Apparently Steve Norris, newly appointed to TfL and the LDA, will be handed the job of managing Crossrail, the £16bn project to drive two railways tunnels through the heart of London to link up east and west. It’s a serious (and seriously eye-watering) project demanding a skilled operator. Let’s weigh up Norris’ credentials here, with the aid of a classic I’m Sorry I Haven’t A Clue game:
Good News - he’s had a long time and apparently genuine personal interest in transport issues
Bad News - it seems to be very biased towards road (Road Haulage Association) and cycling (National Cycling Strategy Board), rather than metro and heavy rail as you’d need in this position. Most people in London don’t get to work in trucks or on bikes.
Good News - he’s got substantial business experience in the railway and engineering industry, which should stand him in good stead
Bad News - it was mostly with Jarvis
Good News - he only became chairman in 2003, after the Potters Bar derailment in May 2002.
Bad News - he was already a non-executive director at the time of the crash…
Worse News - …and during the astonishing lapses that led to the Aldwarke derailment the following November which resulted in a £400,000 fine and this damning verdict from the judge
As every child with a train set knows if you let a train run where there is no track there will be [a] crash.
Even Worse News - he claimed there was ‘prima facie evidence of sabotage’ shortly after Potters Bar, and long before the accident had been fully investigated
Worst News - even after he became chairman it took another six months before the company admitted responsibility for Potters Bar and accepted that their previous claim of sabotage was bunkum. This led to Nina Bawden*, who lost her husband in the crash to opine that “Steve Norris is not a fit candidate to be London mayor as head of Jarvis”. Steve Norris is currently Executive Chairman of Jarvis.
Good News - they’d already abandoned the rail maintenance business…
Bad News - …to concentrate on things like their stake in the Underground PPP consortium Tube Lines…
Worse News - …and rail renewal work
Good News - at least it wasn’t Metronet, Tube Lines is the one that worked reasonably well under the insane PPP system
Bad News - they’d already sold out, in 2005
Worse News - to Ferrovial, the people who own Heathrow
Good News - they’re nevertheless keen fans of the PFI/PPP
Bad News - because it’s extremely lucrative for the private sector. What the public thinks of this isn’t apparently important.
Good News - Norris at least has experience of running a large scale London underground rail project from the political end
Bad News - it was the Jubilee Line extension, which cost £1.4bn more than expected, an overrun of a whopping 66%, and arrived several years after the development it serves (contrast the current developments at Shoreditch and Dalston Junction which will arrive *after* the East London Line opens, of which more later, since it touches on important Mayoral coherent strategy issues)
Worse News - the JLE was originally supposed to be a Thatcherite star project, funded by generous wodges of private cash (check Hansard back in about 1993), but in the end the private sector contribution was only some £300m, paid over a whopping 24 years (at the end of which time inflation will render the final payments of £5m a year virtually worthless). This contribution was described by a member of the project team as ‘peanuts’ which nevertheless held up the project by 18 months.
Worst News - Crossrail is already several years late and much more expensive than it should be. This is partly as a result of the JLE overrun scaring off the Treasury, although the reasons for delay go deeper and include the early 90s recession and some inexplicable political manoeuverings by Labour at the same time, plus the subsequent funding shenanigans. From where we are now, we can’t afford Crossrail to go tits up in the same way JLE did, or the successor projects like Chelsea-Hackney will get kicked further into the future.
In short - not a bad appointment, but the previous black marks of JLE and particularly the Jarvis sabotage claim do indicate that perhaps there isn’t a lot of choice when it comes to this role. That is if you absolutely *have* to appoint a Conservative, which seems to be the case in Boris’ London (likewise Kulveer Ranger, the rather young new Director of Transport Policy, just happens to be the Party’s Vice-Chairman and a former parliamentary candidate). I’m not sure how this counts as a move away from political cronyism, perhaps someone could explain that one.
* Declaration of Interest - the Bawdens are family friends of my parents
Tags:
24 responses so far ↓
Good news- you filled in some blanks for me on Norris.
Bad news- He now looks even worse to me.
