Bob Kiley, London’s Transport Commissioner said it. ‘It smells like privatisation. It walks like privatisation. It talks like privatisation.’ We have all known what Labour’s PPP plan for the Tube really is all along, but it’s been a bit like the Emperor’s New Clothes in the Labour camp. The Public Private Partnership. The privatisation that dare not speak its name.

So where are we now in this sorry, sad and dangerous saga? The much-heralded compromise talks between John Prescott and Bob Kiley have fallen apart. Mayor Livingstone and Kiley have gone to court and judicial review is on the agenda for mid-June (just a few days after any general election on June 7!).

And where are the Liberal Democrats in all of this? Holding firm to our twin commitments: to keep the Tube in public ownership and to fund this by a bonds revenue issue. It is the only safe, economic way forward.

Livingstone has half backed down. He says he is now happy to give up bonds as a way to raise the revenue if, in exchange, he can get a convoluted, bastardised compromise that through some legal contractual nightmarish twists sort of allows a ‘unified’ management structure for the Tube.

In answer to one of my questions at Mayor’s Question Time, Livingstone basically said he didn’t care where the money came from. Well that’s old Ken – not caring about where the money comes from, even if that means things costing far more in the long run – and PPP will cost far more than bonds, with all the bad knock-on effects that means for levels of service and ticket prices.

Of course, it is no surprise that Ken is willing to wobble on such a key issue, because ultimately he wants to crawl back into the Labour womb. He is caught between wanting to fight for London and wanting to get back in to the Labour party.

Despite Livingstone’s best efforts, there are a number of reasons why there can be no clean, clear, economic and safe compromise position on the Tube.

Firstly, there is no compromise between owning 51% of a company and therefore having control over it – or not having control. Any legal structure, which seeks to negate this basic tenet of business, will be so complicated and so torturous, that only lawyers will benefit – not London. Kiley has made it quite clear that without a unified management structure and without overall control of day-to-day maintenance – the Tube will not be safe. Currently, the Tube has a very good safety record that can be attributed to the fact, despite the management often being poor, it does at least have unified management. Splitting it up between three private companies and Transport for London will build in a fault line making the Tube an accident waiting to happen.

Secondly, as much as Prescott continues to state that the Government is pushing ahead with PPP and that this is an absolutely wonderful way to fund a safe Tube – his two favourite ‘spins’ are false. One – That the Tube will remain in public ownership because after the 30 year contract the ‘assets’ revert to Transport for London. Translated from the warm words this means that for 30 years the Tube will not be in public ownership. Two – that the London public need not worry because safety comes first with the government and they will not proceed until the Health & Safety Executive pronounce it safe so to do.

London Underground has to make the ‘safety case’ to the Health & Safety Executive. Cold comfort then to know that this ‘safety case’ has already failed three times and if it ever succeeds, who knows what they will have had to do to get around the innumerable difficulties. And Prescott, remember, was determined to steam ahead and hand over large parts of the Tube system to Railtrack until the Ladbroke Grove tragedy forced even him to have second thoughts.

Thirdly, this whole row is nothing to do with what is best for London’s Tube. Make no mistake; this is a battle to the death over power. If Gordon Brown and the Treasury relax fiscal rules to allow Ken to raise money by a bonds issue for the Tube, what else might Ken then wish to raise money for in this way? And what other Mayors in other future cities, or indeed what other public bodies might then wish to raise money this way? And – oh my goodness – if Ken can raise money to achieve things for London, he might have real power and London’s devolution would no longer be the toothless regional government that Labour intended. If the Government lose fiscal control, ultimately they lose political control. For the most controlling government in living memory that is the nightmare of all nightmares. Therein lies the true difficulty. Labour wants power, and it doesn’t want Mayor Livingstone.

Given everything that has happened in the last few months, it is easy to forget what happened during the London Mayor contest last year. In that Mayoral contest, Dobson – the official Labour candidate – stood on an anti-Tube privatisation ticket. It was there in black and white in his ten-point plan for London. Check out point number three.

All Labour’s GLA candidates stood with him on this programme, many happily appearing in leaflets, press releases and photo opportunities backing Dobson and his plan. But where are they now? Having run for election claiming to be opposed to Tube privatisation, they are now firmly backing it in the guise of PPP.

Well, Labour may have got away with this last year, but at the next general election we can make sure that reality catches up with them. I have no doubt that in the election, Labour candidates for Parliament will also try and infer in their literature and in their press releases that they are actually against privatisation or that the PPP is not really privatisation. Don’t let them get away with it!