The West Coast Line question - and more

Those of us who follow what is disclosed in The News may have picked up on the First Group vs, Virgin and the West Coast Mainline franchise.

In essence First have been awarded the franchise to provide this service based purely on the cash First offered to the Treasury.

And yet …

Putting aside the question of First and Virgin as to First being able to ante-up with the service they offer or how Branson might provide something altogether better as a non-profit-making operation I believe there is a fundamental principle that is not being addressed.

Why SHOULD there be a single franchise when what it amounts to is a monopoly and even more important, why should such a thing be sold anyway?

After all, the only place that the money is going to come from to pay the huge sums from is the paying public and so this selling of franchises is nothing more or less than stealth taxation.

MUCH better would be to have the applicants for these powerful franchises if we must have them provide a statement of performance and facilities and services to be provided and a series of fines or some other sanction if the franchisee fails to deliver.

However …. compared to the greatest imposition of stealth taxes of all times, the amount and extent of running the sum of the budget deficit accrued under Brown-the-nosepicker, a stealth tax that generations to come will still be paying, I suppose the dodgy selling of what should not be sold is small potatoes.

But what can we do?

It's not as if we lived in a democracy because in reality we don't.

Re: The West Coast Line question - and more

You have no right to whinge about this matey as it was Margaret Hilda (phth, phth,phth) and her successor Major who sold off all our previous public services very cheaply to her cronies in the first place.