Manifesto responses - Germolene or Iodine?

This from Howard Wade...

Interesting to compare and contrast trade associations responses to the recent spate of manifestos.

Here is Rail Delivery Group  Chief Executive, Paul Plummer, who may be in danger of sleepwalking over a cliff...

"Working together, by the end of the next parliament, we will be running 6,400 extra services a week and 5,500 new carriages. On top of this, train companies are making a range of changes to improve the experience of passengers from simpler ticket buying to better information. This is all part of a £50bn-plus upgrade plan to improve journeys and to make local economies stronger and fairer, now and for the future.”

Plummer was, of course, speaking on behalf of RDG's 'train company members' (ie the TOCs and FOCs, pointedly excluding Network Rail which is gagged during Purdah).

Compare this with recently appointed Railway Industry Association Chief Exec, Darren Caplan. He pulls no punches, as many of his members are fighting for survival as Plummer's "£50 bn plus" is consumed by both Treasury and boiling frogs:

"We hope that [insert party of choice] recognise and share our concerns about the need for continuity of year-on-year funding for the rail supply sector, which faces the ongoing challenge of planned projects being postponed due to funding limits and which could ultimately lead to passenger and freight services suffering as a result. 

"The current 'Control Period 5' (CP5) will see significant reductions in spending in 2018/19, which could lead to asset degradation, reductions in sectoral employment, Small & Medium-sized Enterprises in the supply chain going bankrupt, and a negative impact on productivity. This in turn could lead to capability gaps and increased costs when the delayed work is commenced, perhaps several years into the next Control Period, CP6."

No doubt about who is speaking for the real railway industry.

UPDATE: This from a Mr Steve Strong...

Reading the words of Mr Plummer I can't help but feel that it lacks key references to 'strong and stable' and 'for the many, not the few'?

Perhaps RDG could amend their statement to read:

"This is all part of a £50bn-plus upgrade plan to improve journeys and to make local economies stable and strong; for the many, not the few.”

You are welcome!