Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 4)
Discussion
The worst thing about PFI is that it is non-core work that has been PFI'd.
It is the hospital building, IT systems and operation of the building that has been PFI'd. This is the line in the budget that has to be paid each month.
The doctors and nurses posts can be unfilled, therefore money can only be saved by cutting the core work.
Anyway, back to the election...
It is the hospital building, IT systems and operation of the building that has been PFI'd. This is the line in the budget that has to be paid each month.
The doctors and nurses posts can be unfilled, therefore money can only be saved by cutting the core work.
Anyway, back to the election...
pingu393 said:
The worst thing about PFI is that it is non-core work that has been PFI'd.
It is the hospital building, IT systems and operation of the building that has been PFI'd. This is the line in the budget that has to be paid each month.
The doctors and nurses posts can be unfilled, therefore money can only be saved by cutting the core work.
Anyway, back to the election...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcYIt is the hospital building, IT systems and operation of the building that has been PFI'd. This is the line in the budget that has to be paid each month.
The doctors and nurses posts can be unfilled, therefore money can only be saved by cutting the core work.
Anyway, back to the election...
kuro68k said:
There is a lot of b
ks said about Corbyn.
What strikes me is that he genuinely cares about people. You might disagree with his policies but he wants to make things better for people, that's his ideology and the motivation behind everything he does.
Boris is only looking out for himself and always trying to find ways to screw you. He isn't there to serve you, he's there to serve himself and his mates.
Nobody should be caring about Corbyn, he is just the friendly grandpa puppet, it's the McDonnells, Abbots and Rayners we need to worry about.They are the ones that will devastate the nation's finances, security, and education prospects, while they just push Corbyn in front of the media to tilt his head and smile about it.ks said about Corbyn.What strikes me is that he genuinely cares about people. You might disagree with his policies but he wants to make things better for people, that's his ideology and the motivation behind everything he does.
Boris is only looking out for himself and always trying to find ways to screw you. He isn't there to serve you, he's there to serve himself and his mates.
andymadmak said:
pingu393 said:
The worst thing about PFI is that it is non-core work that has been PFI'd.
It is the hospital building, IT systems and operation of the building that has been PFI'd. This is the line in the budget that has to be paid each month.
The doctors and nurses posts can be unfilled, therefore money can only be saved by cutting the core work.
Anyway, back to the election...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Eyf97LAjjcYIt is the hospital building, IT systems and operation of the building that has been PFI'd. This is the line in the budget that has to be paid each month.
The doctors and nurses posts can be unfilled, therefore money can only be saved by cutting the core work.
Anyway, back to the election...
kev1974 said:
Nobody should be caring about Corbyn, he is just the friendly grandpa puppet, it's the McDonnells, Abbots and Rayners we need to worry about.They are the ones that will devastate the nation's finances, security, and education prospects, while they just push Corbyn in front of the media to tilt his head and smile about it.
That's the thing, JC's political philosophies are one thing but if you could see genuine talent behind him you could be forgiven for thinking they're worthy of a chance but when you see those 3 it's just beyond a joke. techiedave said:
Well-timed, well-written, and from the right people for that type of political advertisement, with no po positive endorsement for any particular alternative Party, just a total annihilation of Corbyn and his version of Labour. It's not likely to have been accepted by The Guardian or The Mirror but hopefully it was.
It's now news in various outlets so doing a good job.
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...
https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/news/great...
andymadmak said:
Actually I have, and no, he really doesn't. For example he talks about fixing the rail industry by taking it back into public ownership...but then gets very vague about how that will happen... even vaguer about how he's going to finance it (Bizarrely he and commie John don't think that issuing Government bonds represents debt......)
Strange, he's been very specific about that and the manifesto and grey book lay it out in even more detail. Perhaps you should get your hearing checked.The railways are all on franchises so they can do what they did last time the government "bought" one, just wait for it to expire and then award it to themselves. Invest in a company to take over that franchise and the profits will cover the cost of any borrowing required, with the rest going into investment.
