Grayling on the BBC R4 "Today" programme at about 8:23: "Actually, no — I don't run the railways". So, given the degree of prescription and interference by the DfT that we all know about, who does run the railways if he doesn't?
The DfT runs it overall - when it is going well........and if it is not going well.... everybody/anybody else runs it!Grayling on the BBC R4 "Today" programme at about 8:23: "Actually, no — I don't run the railways". So, given the degree of prescription and interference by the DfT that we all know about, who does run the railways if he doesn't?
If we were inclined to be fair to Chris Grayling, we could draw a distinction between 'govern' and 'operate'. The DfT governs the railway; the TOCs and Network Rail together operate it. In that sense, the word 'run' is probably closer to operate than govern and so strictly speaking it's probably true.
None of which changes the fact that the DfT and hence the minister together have ultimate responsibility for what happens: they give out the contracts and monitor performance.
And arguably the 2018 problems are a result of failure in governance rather than operation: they've come because of a failure to manage the process of connecting infrastructural improvements to everyday operation of the railway. While both the TOCs and Network Rail can take blame for operational errors, it does seem to me that the job of the DfT is to manage the system and prevent the effects of errors by operators spreading, which they've wildly failed to do.
Its perfectly feasible to be a civil servant with considerable expertise and experience of the rail industry, did every TOC Or NR boss start as a guard, cleaner or p way worker ?Because the DFT is a body of civil servants not railway people
Presumably he was replying to a question or comment suggesting he does run them. The interviewer should probably have then asked "In that case, what control do you have over them?"
who does run the railways if he doesn't?
He certainly appears to be a canny political operator.........which is why I was very surprised at his cancellation of the Northward MML Electrification - I would have thought a "review" followed by a creeping program would have been far less damaging politically.Sounds like a technically correct but very disingenuous response from Mr Grayling, who presumably didn't feel like answering certain questions that may otherwise head his way.
He certainly appears to be a canny political operator.........which is why I was very surprised at his cancellation of the Northward MML Electrification - I would have thought a "review" followed by a creeping program would have been far less damaging politically.
He's not a canny political operator at all. He's an arrogant non-entity who gets away with it because the media is complicit with his party and the opposition are ineffective.
But some partisan right wing zealots will trill on how you’re wrong, wrong, wrong and how poor little Crissy is an innocent little lamb being thrown to the lions by the nasty bigger boys of the TOCs.
How can a mere politician be responsible for producing timetables, or anything else on the railway? As minister, all he could achieve would be dependent on what he was told by civil servants and the NR Chairman and that would be very little in the short term anyway.
There was a special Board set up with supposedly competent people to ensure it went well. I don't see how ministers could in any way be responsible that it didn't, unless you are of a mind to think that this is so, regardless of facts.
He's in overall charge of presenting transport legislation (or repeal) and DfT budget, That's it. If I thought politicians were any closer to to running industries, I would be very worried. They sit in Parliament and pass laws, nothing else, thank goodness.Because he is the most senior minister and therefore, in a parliamentary democracy, the person in overall charge
Because the DFT is a body of civil servants not railway people
Civil Servants who work full time on the rail industry... does that not make them "railway people"?
Or are "railway people" like the "proper football man" cliche, who supporters tend to want their next manager to belong to?
You can delegate authority, you can not delegate responsibility. (Although slime-ball politicians seem to manage it.)the SoS has direct control over at least two parts of the railway as a duty of office. He can appoint directors, set the overall strategy, etc. OK, the decisions are (or should be) made on the basis of advice from civil servants, but the politician has the final say and, if doing their job properly, has a duty to ask questions to make certain the advice is sound.
There is more to it than a politician sitting there making laws.
He's in overall charge of presenting transport legislation (or repeal) and DfT budget, That's it. If I thought politicians were any closer to to running industries, I would be very worried. They sit in Parliament and pass laws, nothing else, thank goodness.
Civil Servants who work full time on the rail industry... does that not make them "railway people"?
The HS2 team and the class 700/IEP procurement people are examples of where proper railway expertise was taken on.
It was Alistair Darling who abolished the semi-independent Strategic Rail Authority and imported rail management directly into DfT.