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

On May 14, 11:16 am, John B wrote:
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


WHAT?

See www.keepournhspublic.com.

On 14 May, 14:44, MIG wrote:
On May 14, 11:16 am, John B wrote:

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

WHAT?

Seewww.keepournhspublic.com.

So, there's *one* privately-run NHS hospital. I reckon that probably
hasn't been the cause of NHS inefficiency...

All the other services that site lists are ones that were privately
provided anyway (a partnership of GPs running a surgery is a private
business just as much as a limited company doing the same), or which
were never part of the NHS's core remit (like typing up records and
driving trucks about the place) and so have rightly been outsourced,
or which are a dodgy financing trick with no real privatisation (PFI -
in the NHS context, this does not involve operational responsibility).

If a large proportion of NHS hospitals were actually privately run,
then we'd have a situation comparable to the Tube PFI. They aren't; we
don't.

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

On 14 May 2007 03:16:03 -0700, John B wrote:

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).

The objection to PFI is that it is an incredibly inefficient way of
funding major capital projects. The government can borrow money more
cheaply than private companies - but Brown doesn't want all that
borrowing on his balance sheet, so off it goes to private companies at
higher interest rates.

On 14 May, 16:28, James Farrar wrote:
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).

The objection to PFI is that it is an incredibly inefficient way of
funding major capital projects. The government can borrow money more
cheaply than private companies - but Brown doesn't want all that
borrowing on his balance sheet, so off it goes to private companies at
higher interest rates.

I know that's the objection; that's why I opposed PFI when the plans
were being drawn up.

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.

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

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

On May 12, 8:08 pm, Boltar wrote:
On May 12, 5:36 pm, "zen83237" wrote:

He also the Mayor of London and a more responsible attitude might be
expected. I wonder what the reaction would be if the Defence Secretary said
that BAES should go bankrupt just because he a personal hatred of BAES.

If BAES had taken over control of the military from the MOD in some
non recindable multi decade contract by order of the treasury and
subsequently caused a number of battles to be lost by their
incompetance then I bloody well hope the defense secretary would say
something.


That isn't the analagy that I made. Yours would would be the same as
Metronet taking over TfL. Its Defence Secretary. The Defense Secretary
is in the USA.
Shouldn't Ken take it up with his mates Tony and Gordon. The contracts were
let legally.

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.

Thats dabatable.

Since this was all fairly predictable given the state of the national
railways it could be argued that gordon brown and the treasury
deliberately forced this bitter pill onto london knowing full well the
end result and therefor their actions could be seen to be illegal
since they go against governmental mandate.

B2003

The contract still followed the correct tendering process and was
legally let.

Kevin

Andy wrote:
"www.waspies.net" wrote in message
...
More on Metromess from the BBC

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/6649377.stm
No money, poor performance, and crap pay for the lowest, welcome to
Gordons world.
I'm sorry but I don't see where Metronet is mentioned other than with
Tubelines in the PPP sence. There is debate but you are just bashing!


Cleaners are employed by contractors employed by Metromess, the contract
between Metromess and the cleaning company should state that they are
paid the living wage, but because Metromess and Tubecrimes are only
interested in their bottom line they won't do that and will take the
contract that costs the least rather than the one that pays the staff
more to do a better job.