I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.
kuro68k said:
andymadmak said:
Actually I have, and no, he really doesn't. For example he talks about fixing the rail industry by taking it back into public ownership...but then gets very vague about how that will happen... even vaguer about how he's going to finance it (Bizarrely he and commie John don't think that issuing Government bonds represents debt......)
Strange, he's been very specific about that and the manifesto and grey book lay it out in even more detail. Perhaps you should get your hearing checked.The railways are all on franchises so they can do what they did last time the government "bought" one, just wait for it to expire and then award it to themselves. Invest in a company to take over that franchise and the profits will cover the cost of any borrowing required, with the rest going into investment.
I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.
https://fullfact.org/economy/labour-cost-nationali...
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/rail-national...
kuro68k said:
Strange, he's been very specific about that and the manifesto and grey book lay it out in even more detail. Perhaps you should get your hearing checked.
The railways are all on franchises so they can do what they did last time the government "bought" one, just wait for it to expire and then award it to themselves. Invest in a company to take over that franchise and the profits will cover the cost of any borrowing required, with the rest going into investment.
I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.
But why is paying interest to the creditors who put the money up perfectly acceptable, while paying dividends to the investors who put the money up bad?The railways are all on franchises so they can do what they did last time the government "bought" one, just wait for it to expire and then award it to themselves. Invest in a company to take over that franchise and the profits will cover the cost of any borrowing required, with the rest going into investment.
I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.
kuro68k said:
Strange, he's been very specific about that and the manifesto and grey book lay it out in even more detail. Perhaps you should get your hearing checked.
The railways are all on franchises so they can do what they did last time the government "bought" one, just wait for it to expire and then award it to themselves. Invest in a company to take over that franchise and the profits will cover the cost of any borrowing required, with the rest going into investment.
I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.
Where do you get the money from to buy that in profit business ?The railways are all on franchises so they can do what they did last time the government "bought" one, just wait for it to expire and then award it to themselves. Invest in a company to take over that franchise and the profits will cover the cost of any borrowing required, with the rest going into investment.
I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.
ChocolateFrog said:
FrenchCarFan said:
Big if here but...
If Corbyn loses or even still loses badly, will it also be the end of momentum?
No that would require a level of self awareness they're just not capable of. How could it possibly be their fault? If Corbyn loses or even still loses badly, will it also be the end of momentum?
andymadmak said:
arguti said:
I could be wrong but i thought PFI was an idea dreamed up by the Major government and implemented only by Labour; Labour certainly went hell for leather for PFI, which along with the Gold and Pension debacles on Brown's watch (let's not even talk about the GFC) casts doubt on Brown's being known ad the prudent Chancellor!
Not quite. PFI is actually an Australian idea. The Conservatives imported the idea. It was designed to be used to finance infrastructure projects that could generate their own income from customer use - such as toll roads, bridges etc. It was never intended for use on general government expenditure on things like hospitals and schools etc. (for obvious reason that those kinds of projects don't produce revenue from those that use them) Blair/Brown extended the use of PFI dramatically, - most pertinently into those areas that were unsuitable, so as to keep the level of actual borrowing off the Uk balance sheet (so to speak). They could boast long and loud about X number of new schools and Y number of shiny new hospitals without actually having to find too much cash from the get-go. We are seeing that legacy now.
Moreover, much (not all) of what was built under PFI was unsuitable even before it opened. New hospitals sometimes had less capacity than the old ones they replaced, or in some cases were built with zero regard to the likely increase in capacity that would be required in the coming decade. Still, they looked nice and people swallowed the idea that Labour was 'modernising the NHS'.
Roll on the day (if it ever dawns) when the NHS is NOT under the control of Government. Publicly funded? Yes. Free at the point of use? Yes. Run by politicians at national and local level? Absolutely not.
