Home from home

*** Currently blogging at http://www.betternation.org/ ***

Wednesday, June 20, 2007

Why the SNP have to go with the trams....

(1) The Auditor General

The gist of the Auditor General's report is that there is no problem with the main city centre/Leith rail link, giving it a "clean bill of health".

For the SNP to go against this decision by Audit Scotland would be foolish. Basically they would have gotten in the financial experts to make sure the numbers stacked up, the experts would say yes they do and then the SNP would be scrapping the plan anyway. If they were never interested in going ahead with the trams under any circumstances, why waste Audit Scotland's time?

(2) Money already spent

A fair whack of cash has already been spent on the project. £60m is quoted on the BBC here but it's unclear whether all of that has been spent or not. Either way, it's one reason why changing tack on a decision that is well underway is maybe not the best approach.

Update: Per the Audit Scotland Press Release, amounts spent to date = £79m out of a total cost of £593.8m (13.3% of the total)

(3) Consensus Politics

The SNP are outnumbered. A majority of the Holyrood MSPs prefer trams with Labour, Lib Dems, Tories and the Greens all in favour.

If the SNP are serious about this new consensus politics then they'll have to just accept a few decisions won't be going their way. And for me, this one is a no-brainer to give to the other side.

It is the first occasion where they have come up against all of the 3 parties and is therefore a good chance to set the right example that they are able to compromise.

So far, the only examples of consensus politics has been the SNP working with the Tories, and the SNP working with the Lib Dems and the SNP working with the Greens. They now need to show that consensus politics can also involve the SNP being in the minority.

(4) Popular Support

A bit tricky to judge this one as there has been some patchy polling on it. But by and large the trams do seem quite popular so flying in the face of such opinion might not be the smartest move for the nationalists if they are hoping to sweeten up the population over the next couple of years with a potential independence referendum in mind.

Update: Just found that Margo McDonald is in favour of the trams which is pretty much a guarantee that most Edinburgh residents want them.


(5) It's just good Politics.

Regardless of whether they think it's good value for money or not, or whether it would improve Edinburgh's congestion, or even if it will make a difference to the environment, they are in a win-win situation if they go ahead with the trams.

If they are a disaster, they can blame the other parties and play the "we told you so" card. (Alex, after all, is quite partial to playing the odd card here and there)

If the trams are a roaring success, then they can receive some plaudits for having the broad-mindedness to let them through even if they had some reservations at the time.



So, we'll just have to wait and see how pig-headed the nationalists choose to be about this one.


Personally, I don't want them and I don't think Edinburgh needs them, but the tram scheme should go ahead regardless.

6 comments:

Anonymous said...

Re point 4 - if even folk who are against the tramline think it must nonetheless be built (e.g. you) then support must be pretty high.

Jeff said...

Then again, if you are using my sole opinion as a sample, then you have 100% of Edinburgh residents who would rather not have them ;)


But you're right. Those that are against them, probably aren't that fussed either way (for example, me). Those that are in favour are probably more enthusiastic about it.


Basically, if you want a good barometer of what Edinburgh people in general want, just see which way Margo McDonald is voting ;)

doctorvee said...

Good post, although I do not agree with point two. Money already spent is a sunk cost. You can't do anything about it. You can only control future -- not past -- expenditure, so the decision should not hinge on past expenditure.

Jeff said...

Ah, sunk costs, good old Advanced Finance taught me those well.

I do take your point but they can't be completely ignored just because the money is already spent. I like to think about extremes.

If 97% of the costs had been spent, you could still call them "sunk costs" and scrap the project. Of course, chances are, spending the extra 3% will be well worth your while whatever the project is.

And if 0.01% of the money had been spent then of course it's an easy factor to ignore.

So somewhere between this 0.01% and 95% you get a grey area where you can argue the case either way. I think 13.3% is a sufficiently high figure that you can't so easily dismiss it as a "sunk cost".

Especially given that it's our money and not a private sector project (a factor so often overlooked!)

Chris said...

For what it's worth I'm thoroughly in favour of independence but even more in favour of the trams - so in the elections I found myself having to vote against the SNP with all three votes. Very annoying. Thank goodness for Margo though, she has sense.

About the airport rail link - remember the whole point of it is that it links the airport to all the cities and towns round about, NOT just to Edinburgh. Trains will go direct to the airport from Fife, Glasgow, Stirling, Perth, all over the place. It's amazing how many people seem to miss that.

freefun0616 said...

酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,

,
酒店,