Oh well I suppose it could be worse. Boris could be in charge of it.
The good news: We’re not paying an extraorinarily exorbitant amount of taxpayer’s money to an American alcoholic to do, as he himself admitted, next to nothing as London’s Commissioner for Transport.
The bad news: We’re obliged to tolerate the background noise of persistent whining from the defeated left, who are determined indulge and re-inforce their prejudices over every piece of petty trivia. Ah well, c’est la vie!
Just wondering what you think of Boris’s appointment of Munira Mirza, and how she fits into your ‘cronyism’ thesis?
Whether or not the Mayor of London fulfills his promises to the electorate and who he employs to do that may be trivia to you Will but not to others.
And I suppose when Labour won the last general election you just rolled over and decided you would accept everything they did for ever more?
Faced with your party having lost, you said ‘right that’s it I shall never complain again. They are the elected party of government and I must get behind them for the good of the nation.’
Wasn’t that the Daily Mail’s response?
Whether or not the Mayor of London fulfills his promises to the electorate and who he employs to do that may be trivia to you Will but not to others”
Well, we’ll just have to see whether or not he fulfils his promises, won’t we? And I’ll just have to take it for granted that you were just as affronted by Ken’s appointment of corrupt cronies, who, surprise surprise, were all drawn from the same defunct crypto-communist party and were all demonstrably unqualified for the job. Because Boris employs some people from his own party (although by no means all, unlike Ken) you incorrectly label this as ‘cronyism’. Well, I suppose it’s all a mater of definition. Yours is evidently, and quite deliberately, slightly looser than mine.
“And I suppose when Labour won the last general election you just rolled over and decided you would accept everything they did for ever more? Faced with your party having lost, you said ‘right that’s it I shall never complain again. They are the elected party of government and I must get behind them for the good of the nation.” Well, there was not a lot I could do about it - but I managed to resist the temptation to set a self-righteous blog where I could assuage my effrontery and pontificate pompously from a position of complete impotence. I chose not to, you know, having other things to do and all that. But I suppose it could’ve provided a counterbalance to my supreme political powerlessness. Do you find it helps with yours Troll man?
“Wasn’t that the Daily Mail’s response?” I’ve no idea – I can’t help with that, I’m afraid.
“Just wondering what you think of Boris’s appointment of Munira Mirza, and how she fits into your ‘cronyism’ thesis?”
No cronyism, but she will be the third appointee from the Policy Exchange think-tank.
“I managed to resist the temptation to set a self-righteous blog where I could assuage my effrontery and pontificate pompously from a position of complete impotence. I chose not to, you know, having other things to do and all that.”
And yet you spend a great amount of time pontificating on this website. It is not ‘wearisome trivia’ to point out that a public figure has previously told falsehoods about a major disaster.
For that to be a halfway relevant comment, WillH, everyone appointed by Ken Livingstone would have had to be a member of Socialist Action, which last time I looked Christopher Garnett, Board Member at TfL*, wasn’t (in fact he was head of a privatised rail company and apparently Virginia Bottomley’s brother). Ken’s team was pretty broad-based, in fact, so given the campaign he ran Boris’ team has to be *at least* as good, and better if he’s to be able to demonstrate improvement here. So far, since it’s overwhelmingly dominated by white men from Tory Boroughs and committed Tories, it isn’t. There are huge areas of the capital who seem to be entirely excluded, although it’s nice to see serial underachiever Kate Hoey find a billet.
* TfL’s board page is now updated with Boris at the top, so you can see quite how stuffed with Ken cronies it is. Eva Lindholm, for instance, appointed in 2006 from the socialist paradise of, er, J. P. Morgan
Tom, what’s your problem with white men? You’re not racist are you?
I’m off to delete my blog and cry over my political impotence
Thank you Mr Will H for letting us all know our place in the world. Spread the word everyone- don’t bother writing blogs, as there are better things to do - like commenting on other peoples blogs for example.
I’m off to delete my blog and cry over my political impotence” Well, please don’t let me stop you…
“Spread the word everyone- don’t bother writing blogs, as there are better things to do” Not quite what I said, just don’t bother writing the self-righteous, prejudiced and pompous ones. Yours, for example (see above).
