66 billion over the last 10 years, but it's the Tories fault

[markcoznottz]

M3333 said:

Dunk76 said:

Blame, according to the BBC;

The banking crisis? Tories
University funding? Tories
Miner's Union trashing the mining industry? Tories
Hospital cleanliness and MRSA? Tories
MoD Funding? Tories
War on Iraq? Tories (because they didn't oppose it)
Congestion Charging? Tories

Me?

The thing I really blame the Tories for is Blair.

Yes, i blame Kinnock, if he had won the 1992 election maybe we would never of had 13 years of new labour, or another labour government at all after 1997.

As for the comment from BG saying Bill and Sian on Breakfast are probably nice people, Bill yes. Sian? I cannot stand her, the way she sits on the breakfast sofa with that smug nanny knows best grin, give the smarmy cow a good slap.

Right where is me beer...

+1 . 5 years of kinnock, (who else could have rivalled him for the leadership? my memorys hazy), and the tories would have been in, with a sound economy, 5 years isnt long enough to implement permanent socialist change, think back to 2002, just starting to notice big changes.

[Jasandjules]

deadslow said:

The headline figures sound interesting, but the reality is different. Anyone know the building/maintenance costs pre PPI? Only 4% different according to one of the heads of the hospitals concerned, and the old buildings were unsustainable. But please don't let reality stop a good PH discussion.

That's a bit like saying that renting a house is only 4% more expensive than buying it.

i.e. it's still going to be a waste of money - no asset is no asset, regardless of depreciation.

[deadslow]

Jasandjules said:

deadslow said:

The headline figures sound interesting, but the reality is different. Anyone know the building/maintenance costs pre PPI? Only 4% different according to one of the heads of the hospitals concerned, and the old buildings were unsustainable. But please don't let reality stop a good PH discussion.

That's a bit like saying that renting a house is only 4% more expensive than buying it.

i.e. it's still going to be a waste of money - no asset is no asset, regardless of depreciation.

Yes, but the NHS is all about delivery of (a massively expanding) service within (a limited) budget, rather than the development of some property portfolio. I though people on here believed in private enterprise.

[eliot]

I've worked at one of these PFI hospitals - very nice, but every single thing you want doing is EXTRA.
Run a patch lead or put a picture on the wall - that will be £300 please.

[voyds9]

deadslow said:

Jasandjules said:

deadslow said:

The headline figures sound interesting, but the reality is different. Anyone know the building/maintenance costs pre PPI? Only 4% different according to one of the heads of the hospitals concerned, and the old buildings were unsustainable. But please don't let reality stop a good PH discussion.

That's a bit like saying that renting a house is only 4% more expensive than buying it.

i.e. it's still going to be a waste of money - no asset is no asset, regardless of depreciation.

Yes, but the NHS is all about delivery of (a massively expanding) service within (a limited) budget, rather than the development of some property portfolio. I though people on here believed in private enterprise.

I certainly believe in private enterprise and that the government should be run as one. Government schemes seem to be an exercise in wasting as much money as possible and achieve at best a mediocre service but they have reams of paperwork to show that with a few million extra they could have met those reasonable targets.

[Jasandjules]

deadslow said:

Yes, but the NHS is all about delivery of (a massively expanding) service within (a limited) budget, rather than the development of some property portfolio. I though people on here believed in private enterprise.

Yes, but if you can deliver the same service for 4% less BUT then retain the property thus having an asset, that is a far better use of resources for the state that to p**s billions up the wall and have no asset after 20 years.

[piquet]

the real problem is that the doesn't have the freedom to do this themselves, to go borrow the money and build a new hospital, which would cost it less as there's not profit and it would be free to run it's won maintenance.

the other way it wins is that local councils are fine about hospitals being built on any land, where as the old site counts as brown field and has all the services supplied.

give the freedom the hospitals would be replaced every 40-50 years, like in the real world when the cost of maintaining an old building was more then building a new one, the problem with pfi is you in effect rent and pay for the maintenance and profits for the company, in 20 years they get the building, the ex green field which is now brown field site

[stefd]

Jasandjules said:

deadslow said:

Yes, but the NHS is all about delivery of (a massively expanding) service within (a limited) budget, rather than the development of some property portfolio. I though people on here believed in private enterprise.

Yes, but if you can deliver the same service for 4% less BUT then retain the property thus having an asset, that is a far better use of resources for the state that to p**s billions up the wall and have no asset after 20 years.

That's a seriously big 'if' if you don't have the capital in the first place.

[blueg33]

People forget that PFI delivers a maintained hospital building, so the cast includes life cycle maintenance. NHS traditionally does not maintain its buildings properly and may Trusts have backlog maintenance running into tens of millions. If this was factored into the cost of non PFI buildings then the PFI's wouldn't look so expensive.

Many PFI's actually have a netted out cost that is lower than the netted out cost of the Trusts previous estate.

PFI Hospitals are lambasted because the headline figures look large.

Most PFI schemes also have access to cash that an NHS Trust may not have, plus the PFI takes on risk. How many government run building projects come in on budget....not many, whereas most NHS PFI's do.

Further the NHS would have to increase its management skill base to be able to take on such large building and maintenance projects, another cost that is not considered when PFI is being criticized.

Yes the PFI companies make a profit, but it is small in relation to the overall cost. For instance, many PFI companies only take a 1% fee for managing and setting up a PFI, but manage to obtain senior debt at low rates, and construction does not overrun.

When looked at in the whole PFI can be value for money.

Edited by blueg33 on Sunday 15th August 10:41