PFI what i have said for years
Discussion
PFI's cost 70% more
this is a shocking indictment of nu labia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574059
but still they refer to the Tory chair!
this is a shocking indictment of nu labia
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-14574059
but still they refer to the Tory chair!
I've been lecturing this point for years now, with the numbers to back it up. Glad people are finally waking up to the issue.
I would have been fine with it if we really did get the innovative design, willingness to take risks, and ability to manage those risks that we were promised, but we got the cheapest, lowest common denominator buildings with a design function completely divorced from the operation end of the deal, despite each scheme being under a single SPV banner.
I would have been fine with it if we really did get the innovative design, willingness to take risks, and ability to manage those risks that we were promised, but we got the cheapest, lowest common denominator buildings with a design function completely divorced from the operation end of the deal, despite each scheme being under a single SPV banner.
Edited by dxg on Friday 19th August 08:38
So basically it can be a sound idea if managed properly?
But shock of shocks in Britain we have utterly failed to manage it properly.
If I wasnt more jaded and cynical I would be shocked.
Im afraid I cant heap the blame on Labour here. All these schemes have been under the eyes of Parliament, I dont recall many if any politicians making big fusses and deep analysis of the numbers over the years. I dont recall any politicians deciding to make it their job to keep these under their eyes and to be accountable.
But shock of shocks in Britain we have utterly failed to manage it properly.
If I wasnt more jaded and cynical I would be shocked.
Im afraid I cant heap the blame on Labour here. All these schemes have been under the eyes of Parliament, I dont recall many if any politicians making big fusses and deep analysis of the numbers over the years. I dont recall any politicians deciding to make it their job to keep these under their eyes and to be accountable.
Actually I think quite a lot of people have been very sceptical about them for some time and been vocal about it, but there has been a lack of people listening.
The started under John Major, were very popular under Gordon Brown as Chancellor and PM and have continued under this Government. Unfortunately politicians like them because they let them spend money without it appearing either as spending or borrowing, crazy.
The started under John Major, were very popular under Gordon Brown as Chancellor and PM and have continued under this Government. Unfortunately politicians like them because they let them spend money without it appearing either as spending or borrowing, crazy.
dxg said:
I've been lecturing this point for years now, with the numbers to back it up. Glad people are finally waking up to the issue.
I think you will find that the Eye has been following your lead.Lots of people complained but there was little anyone can do about it. Vote for anothe party? Well there you have a problem as they all support it. Managed properly? But that would mean that those who put money into the vrious parties would get nothing in return. So no chance of that then.
Further, they can present the extra funding for, for instance, the police then hit them with a PFI package and get lots of the money back. The fact that his means the police actually gets less from the government than orignally is neither here nor there, unless, of course, you want the country policed better. So neither here nor there.
Further, the fact that the government cuts the fnding of the police by 20% might initally have worried those enjoying tremendous returns, or rather their wives in foreign climes enjoying tremendous returns, until they realise that their income won't be cut. Just the officers on the street.
Read the Eye an feel ashamed of our politicians. All of them.
Nothing changes, the Eye has been making fools out of our politicians since I first started reading it 20yrs ago.
Gerald, my idea of making a fuss about it and yours are very different. I would have liked to see a member of Parliament making it their job to audit and scrutinise them and be asking financial details every day in Parliament. Id be making damn sure the figures were deconstructed and in the public domain everyday and that company representatives were hauled up before Parliamenary committees everyday, just as I am accountable to my director every week.
Gerald, my idea of making a fuss about it and yours are very different. I would have liked to see a member of Parliament making it their job to audit and scrutinise them and be asking financial details every day in Parliament. Id be making damn sure the figures were deconstructed and in the public domain everyday and that company representatives were hauled up before Parliamenary committees everyday, just as I am accountable to my director every week.
No doubt we'll still get a host of ignorant w
kers claiming it's all her faultSplatSpeed said:
Guybrush said:
B Huey said:
It's still all Labour's fault, obviously.
Yes it is. Labour encouraged and willingly took part in its misuse.
Like many things it's not the idea, it's what Labour did with it once they got hold of it. A little debt isn't such a bad thing, going on a massive debt fuelled spending spree is.
It's the difference between someone on £50,000 a year borrowing £150k for a house.....or £500k for a house. Exactly the same principle/idea, one fine the other utterly reckless.
Is it not the case that the model for PFI works quite well for revenue generating capital expenditure such as toll roads and toll bridges and such like? I read that the Tories got the idea from the Australians and had used it in this way with some success.
It was Labour that miss-used the process by using it for non revenue generating capital projects such as new schools and hospitals, and then further compounded the error by completely screwing up the management and implementation of the scheme.
Or am I completely missguided in this?
It was Labour that miss-used the process by using it for non revenue generating capital projects such as new schools and hospitals, and then further compounded the error by completely screwing up the management and implementation of the scheme.
Or am I completely missguided in this?
Timmy35 said:
SplatSpeed said:
Guybrush said:
B Huey said:
It's still all Labour's fault, obviously.
Yes it is. Labour encouraged and willingly took part in its misuse.Like many things it's not the idea, it's what Labour did with it once they got hold of it. A little debt isn't such a bad thing, going on a massive debt fuelled spending spree is.
It's the difference between someone on £50,000 a year borrowing £150k for a house.....or £500k for a house. Exactly the same principle/idea, one fine the other utterly reckless.
andymadmak said:
Is it not the case that the model for PFI works quite well for revenue generating capital expenditure such as toll roads and toll bridges and such like? I read that the Tories got the idea from the Australians and had used it in this way with some success.
It was Labour that miss-used the process by using it for non revenue generating capital projects such as new schools and hospitals, and then further compounded the error by completely screwing up the management and implementation of the scheme.
Or am I completely missguided in this?
exactly!It was Labour that miss-used the process by using it for non revenue generating capital projects such as new schools and hospitals, and then further compounded the error by completely screwing up the management and implementation of the scheme.
Or am I completely missguided in this?
An interesting anecdote:
One of the big PFI contractors has developed a brilliantly simple and cheap system to slash the cost of public buildings like schools.
They have a whole modular system so that you spec out what facilities are required for the building and it tells you what modular units are required and how to fit them together on the land available to be most beneficial.
It genuinely seems brilliant. It slashes building time, removes architects fees, slashes material costs etc etc.
There is one problem: because this would mean that public buildings would all look similar and stand out it is wrong so we have to keep paying over the odds to have everything designed from scratch using exotic materials etc.
If we want to slash public spending this is precicely how we need to start.
One of the big PFI contractors has developed a brilliantly simple and cheap system to slash the cost of public buildings like schools.
They have a whole modular system so that you spec out what facilities are required for the building and it tells you what modular units are required and how to fit them together on the land available to be most beneficial.
It genuinely seems brilliant. It slashes building time, removes architects fees, slashes material costs etc etc.
There is one problem: because this would mean that public buildings would all look similar and stand out it is wrong so we have to keep paying over the odds to have everything designed from scratch using exotic materials etc.
If we want to slash public spending this is precicely how we need to start.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff