In message , at 12:36:17 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:

I'm assuming

Well, there you go.

Well, it's a pretty safe assumption, and you don't have any facts,
either.

Come back when you have some.

--
Roland Perry

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:24:38 +0000, Robin wrote:

And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask
why Londoners who don't should be bailed out.

Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing
Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired
fleets.

Trumped by a political promise. The costs of breaking them are
unquantifiable.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they
aren't.

--
Colin Rosenstiel

In message , at 12:38:11 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:
This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing.

I am long past the need to know but thought that accounting standards
had now stopped such sale and leaseback deals escaping the balance
sheet. I can't see TfL arguing successfully it's an operating lease.
And I think IFRS16 removes even that distinction from next year for
plant and machinery so TfL would have to show a “right to use the stock�
asset and a "lease" liability on their balance sheet.

It would be much
cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly.
Cheaper for TfL, yes. Whether it's cheaper for the country depends on
what the bond markets decide about UK national debt.

And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask
why Londoners who don't should be bailed out.

Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing
Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired
fleets.

Because the Mayor made it an election commitment.

If he goes back on that, he may well not get re-elected, which party
politics aside, will very likely cause turbulence costing more than this
one-off deal's low interest rates on money to prop up day to day
operations; which they can't raise as a free-standing loan because
that's not how public financing works.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:31:36 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:37:01 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-septe
mber.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising taxes
is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more cheaply,
thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But can it borrow money to prop up TfL's current account? Remember - the
funds raised by the sale/leaseback are being used keep TfL going on a
day to day basis.

No, as stated in Paul's tweet that started this thread, they're to
help fund the new Piccadilly line fleet.

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:05 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 12:09:56 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message
-s
eptember.org, at 11:17:32 on Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner
remarked:

How do you know what the cost of political upheaval after raising
taxes is likely to be?

But they wouldn't raise taxes. They'd just borrow the money more
cheaply, thus ultimately reducing future taxes.

What makes you think they have the power to borrow the money required?

Are you joking? Of course the Treasury can borrow more. It does so
all the time.

But the Treasury has to give TfL permission to borrow through them. And they
aren't.

I agree, but as I'm saying that's increasing the costs. Or TfL could
be allowed to issue its own bonds, which wouldn't be quite as cheap as
doing it through the Treasury, but would be a fraction of the cost of
a sale and leaseback of an old Tube fleet.

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:32:44 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:36:17 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:

I'm assuming

Well, there you go.

Well, it's a pretty safe assumption, and you don't have any facts,
either.

Come back when you have some.

And vice versa. Not having facts or the latest publicly available
information certainly doesn't stop you commenting on everything.
Indeed, why did you even join this thread, as you have zero facts
related to it?

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:37:12 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:38:11 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:
This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing.

I am long past the need to know but thought that accounting standards
had now stopped such sale and leaseback deals escaping the balance
sheet. I can't see TfL arguing successfully it's an operating lease.
And I think IFRS16 removes even that distinction from next year for
plant and machinery so TfL would have to show a “right to use the stock”
asset and a "lease" liability on their balance sheet.

It would be much
cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly.
Cheaper for TfL, yes. Whether it's cheaper for the country depends on
what the bond markets decide about UK national debt.

And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask
why Londoners who don't should be bailed out.

Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing
Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired
fleets.

Because the Mayor made it an election commitment.

If he goes back on that, he may well not get re-elected, which party
politics aside, will very likely cause turbulence costing more than this
one-off deal's low interest rates on money to prop up day to day
operations; which they can't raise as a free-standing loan because
that's not how public financing works.

Again, get your facts straight: this is not to prop up day-to-day
operation. I know you love speculating without facts, while pretending
to know what you're talking about, but you could have at least read
the tweet that started this thread.

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 07:33:04 -0600,
wrote:

In article ,
(Recliner) wrote:

On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 11:24:38 +0000, Robin wrote:

And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask
why Londoners who don't should be bailed out.

Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing
Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired
fleets.

Trumped by a political promise.

True

The costs of breaking them are unquantifiable.

Not unquantifiable, but unpredictable.

On Mon, 08 Jan 2018 13:50:15 +0000
Recliner wrote:
On Mon, 8 Jan 2018 13:37:12 +0000, Roland Perry
wrote:

In message , at 12:38:11 on
Mon, 8 Jan 2018, Recliner remarked:
This is a form of off-balance sheet government borrowing.

I am long past the need to know but thought that accounting standards
had now stopped such sale and leaseback deals escaping the balance
sheet. I can't see TfL arguing successfully it's an operating lease.
And I think IFRS16 removes even that distinction from next year for
plant and machinery so TfL would have to show a “right to use the stock”
asset and a "lease" liability on their balance sheet.

It would be much
cheaper if the Treasury borrowed the money directly.
Cheaper for TfL, yes. Whether it's cheaper for the country depends on
what the bond markets decide about UK national debt.

And people outside London paying increased fares year by year might ask
why Londoners who don't should be bailed out.

Yes, that does the raise the question of why TfL is still freezing
Tube fares when it doesn't have enough budget to renew life-expired
fleets.

Because the Mayor made it an election commitment.

If he goes back on that, he may well not get re-elected, which party
politics aside, will very likely cause turbulence costing more than this
one-off deal's low interest rates on money to prop up day to day
operations; which they can't raise as a free-standing loan because
that's not how public financing works.

Again, get your facts straight: this is not to prop up day-to-day
operation. I know you love speculating without facts, while pretending
to know what you're talking about, but you could have at least read
the tweet that started this thread.

Whatever the reason, if it this has been devised by Boris or some other Tory
mayor you can gaurantee corbyn, abbot and the other usual suspects would be
making hay in parliament and on TV about it. You'd be able to hear the squeals
of righteous indignation from across the channel. But because its little khan
golden boy there hasn't been a squeak from any of them.