I know this guy hates the PPP's but I thought his comments about the
best thing to happen would be for Metronet to go bankrupt was a bit
out of order for the Mayor of London and a senior member of the Labour
party.
I am sure that the many suppliers that would suffer financial hardship
not to mention the workers who would lose out financially as well.
Given that a Labour Government put the PPP's in place and now he is
back in the fold shouldn't he keep his mouth shut on such issues.

Kevin

On 11 May, 13:03, Kev wrote:
I know this guy hates the PPP's but I thought his comments about the
best thing to happen would be for Metronet to go bankrupt was a bit
out of order for the Mayor of London and a senior member of the Labour
party.

I agree with him.

I am sure that the many suppliers that would suffer financial hardship
not to mention the workers who would lose out financially as well.

No they wouldn't , maintenance would have to continue and the workers
would simply be taken back in house by LU.

Given that a Labour Government put the PPP's in place and now he is
back in the fold shouldn't he keep his mouth shut on such issues.

In a free country he's entitled to express his opinion especially
given virtually nobody other than the bean counters in the treasury
thought it was a good idea to start with.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 11 May, 13:03, Kev wrote:
I know this guy hates the PPP's but I thought his comments about the
best thing to happen would be for Metronet to go bankrupt was a bit
out of order for the Mayor of London and a senior member of the Labour
party.

I agree with him.

I am sure that the many suppliers that would suffer financial hardship
not to mention the workers who would lose out financially as well.

No they wouldn't , maintenance would have to continue and the workers
would simply be taken back in house by LU.

Given that a Labour Government put the PPP's in place and now he is
back in the fold shouldn't he keep his mouth shut on such issues.

In a free country he's entitled to express his opinion especially
given virtually nobody other than the bean counters in the treasury
thought it was a good idea to start with.

Presumably the bidders did.

tim

On 11 May, 18:51, "tim....." wrote:

Presumably the bidders did.

Doesn't say much about their financial acument does it.

B2003

"Boltar" wrote in message
ps.com...
On 11 May, 13:03, Kev wrote:
I know this guy hates the PPP's but I thought his comments about the
best thing to happen would be for Metronet to go bankrupt was a bit
out of order for the Mayor of London and a senior member of the Labour
party.

I agree with him.

I am sure that the many suppliers that would suffer financial hardship
not to mention the workers who would lose out financially as well.

No they wouldn't , maintenance would have to continue and the workers
would simply be taken back in house by LU.

Given that a Labour Government put the PPP's in place and now he is
back in the fold shouldn't he keep his mouth shut on such issues.

In a free country he's entitled to express his opinion especially
given virtually nobody other than the bean counters in the treasury
thought it was a good idea to start with.

B2003

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.
Shouldn't Ken take it up with his mates Tony and Gordon. The contracts were
let legally.

Kevin

On May 12, 5:36 pm, "zen83237" wrote:
"Boltar" wrote in message

ps.com...



On 11 May, 13:03, Kev wrote:
I know this guy hates the PPP's but I thought his comments about the
best thing to happen would be for Metronet to go bankrupt was a bit
out of order for the Mayor of London and a senior member of the Labour
party.

I agree with him.

I am sure that the many suppliers that would suffer financial hardship
not to mention the workers who would lose out financially as well.

No they wouldn't , maintenance would have to continue and the workers
would simply be taken back in house by LU.

Given that a Labour Government put the PPP's in place and now he is
back in the fold shouldn't he keep his mouth shut on such issues.

In a free country he's entitled to express his opinion especially
given virtually nobody other than the bean counters in the treasury
thought it was a good idea to start with.

B2003

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.
Shouldn't Ken take it up with his mates Tony and Gordon. The contracts were
let legally.

Kevin-


A responsible attitude to whom? Obviously you don't mean to the
electorate or the users of public transport, but presumably to
whatever greedy interests benefit from the PPP nonsense.

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.

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.
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

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 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.