is anything to go by it doesn't exactly inspire confidence. She seems incapable of saying anything of any substance. The Shadow Rail Minister clearly grasped the issues, but it seems he was too good so has been moved on to bigger things.

 

[Krokodil]

However let's not forget that the private industry had a play at the railways,

With an increasing amount of government interference. BR was largely an arms-length operation, ministers rarely got involved.

and are now in the process of handing them back. That speaks volumes.

Their sole function now is to take the flack for the government. By having the railways pretend to be privatised the government can pretend that it's not to blame for the chaos.

I doubt the grass will be greener the other side of a general election assuming Labour win power.

It couldn't get any worse.