― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 12:57 (twenty years ago)
― ken c (ken c), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:03 (twenty years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:04 (twenty years ago)
PPP- dismantling the state just when we need it more than ever. Dud.
― Cathy (Cathy), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:46 (twenty years ago)
― Ed (dali), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:48 (twenty years ago)
I don't understand how anyone could think that this is a good idea.
: (
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:51 (twenty years ago)
― Ned Raggett (Ned), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:53 (twenty years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:54 (twenty years ago)
In my view the Private Finance Initiative is in the public interest. It must be right that government seeks to secure, over the long term, the most cost effective infrastructure for our public services. PFI enables us do this by binding in the private sector into open and accountable long term relationships with the public sector aimed at securing a proper sharing of risk and access to private service managerial expertise and innovative ideas to secure better public services.
― Cathy (Cathy), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:57 (twenty years ago)
in short, maximus is a traveling fraud show.
― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Friday, 1 April 2005 13:59 (twenty years ago)
― Cathy (Cathy), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:00 (twenty years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:10 (twenty years ago)
― beanz (beanz), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:28 (twenty years ago)
Privatised businesses have shareholderswho expect to make personal gainfrom their stake in essential public servicesinfested with junior-rat management...and people wonder whereall the fucking money's gone.
― dave225 (Dave225), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:31 (twenty years ago)
xpost
― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:32 (twenty years ago)
― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:34 (twenty years ago)
private service managerial expertise and innovative ideas to secure better public services.
this is the Big Lie. i worked in an nhs strategic health thingum (the names change annually) and top level staff were all from the private sector and had not one idea about a health service or the running thereof. the myth of business=efficiency is central to the new labour project.
― N_Rq, Friday, 1 April 2005 14:38 (twenty years ago)
That's the good bit about PFI. The reasons it doesn't work in practice all the time is because it's also in the PFI consortium's interests to keep the costs down so they cut corners. And I also like common ownership of the means of production cos I'm like that.
If a PFI contractor goes bankrupt the banks step in and the service is delivered by a different contractor. xpost.
― beanz (beanz), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:43 (twenty years ago)
― beanz (beanz), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:44 (twenty years ago)
― N_RQ, Friday, 1 April 2005 14:49 (twenty years ago)
what's the risk? going over-budget? there are a few ways to avoid that and, unfortunately, the easiest is to not do things properly.
who is going to put money in, to fix things, when the things that weren't done properly start to effect the use of these projects? I don't think it is the private sector.
tax, of course. if taxes were raised, to pay for things that would, otherwise, be PFIs, then we could complain about that, when things go over-budget, instead.
lots of crossposts
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:51 (twenty years ago)
xposts
― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:53 (twenty years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:54 (twenty years ago)
not for transport, anyway, I think.
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:56 (twenty years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 1 April 2005 14:58 (twenty years ago)
"this is what we're doing, now"
"oh"
unless you're an activist. then it's probably like:
"oh, no, it's not"
"it is"
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:01 (twenty years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:02 (twenty years ago)
― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:02 (twenty years ago)
If risk isn't being transferred, then it simply comes down to value of the borrowing - this is massively more costly, not including the various costs in tendering, contracting, managements and negotiation. And why?
Because the City (whoever they be) decree that too high a PSBR is a bad thing and start panicking and accusing Labour of being all 'tax and spend'. So much for democratic government eh?
― Dave B (daveb), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:04 (twenty years ago)
― lauren (laurenp), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:05 (twenty years ago)
I didn't know rail profits have gone from profit to loss since privatisation. I was under the impression that British Rail ran at a loss. Although I'm probably wrong.
It is. That's the point. If they fuck up, they have to pay for it.
I'd like to point out that I still don't like privatisation. I just don't think that PFI is a mess for the reasons cited here. It is a mess though. The reasons include the absence of standard payment mechanisms and the fact that the PFI consortia aren't always fined/deducted as much as they could be for fuck ups. And the fact that people confuse Thatcherite national industry privatisations with PFI. They're similar only in that they involve the private sector. But private sector companies have always been subcontracted by national industries to an extent. PFI is an attempt to expand that and make the rules tighter. The phrase "teething problems" doesn't begin to cover it though.
― beanz (beanz), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:07 (twenty years ago)
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:07 (twenty years ago)
― hstencil (hstencil), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:09 (twenty years ago)
crosspost to lauren's
― RJG (RJG), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:11 (twenty years ago)
― blackmail.is.my.life (blackmail.is.my.life), Friday, 1 April 2005 15:22 (twenty years ago)