“like commenting on other peoples blogs ” Not something you would do is it, Mr. Tory Troll?
And Ben, I don’t consider that I spend a ‘great deal’ of time here. Just enough to ensure that this place doesn’t descend into a frenzied circle-jerk of self-indulgence. I’m here to help!
And I must of missed the bit about where Norris told ‘falsehoods about a major disaster’…are you still going on about when he said there was prima facie evidence of sabotage? I think the important words there are ‘prima’ and ‘facie’.
Steve Norris: “When you actually see the prima facie evidence, it’s pretty clear - certainly for anybody who understands the railways - that some tampering has been going on here.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1996250.stm
So, either he was spreading falsehoods or he knows nothing about railways.
“So, either he was spreading falsehoods or he knows nothing about railways” Sorry Ben, no matter how hard you try to shoe-horn it in that simply is not a logical conclusion. I refer you to my comment above, and to the findings of the inquiry in this respect.
If he had seen prima facie evidence suggesting sabotage, then surely he was obliged to say so? Or are you suggesting there was no such evidence? If that’s the case then yes, he’s spreading falsehoods, or lying. Unfortunately (for you) there is no suggestion of this, is there?
No, he shouldn’t have made a public claim, he should have presented it to the investigation, who found no evidence of sabotage and wrote:
“Subject to the discovery of any evidence to suggest sabotage or deliberate unauthorised interference, the Board considers that the investigations so far show that the most likely underlying cause of the derailment was the poor condition of points 2182A at the time of the incident, and that this resulted from inappropriate adjustment and from insufficient maintenance compared to what was necessary for their operating environment and safety functions.”
“…the investigations so far show that the most likely underlying cause of the derailment was the poor condition of points 2182A at the time of the incident…”
And you’re trying to pin the blame for this on Norris, who was not even in charge of Jarvis at the time?
To say that these charges are nebulous and weak is somewhat of an understatement, wouldn’t you agree? And it’s this on this which the crux of your argument rests? I think you’ve got to do better than that.
No, Will, you’re moving the goalposts in order to sound quaveringly self-righteous. I’m not and have never said that Norris was in any way responsible for the disaster, I’m saying that he made an unsubstantiated claim that sabotage was the cause of it and took far too long in admitting that he was wrong.
Apologies BenSix, it was Pastyface who said:
“any more info on the story that Johnson is giving Crossrail project to Norris? This is a shocking decision. A man responsible for Potters Bar …”
I get confused – it’s hard to keep up with all the smears around here.
So correct me if I’m wrong, but in essence your problem with the appointment of Steven Norris is that a few years ago he made an “unsubstantiated claim that sabotage was the cause of it [Potter's Bar] and took far too long in admitting that he was wrong”. Is that it?
I have absolutely no reason to suppose that at the time the sabotage claims were made (and which did not originate from him, incidentally) they were ‘unsubstantiated’. Do you? If so, I’d be interested in seeing any relevant information that shows he was lying. And whether or not it took far too long for these claims to be withdrawn is relative. I have now idea why the claims were withdrawn within the subsequent timescale, and nor do I suppose, do you. As I say, it’s all a bit nebulous, isn’t it? And you think these laughably ambiguous charges should prevent him from holding office, do you?
It’s the double standards here that I find so alarming. You’re all so willing to completely disregard and forgive the blatant corruption rife at the heart of Ken’s regime, but start to splutter at the vaguest whiff of an alleged misdemeanour by an associate of the new mayor.
Oh and Ben, I have never ‘quavered’ in my life thankyouverymuch!
“I have absolutely no reason to suppose that at the time the sabotage claims were made (and which did not originate from him, incidentally) they were ‘unsubstantiated’.”
Well, the fact that they weren’t and never have been substantiated really does suggest that they were unsubstantiated, don’t you think? I’m not sure what your standards are, Will, but I believe that if one is going to make claims about the cause of a tragedy then one has a responsibility to fully explain one’s beliefs. I also find your explanation that ‘they didn’t originate from him’ laughable, in that if he was merely parroting the party line it would prove that he was lying. Let me reiterate his claim that it was ‘pretty clear - certainly for anybody who understands the railways - that some tampering ha[d] been going on.”