We have some very expensive PFI buildings that cannot be used for their intended purpose as new regulations have made them non compliant and the cost of rebuilding them and updating them to meet new higher standards was not in the contract and is not cost effective and yet WE are still paying through the nose for the redundant facilities
Worst thing ever ... ideal for the Severn Bridge or Dartford Crossing, but not Schools, hospitals and Police Stations
Earthdweller said:
Very true .. and the contracts were appallingly written
We have some very expensive PFI buildings that cannot be used for their intended purpose as new regulations have made them non compliant and the cost of rebuilding them and updating them to meet new higher standards was not in the contract and is not cost effective and yet WE are still paying through the nose for the redundant facilities
Thats an odd one, which new regulations are making them non-compliant? Many regs apply at point of construction/installation rather than being retrospective? (I am not a construction expert, just curious) We have some very expensive PFI buildings that cannot be used for their intended purpose as new regulations have made them non compliant and the cost of rebuilding them and updating them to meet new higher standards was not in the contract and is not cost effective and yet WE are still paying through the nose for the redundant facilities
vaud said:
Earthdweller said:
Very true .. and the contracts were appallingly written
We have some very expensive PFI buildings that cannot be used for their intended purpose as new regulations have made them non compliant and the cost of rebuilding them and updating them to meet new higher standards was not in the contract and is not cost effective and yet WE are still paying through the nose for the redundant facilities
Thats an odd one, which new regulations are making them non-compliant? Many regs apply at point of construction/installation rather than being retrospective? (I am not a construction expert, just curious) We have some very expensive PFI buildings that cannot be used for their intended purpose as new regulations have made them non compliant and the cost of rebuilding them and updating them to meet new higher standards was not in the contract and is not cost effective and yet WE are still paying through the nose for the redundant facilities
kuro68k said:
andymadmak said:
Actually I have, and no, he really doesn't. For example he talks about fixing the rail industry by taking it back into public ownership...but then gets very vague about how that will happen... even vaguer about how he's going to finance it (Bizarrely he and commie John don't think that issuing Government bonds represents debt......)
Strange, he's been very specific about that and the manifesto and grey book lay it out in even more detail. Perhaps you should get your hearing checked.The railways are all on franchises so they can do what they did last time the government "bought" one, just wait for it to expire and then award it to themselves. Invest in a company to take over that franchise and the profits will cover the cost of any borrowing required, with the rest going into investment.
I get that different kinds of borrowing can be confusing, so let me try to help. If you buy a watch on credit that's a pretty bad debt. The watch is depreciating and doesn't generate any income for you. If you buy a business though that business keeps making money and the banks looks at it as an asset rather than a hole in your finances.
He has said they will nationalise all the bus companies and reinstate ALL 3000 uneconomic bus routes cut in the last 10 years
Brilliant .. yet it’s not costed
A new hybrid bus .... £355k .. put an average of 4 on each route ... that’s 12000 new buses
To allow for shifts .. that’s 36000 new bus drivers who need to be trained and paid ( possibly £15p/h)
Then there’s the garages needed to house 12000 extra buses
There’s a bus route near me that is about to be cut .. it’s losing the operator £300k a year apparantly
The sums .. just in the above are massive .... and there is absolutely nothing in the grey book about how it will be paid for
All to provide buses nobody uses going to places nobody wants to go to !
Digga said:
vaud said:
Earthdweller said:
Very true .. and the contracts were appallingly written
We have some very expensive PFI buildings that cannot be used for their intended purpose as new regulations have made them non compliant and the cost of rebuilding them and updating them to meet new higher standards was not in the contract and is not cost effective and yet WE are still paying through the nose for the redundant facilities
Thats an odd one, which new regulations are making them non-compliant? Many regs apply at point of construction/installation rather than being retrospective? (I am not a construction expert, just curious) We have some very expensive PFI buildings that cannot be used for their intended purpose as new regulations have made them non compliant and the cost of rebuilding them and updating them to meet new higher standards was not in the contract and is not cost effective and yet WE are still paying through the nose for the redundant facilities
They are now sitting empty and unused whilst more modern and compliant custody suites havd been built elsewhere.. yet they are still being paid for
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff