4) PFI is actually risky for private contractors. Open a newspaper and read about what happened to Jarvis. To a certain extent, they actually undervalue the pricing of their contracts, but in any event are taking a long-term risk as to their ability to perform. PFI operates by allowing them a profit to the extent that they manage that risk and the underlying ethos is that the private sector is in a better position to so manage (which is pretty much a given if you compare like to like performance over the last 30 years).
5) But the central point keeps coming back to the fact that if you don't like PFI then you are prepared to pay an extra 5 pence in the pound to fund public services. The simple truth is that you're not and no one in the electorate is. As for MoD projects - to the extent that foreign companies are used in facilities management and accommodatin projects - they do not 'own' the barracks - they are given a 25 to 30 year lease to run and operate. That's actually necessary to provide them with legal access to provide the services. The same process that you malign is the same process that's ensured that some army accommodation and infrastructure has been improved for the first time since Queen Victoria.
6) I don't support the government, I work for the Liberal Democracts but I support PFI as the lesser of two evils. I'm surprised you can't tell the difference (although your prejudice does seep through every word that you type). It must be easier for you to believe I am some kind of labour stooge than someone who is actually trying to tell you about political reality in modern life. But by all means, put your rose-tinted glasses back on and dream about a socialist utopia. It worked so well in the Soviet Union. Schools and hospitals are not pulled down unless there is a plan to replace the same or there is a proven alternative. You are also confusing NHS PFIs with local government PFIs. The NHS is run under a different system which is actually a hell of a lot tougher than local government. To the extent that it's mismanged, that's a function of Whitehall.
7) Do tell me what you consider to be "unnecessary" PFI. Would that include closing down every secondary school that's been built since 1992? Every hospital, every cancer ward, every road, every prison? If you shut down PFI then under the standard terms of the central agreements, you have to pay billions and billions of pounds in compensation to the operators concerned. That's the fault of the Tories because that was their bright idea. The Luddites didn't like technology either. And look where they ended up. Finally, I can't believe that someone who hails from one of the most lax tax jurisdictions in the world is talking about corporate taxation. News International uses an international tax structure that means it is illegal for it to be taxed in this country beyond those companies that are incorporated and trading here. You might have a hard on for Murdoch, but to the extent that he takes advantage of tax jurisdictions, that's the fault of global accounting.
Delete this if you want. The public policy department at the LSE has already had a good laugh at your views anyway. Along with some of our colleagues at Oxford. Bless you for trying though.
Oh - and my views on PFI are backed up by an MSc and Phd in the subject along with numerous articles on the same. Remind me of your credentials again? Apart from a dog-eared copy of Private Eye?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
You're wrong
Date: 2004-10-13 04:33 am (UTC)5) But the central point keeps coming back to the fact that if you don't like PFI then you are prepared to pay an extra 5 pence in the pound to fund public services. The simple truth is that you're not and no one in the electorate is. As for MoD projects - to the extent that foreign companies are used in facilities management and accommodatin projects - they do not 'own' the barracks - they are given a 25 to 30 year lease to run and operate. That's actually necessary to provide them with legal access to provide the services. The same process that you malign is the same process that's ensured that some army accommodation and infrastructure has been improved for the first time since Queen Victoria.
6) I don't support the government, I work for the Liberal Democracts but I support PFI as the lesser of two evils. I'm surprised you can't tell the difference (although your prejudice does seep through every word that you type). It must be easier for you to believe I am some kind of labour stooge than someone who is actually trying to tell you about political reality in modern life. But by all means, put your rose-tinted glasses back on and dream about a socialist utopia. It worked so well in the Soviet Union. Schools and hospitals are not pulled down unless there is a plan to replace the same or there is a proven alternative. You are also confusing NHS PFIs with local government PFIs. The NHS is run under a different system which is actually a hell of a lot tougher than local government. To the extent that it's mismanged, that's a function of Whitehall.
7) Do tell me what you consider to be "unnecessary" PFI. Would that include closing down every secondary school that's been built since 1992? Every hospital, every cancer ward, every road, every prison? If you shut down PFI then under the standard terms of the central agreements, you have to pay billions and billions of pounds in compensation to the operators concerned. That's the fault of the Tories because that was their bright idea. The Luddites didn't like technology either. And look where they ended up. Finally, I can't believe that someone who hails from one of the most lax tax jurisdictions in the world is talking about corporate taxation. News International uses an international tax structure that means it is illegal for it to be taxed in this country beyond those companies that are incorporated and trading here. You might have a hard on for Murdoch, but to the extent that he takes advantage of tax jurisdictions, that's the fault of global accounting.
Delete this if you want. The public policy department at the LSE has already had a good laugh at your views anyway. Along with some of our colleagues at Oxford. Bless you for trying though.
Oh - and my views on PFI are backed up by an MSc and Phd in the subject along with numerous articles on the same. Remind me of your credentials again? Apart from a dog-eared copy of Private Eye?