Tom Anderson wrote:
On Fri, 25 Apr 2008, Mizter T wrote:
The Guardian story suggests that the Mayor has in essence won over
central government. My question is thus a simple one - if Boris Johnson
is elected next week instead of Ken Livingstone, would government
ministers be at all keen to go ahead with a plan that allows TfL to
takeover - or at least have a substantial role to play in the running of
- the South London Metro routes, which would effectively hand him an
early victory, one which was basically the result of Ken Livingstone's
long-term game plan, or would they just pull the plug on it all?
I think it would be utterly unthinkable for them to derail the project out
of political spite. As Mr Farrar points out, they'd be shooting themselves
in the feet in PR terms, and it would probably be illegal, not to mention
very difficult to put over on the various rail industry quangos [1] who
are already lined up behind it.
But ...
All that depends on there already being enough momentum established to
carry the project through. If there is, ministers can't stop it without
the foot-shooting. But if this is all still in the early stage, which i
think it is, there's any amount of foot-dragging that the government can
do to stall it. Stuff that isn't obviously negative, like demanding that
TfL produce a more detailed safety/environmental/business/operational case
than they have so far, or take on more of the cost or risk (more than
they'd be willing to), or suddenly reconsidering Southern's bid, etc.
Standard political wiles that ministers could do in their sleep.
First off, see my response upthread to James Farrar where I address
some of these points.
But the critical phrase you use is momentum - one gets the distinct
impression that this isn't a done deal, and - and I'm really not just
saying this for partisan reasons - Ken Livingstone *is* the momentum
on this project. You speak earlier of rail industry quangos possibly
being lined up behind it - well, first off, there aren't really any
rail industry quangos that have a say in these matters, it is DfT
Rail's decision, and DfT is a government department led by a
ministerial team. TfL's London Rail division is meanwhile part of the
Greater London local governance apparatus, and ATOC is an industry
body, one which represents the interests of its private sector
members.
Both the Times and Guardian articles [1] I linked to in my original
post (thanks Mr Thant) are an interesting read, The Times one for a
broad brush overview of Mayor Ken's grand plan, the Guardian one for
some specifics about the possibly TfL takeover of South London Metro
routes.
The Guardian article clearly notes opposition both from the other
train operators, and also from within DfT Rail. The idea that this
plan has an inevitable momentum that will just carry it on through
just isn't justified in my view. The winds can change quickly, so it
could all just fall apart, or it could be watered down significantly -
it needs the case to be made unremittingly right up until the deal is
agreed and signed upon.
Bear in mind that this is in effect central government devolving more
power away from themselves, something that never comes naturally, and
something they have no obligation to do. Some in DfT Rail are also
apparently concerned at the idea of splitting the franchise up - I
understand that there are some potential issues here, but I don't
think it's anything that's unresolvable. I dare say that one part of
the thinking is that Southern's profitable Sussex coast services in
effect subsidise their other operations in South London. Transferring
them to TfL would mean the DfT would have to take a more active role
in cross-subsidising services, something that is an anathema to those
who have been trying to engineer a more hands-off approach in the
government's financial attitude to the railways. In addition handing
control of these routes to TfL would mean they'd spend more on them -
bear in mind that just under half of TfL's budget comes from a grant
from central government, you can see that some in government might be
worry that handing TfL control would entail something of a financial
commitment.
There are a number of counter argument to that - not least that fact
that fare box revenue has substantially increased on the London
Overground network since TfL took control due principally to them
actually conducting some revenue protection (on South London Metro
routes buying a ticket seems to be entirely optional - see this recent
uk.r post for example [2]); the fact that such revenue would continue
to go up as more people were attracted to travel by rail; the argument
that TfL would be far more efficient and effective in spending any
subsidy than a private TOC would be, and the basic acceptance that
providing decent public transport does cost money.
But I'm getting sidetracked. Ken has been driving this whole idea
forward right from when he first got into office (indeed one could
even point to his attempts in the early 80's, as leader of the GLC, to
include British Rail in the fares fair scheme - an attempt that was
blocked by central government before the whole Fares Fair scheme
collapsed as a result of a fairly political legal challenge from LB
Bromley - but it does perhaps demonstrate the provenance of his
thinking when it comes to such matters).
I just think that perhaps he's the only protagonist who can get the
planets to line up on this one, and to actually make it happen.
And anyway, a much better strategy is to let it go through, then scheme to
make sure it goes horribly wrong, leaving Boris looking incompetent.
I realise you say that half in jest, but I do genuinely doubt that
anyone in government would actually want to sabotage anything in this
manner. More likely, perhaps, is that the scheme gets watered down
beyond all recognition, and TfL ends up with a much diminished role.
-----
[1] The Times and Guardian articles:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...cle2903879.ece
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2...on08.transport
[2] uk.r post about lack of ticket inspections on South London Metro:
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk....f3137ba6bba441