On 12 May, 20:08, Boltar wrote:
Thats debatable. Its the responsibilty of the government to get the
best deal for the nation from all aspects. Clearly this isn't the case
for PPP as far as metronet is concerned since its cost more and
delivered less than LU would have done in the same circumstances.

How do you know that? Look at the NHS, where a huge cash injection has
been unaccompanied by any serious privatisation efforts - the money
has not translated into a proportionate improvement in service there.
Who's to say that LUL would have done any better?

I opposed PFI at the time, but have actually come round to supporting
it - the underdelivery has only been about equal to that seen under
public sector schemes, and the government has been effectively forced
into continuing to fund LU at a constant amount for the length of the
contract (whereas previously it used to wildly vary LU's budget year-
to-year and hence bugger up its investment and replacement plans).

Equally, as with Wembley, the taxpayer has benefited substantially
from private firms' overoptimism about costs. It's not us who's losing
money on Underground PFI compared with the expected returns, it's
Bombardier, Atkins et al.

--
John Band
john at johnband dot org
www.johnband.org