Poll: New poll on who you will vote for?

Who?

  • Labour

    Votes: 76 10.0%

  • Conservative

    Votes: 286 37.6%

  • Liberal Democrats

    Votes: 324 42.6%

  • Other

    Votes: 75 9.9%
  • Total voters
    761
Status
Not open for further replies.
Dolph said:
There is no obligation if the service is failed to be provided, however if the government wants to get out of the obligation, they can't without large liabilities.
Click to expand...

You mean they can re-negotiate the contract? I agree that they can and that's what they will do when the public spending cuts start happening.

Dolph said:
Don't tell me, tell the government's financial reporting advisory board, who strongly disagree with you regarding reporting requirements.
Click to expand...

Without reading exactly what they've said it's kinda hard to comment.

Dolph said:
Mostly because various rule changes made it a more efficient way of doing it. Of course they are running in a much more structurally effective manner in the first place mind you.
Click to expand...

Oh so PFI is good and efficient when private companies do it, bad and inefficient when governments do it. Ridiculous.
 
scorza said:
You mean they can re-negotiate the contract? I agree that they can and that's what they will do when the public spending cuts start happening.
Click to expand...

Which should be somewhat interesting...

Without reading exactly what they've said it's kinda hard to comment.
Click to expand...

I'll see what I can do.

http://www.official-documents.gov.uk/document/hc0708/hc07/0705/0705.pdf

Section 2.16 and 2.17 covers in full the IFRS requirements and the FRAB's advice based on it.

In the meantime, the Lords agree.

http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news...published-with-public-sector-debt-statistics/

As does David herald, professor of accountancy at Aberdeen and former treasury advisor.

http://www.heraldscotland.com/busin...and-ppp-should-be-fully-transparent-1.1021478

Oh so PFI is good and efficient when private companies do it, bad and inefficient when governments do it. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

There are huge structural differences between the way the public and private sectors operate, so it's not ridiculous at all. The public sector operates a non-customer revenue dependent monopoly, and the use of PFI doesn't change that, it just hands over some of that to the private sector. You pretty much end up with the worst parts of the public and private sector due to the lack of structural pressure for efficiency and front line performance.
 
Dolph said:
Which should be somewhat interesting...
Click to expand...

It will be rather boring I expect actually. Contracts get re-negotiated all the time, why would these be any different?

Dolph said:
There are huge structural differences between the way the public and private sectors operate, so it's not ridiculous at all. The public sector operates a non-customer revenue dependent monopoly, and the use of PFI doesn't change that, it just hands over some of that to the private sector. You pretty much end up with the worst parts of the public and private sector due to the lack of structural pressure for efficiency and front line performance.
Click to expand...

Your extremist views on the role of government are coming to the forefront now. There is no fundamental difference between the way governments and businesses pay for services, and nor should there be. You've clearly never worked on a PFI project so you don't know the difference in culture between the two types of project and how much more benefit to government a well run PFI project can be rather than simply buying an asset.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/ukne...5-million.html

More evidence of the damage Labour have done to our economy, especially the economic inactivity figures...
Click to expand...

"Official figures showed that unemployment increased by 43,000 in the three months to February to the worst total since 1994. "

Remind me which party had been in charge for 15 years in 1994?
 
scorza said:
Your extremist views on the role of government are coming to the forefront now. There is no fundamental difference between the way governments and businesses pay for services, and nor should there be. You've clearly never worked on a PFI project so you don't know the difference in culture between the two types of project and how much more benefit to government a well run PFI project can be rather than simply buying an asset.
Click to expand...

The difference is in the structural drivers for income and spending, not the way they pay for services.

The problem is funding services by forceful allocation always results in structural spending deficiency, because there is no real incentive to improve services, and indeed a structural incentive to provide below par services as a means to request an increased grant. this has been very obvious in the way that the increased funding provided by Labour has failed to improve services due to massive spending on non-frontline roles, at a time when the private sector has spent the last 20 years doing the opposite.
 
scorza said:
PFI is more like buy-to-let, with private companies taking on the mortgage and then renting the property to the government rather than the buying the property themselves. By doing so the government benefits from transferring a significant portion of the risk away from itself and onto its sub-contractors. Once again people have have short memories if they can't remember what happened when they tried implementing public services using fixed price contracts.
Click to expand...

According to independent analysis, hospitals delivered on PFI have cost, on average, 40% over the odds. What's more, the notion of transfer of risk is twaddle because where PFI hasn't delivered the Government has been forced to carry out expensive bail-outs - you can't just decide not to deliver on a hospital.

There have been PFI successes, I'm certainly not going to deny it, but - as a whole - PFI has been a very costly way to defer benefits in the short term onto long term costs.

We aren't committed to the liability until the service has been delivered and therefore PFI is not debt.
Click to expand...

So once we've got the hospital we have to pay for it. Sounds more like my car loan than the broadband I pay for monthly. PFI has committed the UK government to payments for years, sometimes decades, to come - that sounds an awful lot like debt to me whichever way you want to spin it.
 
Dolph said:
Well, at least we've confirmed they have no intention of actually balancing the budget or starting to reduce our national debt back down to sane levels.
Click to expand...

The Tories are promising no better.

Under 'helping people fairly', one of the entries is 'introduce a new levy on bank profits'. That's a tax, not a saving.
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, you're right. Naughty, Lib Dems, Naughty. They're not double counting it though, so it doesn't effect the overall figures.

I agree entirely, that's why the published figures by the lib dems should be taken with a huge pinch of salt, as should any claims that their spending cuts are different from those of the tories in whether they will cause job losses (which was Stockhausen's claim earlier)
Click to expand...

Indeed. Spending cuts will always mean job losses, or job downgrades (pay freezes, hour reductions, pay cuts, etc.) somewhere or other. Whether it's in your paper supplier or your admin department that money goes somewhere.
 
matthewhotdude said:
Well watching Vince cable on that BBC 2 program now he just looks like a mumbling mess with no answers....Vote lim deb get a coalition and nothing will get done
Click to expand...


I was just going to post the same thing

Vince's utterly crumbling right now under the scrutiny

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/


Personally i believe The Daily Politics format is way way better than the leaders debates

EDIT -hehe vinces face, he looks shaken after that
 
Last edited:
robgmun said:
I was just going to post the same thing

Vince's utterly crumbling right now under the scrutiny

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/election2010/liveevent/


Personally i believe The Daily Politics format is way way better than the leaders debates

EDIT -hehe vinces face, he looks shaken after that
Click to expand...

I agree, this format is better than the leaders debates, the debate for me was quite flat, they need some hard questioning then people will wake up to how bad the Lib dems actually are
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom