Comment posted Research reveals shock insights into reality of Dunoon ferry service provision by newsroom.
The Scottish Government cannot instruct Argyll Ferries to replace a passenger ferry with a vehicle ferry within the term of the current contract – unless – directly or indirectly, it assists them to do so.
Were this to happen, it is unimaginable that this would survive the challenge under competition law that would inevitably follow from the other bidders for this contract.
All bidders in the original tender for the current contract operated by Argyll Ferries, were invited to submit a proposal to deliver the passenger service in a vehicle and passenger ferry.
In this instance, every penny of the costs associated with the delivery of a vehicle service would have to be accounted separately from the passenger costs, which are legally subsidised.
Not one bidder submitted such a proposal – because the vehicle service between the town centres of Gourock and Dunoon cannot be competitive and is not financially viable.
No politician can wave a wand and change this fact.
Me Neil, as with any politician is skilled in using phrases to deceive the unwary, such as ‘the Scottish Government is committed to…’- which means nothing; or ‘I would like to see…’ – which means the same.
What is going on is a surreal spectator sport where the government appears to be flailing around against the scenario they brought into being themselves by the decisions they took.
Presumably, they could either stop the current contract and transfer the financial penalty from one pubic sector pocket to another via the Argyll ferries books.
They could then retender the contract, specified differently – but this could not make a vehicle service between the Gourock and Dunoon town centres subsidisable; nor could it make it financially viable. What could a second outcome be?
Alternatively they could go ahead and indirectly assist Argyll Ferries to a vehicle and passenger ferry – and buy off the original competing bidders from issuing a challenge under competition law by giving them routes removed from the west coast portfolio operated by Calmac and ‘tendered’.
newsroom also commented
- You are logically adrift in this – and you actually support the position the facts demonstrate.
Nothing we have said in evidencing the massive capacity overprovisiom on this route has anything at all to do with whether empty ferries sail or not.
If you are correct that there are occasions when there is no reason to sail, it is actually further evidence that the capacity is way ahead of the demand – otherwise those services would sail.
- There are two issues here – neither operator publishes breakdown figures and one would need to see those and analyse them closely to distil the usage patterns.
Peak time under supply may be likely which is why we’ve said the Scottish Government, if it retired public sector involvement, might tender a small filler service.
Then, major city transport cannot cope with full demand at peak time commuter times. You can’t get on a tube sometimes so you learn to start earlier.
There’s no reason why the massive overprovision on the Gourock Dunoon route might not be left to the market to resolve as it will.
Travel early or get in late. Taking that line would also spread use of capacity better.
Recent comments by newsroom
- Here’s how the ‘BT Broadband Security’ scam works – a victim’s narrative
If only it were, Jake.
- Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
Not in my control and hadn’t noticed this myself [so thanks] – and will pass on your concerns.
This us likely to be one of the consequences of recovery from recent outages which were beyond our control.
- Supreme Court finds for appellants on Named Persons
It is worth noting that in its judgment the Supreme Court said:
‘“The first thing that a totalitarian regime tries to do is to get to the children, to distance them from the subversive, varied influences of their families, and indoctrinate them in their rulers’ view of the world. Within limits, families must be left to bring up their children in their own way.’
- Bute refugees suffer from inadequately considered placement
Eveything you say above applies justly to those who radicalise – but not necessarily to those who are vulnerable to be radicalised.
When you are young, everything in life is understood in simple binary oppositions. It is only time and broad experience that introduces and embeds the tonalities of understanding.
Many of the young everywhere, from the need to belong and from the acceleration of peer pressure, are also prone to follow the accepted behavioural norms or fashions of their peers.
This is why radicalisation is most easily effected in cities and amongst the large cultural enclaves that can form there.
The young, in their uncluttered understanding, are also idealist – and extremism is a form of idealism perverted.
What you say about the safety and security that relocated refugees now possess is also correct – but is amended by two considerations.
One is the automatic perception of all refugees as having the education to hold such an understanding of their situation. Many will be educated – some very highly indeed – but by no means all will have had the opportunity of education.
The second is that, as may be the case with some of the Bute families, if they feel and look ‘different’ from everyone around them and if they cannot communicate, some will feel uncomfortable and vulnerable, even intimidated – and it is unrealistic to assume that refugees will be universally made welcome in any locality.
We had assumed that the acceptance of such refugees here would mean the automatic employment of those qualified to teach English as a foreign language and that such classes would be taught in a regular and compulsory schedule.
This would be a responsible and necessary provision if integration is to be a realistic achievement.
We do not know if such provision has been made and there seems to be no mention of it.
- Turkey’s military coup raises issues to be confronted here in Britain
This is another issue – a procedural one – and one which clearly needs to be resolved while the need can be immediately understood.
It remains a mystery why, when political party leadership elections require set percentages well above 50% to secure a win, politicians would not have reason and wit to see that decisions taking a member of a significant political union out of that union, changing the nature of the larger union [helpless to prevent that] as well as the nature of the departing member, that decisions of such weight and permanence cannot sensibly be taken by 50% + 1 single vote of an electorate.
The opportunity for due revision was not taken following the Scottish Referendum, which was run under this rule.
Something like a 60% threshold would guard decisions against the percentage of transient whim – and/or of misunderstanding and/or of misinformedness – in any vote; and these are the things that that can help to create very narrow majorities on very profound issues.
Opinion polls declare that their results are subject to a 3% margin for error.
In the EU Referendum, a 2% change of mind would have produced an even tinier – but legally acceptable – majority in the opposite direction.
powered by SEO Super Comments