Remember the idiot who said us poor sods have never had it so Good,resigns and Cameron tells the MEDIA he excepted? More Tory Bull—it he never left
In Salford, 19,700 people are on the social housing list, .
And yet Salford Labour Council are proud of building 101 council houses in more than 25 Years.Three cheers for Salford Labour. They write on their Leaflets –
LABOUR INVESTING IN FAMILIES SHOULD I LAUGH OR CRY?
As chancellor, Gordon Brown thought it important to flatter the books – and the private finance initiative helped to do just that.
In a destructive relationship you shut your eyes to problems, dream up plus points, and lie about your motives. As in love, so – it transpires – in infrastructure. But just as Whitehall is rekindling its ruinous romance with private finance, the Treasury select committee last week decided to speak like a true friend, and confronted the interminable excuses.
The private finance initiative was devised to get schools, hospitals and roads built without swelling the government’s overdraft. Critics discerned a conjuring trick. Instead of the state borrowing, private consortiums did, and then the public paid – at a premium rate. It has often been likened to sticking a mortgage on a credit card; but Whitehall always resisted that charge.
It was just too important to flatter the books, especially to Gordon Brown. His twin obsessions were constructing temples to New Labour’s social policies and establishing his prudence: PFI appeared to further both. But the trickery was too flagrant. Friendly think tanks were tasked with devising a rationale couched in the language of public-private partnerships. It was said that City expertise would somehow foster efficiency. Henceforth PFI was all about improving the allocation of risk. Beautifying the books had nothing to do with it.
In opposition, Tories and Lib Dems aired anxiety about PFI. In government, the coalition is this year committing more money through it than Labour did during its final 12 months. Michael Gove has just pledged a £2bn PFI for schools.
In these circumstances, a committee with a Conservative chair, Andrew Tyrie, and a coalition majority could have played it safe. Instead, it produced a quietly devastating report. Calmly and forensically, the committee weighs costs and claimed benefits to damning effect – and also confronts ministerial motives.
It finds the temptation to fiddle the figures alive and well. A loophole in European accounting standards keeps PFI liabilities out of the national debt figures the Treasury explicitly targets. Much has been made of the fact that public authorities must now declare PFI debt on their books, but they also have to live within capital budgets set for two to three years. A PFI that pushes costs out as far as 20-30 years is still often the only way to get something built.
Dubious assumptions are routinely deployed to flatter PFI propositions: the committee heard extraordinary evidence about £1.4m being arbitrarily added to the estimated cost of building a school in York conventionally, purely to make private financing appear an attractive alternative.
Tyrie set his crunchers to work without fear or favour – with breathtaking results. Post-credit crunch, investors can demand higher returns, and so the financing costs of a typical PFI deal now exceed 8.5%, more than double the rate at which the government can borrow. For PFI to stack up, those claimed benefits around risk thus have to be not merely valid but overwhelming.
The committee dutifully details every risk management argument. Tackling cost overruns? PFI may help a little, but smarter conventional contracts would be just as good. Increased financial flexibility? Hardly, long-term contracts leave the taxpayer over a barrel. Encouraging innovative building that lasts for longer? In theory 20- to 30-year PFIs might help; in practice contractors play safe.
What’s worse is that some risks that are expensively transferred could be more efficiently shouldered by the state. No wonder the MPs insist state investing directly ought always to be considered.Rarely has the claimed basis of a policy been so decisively demolished. Only accounting convenience and connivance with the City remain.
Making public services better for everyone- Privatise them and make lots of Money for the top earners
Having access to high-quality public services is essential to our modern society. The better our public services, the more we help those most in need.
You will find fantastic examples of what great public services can offer individuals and communities all over the UK. Many of our public services are among the best in the world, with our public sector professionals leading in expertise and innovation.
However, the delivery of these services is not always consistent—with the most poor often being the most affected. Our old-fashioned, centralised approach means there’s too much “take what you’re given” and not enough focus on improvement and accountability. We want to change things so that everybody in the UK—no matter where they live, or what their circumstance—benefits from the best services available. http://www.openpublicservices.cabinetoffice.gov.uk/ The TOP is the Tory Spin the key words Are –Public services should be open to a range of Providers =PRIVATISATION
All this while the British public sleep and stroke their apathy?
· Public services should be decentralised to the lowest appropriate level.
· Public services should be open to a range of providers. !!!!!!!!