Jump to content
House Price Crash Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Diskobox

65 Billion Pfi Bill

Recommended Posts

Link

The NHS in England faces a total bill of £65bn for new hospitals built under the private finance initiative (PFI), figures obtained by the BBC indicate.The so-called "NHS mortgage" means that for some trusts annual repayments take up more than 10% of their turnover.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PFI was a Tory invention. Labour were guilty of pursuing previous Tory policies.

Well duuuuuuh.

New Labour = Old Tory

We've had 30 years of tory government and as a result high house prices have totally destroyed the economy.

Don't worry though, the Tories will save us!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFI was a Tory invention. Labour were guilty of pursuing previous Tory policies.

That is true, but the Tories did not implement many PFI projects. Labour went mad with them. Like all things, there is probably a place for all these things in moderation. PFI is supposed to be a tool to transfer risk to the private sector too. Labour however went soft on this, and bailed out failed PFI projects, which is hardly the point, as the private sector would have had to pay otherwise.

Edited by BalancedBear

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFI was a Tory invention. Labour were guilty of pursuing previous Tory policies.

PFI was to be a way to fund BIG projects (French style 'grands oeuvres') such as the Channel Tunnel.

Gordon Brown used PFI cynically to spend up our tomorrows whilst pretending this was 'free' (off-balance) and without risk (the private sector's :lol:). Very poor value for the taxpayer overall, expensive, a cronied stitch-up, but plenty of photo opps, and nice little earners for the well-connected.

A little honesty, tied to living within our means (today and tomorrow) wouldn't have gone amiss. But hey, that's politicians for you.

Edited by tinker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFI was a Tory invention. Labour were guilty of pursuing previous Tory policies.

Any way we can pin this on Thatcher?

Did she hold a gun to Tony and Gordon's head forcing them to sign up to silly finance deals that put the public at a 30 year disadvantage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFI was a Tory invention. Labour were guilty of pursuing previous Tory policies.

I dont really recall it, but at uni one of my economics tutors said that in 1997 one of the NuLab election soundbites was 'using tory policies to achieve labour objectives' whatever that means - i do recall they comitted themselves to matching tory spending plans for two years - In 2007 that was reversed as Dave comitted himself to matching labour spending plans, itself quietly dropped when we all realised Gordon had bankrupted the UK.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any way we can pin this on Thatcher?

Did she hold a gun to Tony and Gordon's head forcing them to sign up to silly finance deals that put the public at a 30 year disadvantage?

We can certainly pin it on John Major and Ken Clarke who left government finances in remarkably good shape. Gorgo followed Tory spending plans for two years, then went berserk. But yes the Tories invented PFI, so Thatcher must be to blame.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFI was a Tory invention. Labour were guilty of pursuing previous Tory policies.

Errr only 33% correct I am afraid.

Tory policy however it was not taken by many companies as the profit was low and the it required to much in terms of paperwork, but hey presto Tony "War Criminal" Blair and Gordon cut through that red tape by getting rid of the max profit allowable just so they could be seen opening new hospitals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We can certainly pin it on John Major and Ken Clarke who left government finances in remarkably good shape. Gorgo followed Tory spending plans for two years, then went berserk. But yes the Tories invented PFI, so Thatcher must be to blame.

No, that's not good enough. It lets Thatcher off the hook, since New Labour could have chosen to follow a different policy. We need something concrete and 100% incriminating, like she held every Labour government from 1997 to 2010 at gunpoint in 10 Downing Street and forced them to sign over huge chunks of public wealth to private companies?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why doesn't the NHS just default and then bring the bankers in for some special medical treatment.

I thought the same about 2 seconds after hearing this on the radio.

Slightly amended version - pass legislation forcing non-govt owned banks to reimburse govt owned banks in the event of default.

Then default.

Top up any pensions schemes damaged by the default.

Let some banks go into administration. Buy some of the knackered banks for peanuts, sack 60% of the execs & traders without compensation and limit the remainder's pay & bonuses for the next 20 years. Globalise their asses for a change.

Sabotage firms in NY, Zurich, Tokyo etc. if they see the UK crack down as an opportunity to move in on our territory.

When diplomats and 'old boys' come whining tell them to go p1ss up a rope.

The Globals think they are the masters of the universe but govts are the real 'daddies'.

Many bankers are now like Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas, you see them throwing their weight around and you know that, even if it takes a long time, things will end suddenly and badly for them.

Edited by xux42

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PFI was a Tory invention. Labour were guilty of pursuing previous Tory policies.

Yeh. and the Chinese invented Gunpowder, so they are responsible for every death by firearm.

The Economy was in a fine condition when handed to Labour in 1997.

Since then, Brown used PFI as a huge accounting fiddle. To keep public borrowing below 40% of GDP [on paper only]

AKA FRAUD.

Many of the Bankers [Gordons Pals] who were involved in the PFI deals with the Labour governmnet, walked away with insane profits.

One group walked away with a 662% profit. [The list goes on and on and on.]

There is no comparison between the way the Tories and Labour used PFI.

Notable only is Browns criminally utter incompetence.

Which all ultimately leads to the unanswered question.

Why did he do it?

[brown aka, Soviet sleeper, or just really retarded?!]

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Any way we can pin this on Thatcher?

Did she hold a gun to Tony and Gordon's head forcing them to sign up to silly finance deals that put the public at a 30 year disadvantage?

no but don't expect a change of policy from the current government. The truth is we never got a labour government which is why we are in this mess. 30 years of Tory rule and the result is the sell off of everything that belongs to it's people.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no but don't expect a change of policy from the current government. The truth is we never got a labour government which is why we are in this mess. 30 years of Tory rule and the result is the sell off of everything that belongs to it's people.

Lets put Labours use of PFI into perspective shall we?

On Gordon Browns orders, the government, up to 2007 signed more than 750 public sector deals with private companies under PFI.

Including:

64 out of 68 hospitals in Browns first 8 years as chancellor. As were 230 new schools, 185 new hospitals, health centres, 43 roads and bridges

It was PFI which enabled Brown to keep public borrowing below 40% of GDP.

[An acccounting fiddle. Enabled him to keep infastrusture spending off the governments 'current' account books.]

Debt acrued by 2007, owed by government to private companies was in excess of £55Billion. [All basically hidden]

Many roads and bridges which were owned, ALREADY paid for by the taxpayer, prior to Browns stint as chancellor were then sold off to private companies, on the quiet, who now charge us for using them.

Point being Brown, as chancellor, using PFI has spent all the money, was selling off the family silver, on purpose, knew what he was doing, and it still has not even begun to be repaid.

The bankers who financed these deals walked away with absurd profits.

[One group of Bankers walked away from one PFI deal with 662% profit]

PFI is a perfect facist tool. Everyone wins except the populace. It is a sign of a facist government when government and business are merged in such a way.

The bankers outwitted Brown the Clown at every opportunity.

The equity in the rebuilding of the M40 has been sold at least five times. With different building contractors making huge profits. One company sold a prison for six times what it had paid.

Brown just let it continue......

All these problems have yet to be faced.

By the time Brown stopped being Chancellor he had lumbered £54billion in debt just for the cost of buildings onto the taxpayer.

[in reality, to repay that debt will be closer to £160Billion]

Governments can always borrow money more cheaply than private companies. If Gordon Brown had haf a brain he would know that by allowing private companies to borrow money on his behalf, all he did was increase the cost to taxpayers.

Brown was also a fan of PPP Public private partnerships.

Brown supported metronet, the ppp london tube project. Against advice.

In july 2007 the development had to call in an administrator. Taxpayers paid the £2billion over run and the £2.6 billion debt and administrators bill.

This debt has been passed onto your childrens children.

Under Brown, [as opposed to the Tories] PFI became a £4bllion a year industry. [Look at companies like Conaught plc, who service council houses, whose share price has now been wiped out last month or so.]

If Brown was in business he would have been bankrupt in months.

PFI was just a massive hire purchase scheme which allowed brown to keep public spending, mainly infastructure off the books. AKA Fraud.

And acrue debt, to be passed onto the next governmnet. It makes you think, it must have been Labours plan all along.

Why else do it?

The only people who made money out of this were the bankers and financiers.

The taxpayer got royally screwed.

He was like Nick Leeson. Brown got in way over his head, was seduced by the slick way PFI enabled him to be careless with other peoples money, whilst lying out of his ****, for years and years, until very quickly there was no way out.

Instead of accepting a little pain around 2003, and a correction, he stuck the knife into us even further, and as hard as he could.

Lies, Deceit, Incompetence and Theft, is what fuelled the Labour Government for 13 years.

