On Mon, 26 May 2008, MIG wrote:

On May 26, 8:39*am, Tom Barry wrote:
Tom Anderson wrote:

Which part of LU did he privatise? I take it you're not referring to the
PPP, which he fought tooth and nail.

A number of people on the left (the very hard left, this is) see the
closure of the ELL and its incorporate into a privately operated London
Overground as a privatisation. I don't, particularly, because it's a
good idea and you have to set it against the fact that greater public
control applies on the rest of LO, the creation of which is hardly a
right-wing act.

My understanding is that LO will be run on the same model as the DLR, as a
concession. My further understanding is that whilst the DLR is built,
maintained and operated by a private company, the assets belong to TfL,
who also set the fares and service level. That doesn't sound like
privatisation to me. It's not a million miles from what happened to the
tube, though, although on the DLR, it seems to work a lot better.

Is my understanding right, though? Do TfL own the DLR assets? The the
tracks and stations? The trains? The other chattels? If not, would they
revert to them if the concession was terminated? Would they have any kind
of right to buy them at set price?

Er, because Ken admitted that it was privatisation?

Hmm. I'm surprised to hear that.

LO is a step in the right direction. ELL is a step in the opposite
direction. The best outcome would have been for LU operations to be
extended, running all the services on the extension.

Why?

And what do you suppose Boris's clique will make of the example? Which
next bit of LU will be handed over to a private franchise, as warned by
the "hard left"

Hopefully, any and all bits where this would improve value for money for
the travelling public.

("hard" is a strange word to use about such soft people)?

"Such soft people"? As my old technology teacher once pointed out, we're
all equal on the Mohs scale.

tom

--
If this is your first night, you have to fight.