On Mon, 14 May 2007, John B wrote:

PFI

However, having since read much more about the history of LUL, and in
particular the massive inefficiencies that were brought about by
politicians inflicting unexpected year-on-year changes in the capex
budget (and hence cancellation of planned schemes and no ability to
fully commit to any project with a greater-than-12-month timeline), I
think a couple of extra % on financing costs to guarantee a steady
income - with punitive penalties should government try and cut spending
- is a price worth paying.

In LU's case, there's more to it than just finance costs, but in any case,
this is a problem which could have been solved without having to resort to
PFI - either through Ken's bond scheme, or just by the government
committing to legally-binding five-year spending agreements or something.

tom

--
I didn't think, "I'm going to change the world." No, I'm just going to
build the best machines I can build that I would want to use in my own
life. -- Woz