Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#1
Well, that's what the government would have you believe. True, Labour went at it hammer and tong but this, from a House of Commons research paper, shows it was a Tory concept and I have no doubt they would have followed the same line had they been in power.
"The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was announced in the 1992 Autumn Statement with the aim of achieving closer partnerships between the public and private sectors. It was one of a range of policies introduced by the Conservative Government to increase the involvement of the private sector in the provision of public services".
The duplicity of politicians never fails to astound me but I live in hope that the public are wising up to it and that there will come a time when truth becomes fashionable again.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#2
i wonder where gordon brown was when this initiative was first dreamed up?
surely he must be to blame for all this.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#3
This was indeed a Tory concept and no-one has denied that.
I have posted on this and how the original concept was change by NuLab.
David Davis was in a meeting before the 1997 election with Geoffrey Robinson and has recorded his concerns about how Robinson said they were going to use the PFI initiative. Originally it was designed to be used for bringing in private capital into public capital projects, such a new hospitals and to be used on a fairly small scale.
Robinson told Davis how Brown (maybe Balls,...) identified how this could be turned to create 'off balance sheet' revenue spending. As a result of this we now have a situation where George Osborne, wanting to provide some sandwiches for a late night meeting, was told they would cost some horrendous price because no11 was run under a PFI scheme - something never originally intended by the originators. There was also something about Christmas trees as well.
I will try to find a link to the report I read so you can have more details.
The whole point is that NuLab warped and abused a scheme until it no longer resembled the original concept and turned it into an overused monster of true Enron style accounting.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#4
To my recollection Parliament was ever agog, dumbfounded and jealous to judge by a quick scan around the chamber from Lab-back benches, Lib-few and the opposition front bench. How more business-like could a Labour Chancellor be?
No more concerns about income verses expenditure. This was all (wait for it, wait for it. Deep breath for cheering) Off-Balance-sheet!
[How best to punctuate the final phrase? Off-balance sheet? Off balance Sheet?]
I am sure PFI was and is a cross party solution.
The question remains...What was/is the problem this was/is the solution for?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#5
Here is a full well informed article on what I referred to above giving more details of the Robinson/Davis meeting and what NuLab planned. There are other sources such as the Yorkshire Post that touch on the subject but this is the more detailed account.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7180013/from-the-archives-the-great-debt-deceit.thtml
One paragraph to wet the appetite:
"""As the conversation turned to the inevitable Labour victory, Mr Robinson said how much he was looking forward to turning the government spending tap on again, putting an end to what he saw as the years of Tory parsimony. Mr Davis was bewildered. 'You can't do that,' he replied. 'You've promised to keep within our spending plans.' The future Paymaster-General smiled broadly. 'We're going to do it as capital,' he said. 'And then put it on as PFI.'"""
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#6
Since PFI is so discredited can we assume that the coalition will not be continuing with it, Barry?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#7
I am not sure. PFI is certainly discredited and the legacy will last a long time. The original concept was not unreasonable so if it were to be used it needs to be brought on to the balance sheet and used with far more care than in the past. Personally I think they should not enter into more new PFI schemes at all but to look at alternatives 'on the books' with some sound and transparent rules.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
#8
More details? Hyde Park, Butler? Not exactly riveting stuff.
The comment by one, 'Axstane' repeats much of my own.
So Davis was filled-in, Lamont knew all the dangers...and yet Dave etc. sat on their hands. One is left wondering if any of the then Tory front bench were share holders in any or all of these few companies set to rake-it-in at Pubic Expense?
I am a little bemused by the point made that the PFI companies had a hard time borrowing, given that I have seen/heard Labour politicians plead that these few companies think about voluntarily paying back the larger than expected wind-fall profit from the fact that interest rates are way below those factored-in at the time the contracts were signed.
And the comment on the details to be gleaned via Private Eye of sewage sodden PFI built hospitals underlines that not all in this garden is rosy, despite the occasional superfluity of fertiliser available.
Perhaps, though, this is all just Party-Politics before the common-weal, as usual. Maybe the Tories were content to let the country go to the wall in expectation of being returned to power?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#9
Sadly Barry it would seem that all is as it was:
http://www.channel4.com/news/coalition-increases-discredited-pfi-schemes
THEY are all in this together!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#10
Mark - that is disappointing. We will just have to see if they are being more transparent about the funding though and more responsible about the type of projects. At the very least it is bad politics. This needs keeping an eye on and I am sure the IFS will do so.
update:
Just peeked in to the CoffeeHouse to see is anything is said there as they have been regular PFI critics, exposing abuses. It seems Osborne has tightened the rules but gives no detail. This is the story for anyone who wants a look.
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/7258143/battling-it-out-over-browns-legacy.thtmlGuest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#11
# That is indeed bad news.We need another `U` turn.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#12
Ministers say cost of Labour PFI schemes crippling parts of NHS. So why has Coalition added £7bn of PFI projects in past 17 months?
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#13
We discussed that Marek - that depends on the terms of those new contracts and whether Osborne's new rules are good enough. I have said it is the wrong move politically and we just do not have the ability to judge whether the new rules correct the problems. It might also be that the new projects, or some of them, were follow ons from pre-election arrangements. I would like to know more and hope that more information will emerge.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
#14
#12. PFI is cheap up front............used for good head lines,both party`s guilty,......the sting is the utimate cost...................Headlines enjoyed and forgotten!!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#15
this has been known for the best part of two decades yet continues to go on, doesn't say much about our political masters other than their desire for immediate votes whilst following generations foot the bill.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#16
That is the weakness of democracy Howard.
As I have said the PFI scheme was used and abused by the last government in ways never envisaged by its originators.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#17
And continued by the coalition, Barry.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#18
Maybe Mark - but we all we do know is that some PFI contracts have been signed by them since the election. We do not know whether they are on the same irresponsible basis as in the previous 13 years, Osborn has changed the rules after all. That is why I have said that at the very least this is bad politics. I just hope it is not bad economics as well. Transparency is needed on this.
If I was involved I would have drawn a line under the past and relaunched a fresh untainted scheme, more transparent, more limited, back to original concept of fairly small scale capital projects only without mixing in revenue under some very strict rules. They may have done that but without the relaunch or transparency - sadly we do not know the details.
Guest 683- Registered: 11 Feb 2009
- Posts: 1,052
#19
I am sure the wording will be different, Barry, but the net effect will be the same.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
#20
Not necessarily Mark.
In fact this morning I discussed the PFI with an architect I know in Canterbury.
He was saying what appalling value it provided and told me there is a new replacement scheme in which he has a bid in for a hospital design that is far better value for taxpayers. I forget what he called it and I know nothing other than what he told me. I will have to find out more.