If you’ve been injured or lost loved ones in an accident then you have a right to know how it came to occur. It could be, I don’t know, hurtful if somebody claims to be aware of the cause but doesn’t give an explanation.
“As I say, it’s all a bit nebulous, isn’t it?”
No, you think that it’s ‘petty trivia’ but let’s press on…
“And you think these laughably ambiguous charges should prevent him from holding office, do you?”
Umm…no, I’ve never claimed that.
“You’re all so willing to completely disregard and forgive the blatant corruption rife at the heart of Ken’s regime”
Umm…no, I’ve never said that.
“Oh and Ben, I have never ‘quavered’ in my life thankyouverymuch!”
You were making the releasing of tendentious ad hominems seem like such fun that I couldn’t help but join the fray!
Again, I should repeat that I think you’ve missed the point of this weblog. We’re not trying to drag Boris into the mire - our jaws slavering with Marxist malice - we’re to help find and release some information that the papers may have missed (the point of any critical weblog).
When I desire to practice my more fierce impotent self-righteous socialism I find a rather more intimidating target.
Oh dear Ben, its all getting a bit confused. “Well, the fact that they weren’t and never have been substantiated really does suggest that they were unsubstantiated, don’t you think?” You’ll have to go back and read my comment. The key words are “AT THE TIME”. At the time there was very credible evidence to suggest sabotage or vandalism was the cause of the derailment. And the inconclusive inquiry does not totally discount this as a possible theory. If you’re deliberately misreading my comments this is going to get very tedious.
“also I find your explanation that ‘they didn’t originate from him’ laughable” Well, perhaps you should read this article in the Guardian from May 2002 (two days after the crash) suggesting sabotage, citing ‘experts’ propagating the vandalism theory - 17 months before Norris took over as chairman of Jarvis: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2002/may/12/transport.byers
This suggests that they didn’t originate from him, don’t you think?
“And you think these laughably ambiguous charges should prevent him from holding office, do you?”
Umm…no, I’ve never claimed that.” – So, what exactly is your problem with his appointment?
WillH,
No, you’re either misunderstanding me or being deliberately obtuse. Norris actually contradicted your article. The experts cited said that they ‘fear[ed] vandalism’. They didn’t say that it’s ‘pretty clear’ that it’s vandalism and then fail to give a substantiated explanation. If you’re going to claim that ‘anyone who understands trains’ would know that it was sabotage, you should say WHY.
“So, what exactly is your problem with his appointment?”
I’m giving a valid criticism, I’m not saying that it disqualifies him. I think that there are many valid criticisms of Boris, but I don’t think that they disqualify him from his position.
Ben, I’ve got to admire your tenacity. Misplaced, of course.
So, by your own admission the experts ‘feared’ vandalsim and Norris said it was”pretty clear” vandalsim was resposnible. Is this what it boils down to; the difference in these two interpretations? - semantics? And I’ll take it you withdraw your claim that these allegations originated from him, shall I? Indeed, you felt it was “laughable” that they didn’t, didn’t you? We’ve since established otherwise, haven’t we?
Will, you have a curious desire to declarations to me that I’ve never made nor even considered. I said that it was “laughable” to claim that Norris had merely misunderstood fears of vandalism when he stated that it was ‘pretty clear’ it was sabotage. I have never claimed that the theory originated from him, and I’d ask you to either find a quote that proves that I have or read posts more thoroughly before reacting to them.
“Is this what it boils down to; the difference in these two interpretations?”
If you imagine that Norris read of “fears” of vandalism and then concluded that it must be ‘pretty clear - certainly for anybody who understands the railways - that some tampering ha[d] been going on’ then you must at least concede that he was behaving with extraordinary idiocy.
“semantics?”
I’m sure that the families of the victims treated his claims with equal flippancy.
Apologies, my last post should say ‘attribute declarations’.