KHOODEELAAR! contextually commenting on the latest 'mainstream' 'think tank' call for the scrapping of Crossrail..

1535 [1440] Hrs GMT London Sunday 20 September 2009:

Editor © Muhammad Haque.

KHOODEELAAR! No to “Big Business agenda Crossrail scam..” Campaign told you so for almost six years now. We have ANALYSED for almost six years every aspect of the alleged economic benefits to the East End of London. We have analytically concluded that Crossrail was far from being a sound project.. we have shown why £Billions should be saved by scrapping Crossrail. We have said with evidence and reference on each substantive occasion in the campaign of opposition to the Crossrail scam over the past 5 years and eight months that Crossrail was not an economic urgency. Indeed we have shown Crossrail to be a vehicle for diverting public money for the profit of scam-organising tout outfits and their agents in the UK Parliament..We have also observed the role of the ‘mainstream’. The ‘mainstream’ media. The ‘mainstream’ political parties. The ‘mainstream’ ‘think tanks’. On Saturday, we noted that the London DAILY MIRROR, for the first time in our view and knowledge, has joined the long overdue ‘campaign’. For the scrapping of the wasteful, the diversionary scam Crossrail. The London DAILY MIRROR called for or stated the need for the axing of Crossrail. Today [Sunday 20 September 2009] we reproduce below the Right-wing [on which ‘denomination’ we shall elucidate and elaborate at a later date by way of update and context] ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE making the assertion that “there are compelling financial cases for abandoning the Crossrail project”. We have chronicled similar calls as made by other Right-wing media or via the same right wing media for the scrapping of Crossrail on the ground of costs alone. We have shown the trend including such longtime peddlers of Crossrail in London as the London School of Economics-Linked Tony Travers, the London-originated weekly the ECONOMIST, the Rupert Murdoched London Tomes newspaper, a former editor of the ECONOMIST and of the London Evening Standard Simon Jenkins, the Political editor of the London Sunday ‘The People’ Nigel Nelson. all of them have in one way or another said that Crossrail is not worth it, scrap it..

.[To be continued]


The ADAM SMITH INSTITUTE’ interpretation of CROSSRAIL:
“In recent weeks, much political debate has focussed on public expenditure, which – given the unprecedented levels of government borrowing – needs to be cut sharply. However, most solutions being put forward focus on scrapping or cutting spending on individual programmes. Whilst there are compelling financial cases for abandoning the Crossrail project, for substantially reducing the costs of the replacement Trident programme and for means-testing child benefit, this pick n’ mix approach is not analytical.
Instead, the next Government should implement a top-down approach by focussing on the 2009/10 public expenditure projection – before interest – of £671 billion: any Government forecasts beyond the current year carry little credibility. To regain control of public expenditure, ongoing real cuts of c3% per year should be applied to this figure. Hence, for 2010/11, the next Government should aim for a £650 billion out-turn. Subsequently, departmental budgets should be specified by the Treasury to enable such a figure - before any unforeseen contingency items - to be reached. Consequently, major spending departments, such as Social Security, Health, Education and Defence, should be required to operate within these figures.
It should also be made perfectly clear that - like the Chief Executive of any major plc - the Secretary of State is primarily responsible, with his ministerial team, for deciding how the allocated departmental budget is met. Top civil servants, including the departmental Permanent Secretary, should be obliged to play a leading role in ensuring that the best possible services are provided within the budgeted amount.
Any unreasonable failure to deliver should be punished in the same way as applicable to FTSE-100 Chief Executives, whose turnover ratio is high – though still well below that of Premier League football managers.
Of course, there would be political flak but is anything more important at present than regaining control of the UK’s parlous public finances?