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just the Interest on the debt alone, will cost the UK close to £50 Billion, this coming tax year..

Labours contempt for the taxpayer is astounding. And always will be.

But Hey! Keep voting Labour!.....................

They know that the taxpayer is a dumb sh1t, with a short memory.

633564940352646100-Sheeple.jpg

Baaaaaaaaaaaaa

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC article [convenietly] also fails to mention the huge unfunded public sector pensions debt acrued by THE LABOUR PARTY

[How nice to be paying for someone elses pension, when you cannot afford your own pension. A little like paying for everyone elses houses, when you cannot afford your own house]

The government's calculation of the national debt is about £900 billion, projected to grow by more than 50% over the next 5 years or so to about £1.4 trillion.

But Pension obligations are government commitments and are not included in the government's calculation of its indebtedness.

To put the scale of this into perspective, we know that the Government Actuary's Department estimates the present value of these unfunded pension liabilities at about £2.2 trillion.

However, many economists now believe that the government has used too high a discount rate for unfunded public sector pension liabilities – now at 5.5% compared to 3-4% in some other countries.

This means that when those UK public sector pensions become due, the unforseen liability could be as much as an extra £1 trillion pounds.

BaaaaaaBaBaaaaBaaaaBaaaaaaaa

Feel fleeced yet?

The actual Debt the UK is facing is somewhere around the £5 Trillion + figure.

Which is just an incomprensible sum.

http://www.dailysqui...k/?a=2368&c=117

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The BBC article [convenietly] also fails to mention the huge unfunded public sector pensions debt acrued by THE LABOUR PARTY

[How nice to be paying for someone elses pension, when you cannot afford your own pension. A little like paying for everyone elses houses, when you cannot afford your own house]

The government's calculation of the national debt is about £900 billion, projected to grow by more than 50% over the next 5 years or so to about £1.4 trillion.

But Pension obligations are government commitments and are not included in the government's calculation of its indebtedness.

To put the scale of this into perspective, we know that the Government Actuary's Department estimates the present value of these unfunded pension liabilities at about £2.2 trillion.

However, many economists now believe that the government has used too high a discount rate for unfunded public sector pension liabilities – now at 5.5% compared to 3-4% in some other countries.

This means that when those UK public sector pensions become due, the unforseen liability could be as much as an extra £1 trillion pounds.[/b

BaaaaaaBaBaaaaBaaaaBaaaaaaaa

Feel fleeced yet?

The actual Debt the UK is facing is somewhere around the £5 Trillion + figure.

Which is just an incomprensible sum.

http://www.dailysqui...k/?a=2368&c=117

Two very good, "wake up call" posts on the trot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Two very good, "wake up call" posts on the trot.

Just to put that £5 trillion figure into some sort of perspective.

The £5 Trillion sum is almost four times the size of the UK's total gross domestic product in 2009.

And equates to roughly £200,000.00 of debt per household in the UK.

[source ONS.]

[And this is likely to increase]

The Solution?

A Serious Tax Revolt.

Edited by Dan1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeh. and the Chinese invented Gunpowder, so they are responsible for every death by firearm.

The Tories may have invented PFI, but New Labour embraced it and rolled it out across the entire public sector.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How good would it be if all debts ran up under a government are owed by that government, and interest if ofset should a different party come to power, the debt effectivey frozen until the owing party comes back into fashion (or if the responsible party called it a day - in which case their own personal bank accounts would be forfeit too). Total fantasy, but it would really sort out the terrible parties' shortsighted and even deliberate raping of the economy to leave a steaming turd for the next one to duly clean up - every single time.

Edit: to make it work, it would have to be a proportion of the debt/ credit which rolls over for any given party - starting at, say, 10%. Increasing each term - to phase it in.

Edited by jammo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Tories may have invented PFI, but New Labour embraced it and rolled it out across the entire public sector.

Quite. People forget what PFI was intended for:

Big, capital projects with a relatively high level of uncertainty and risk - such that it would be unacceptable to leave the taxpayer with the bag if things went sour.

The epitome of PFI was the Channel Tunnel. A risky venture, as the scale of engineering work was in uncharted territory, with enormous cost. The govt of the time set it up as a PFI scheme - so that the private sector, in the form of Euro Tunnel, would finance and oversee the construction. Investors were attracted as the venture looked attractive at the time.

As it was, the project went massively over budget and was completed late. Euro Tunnel collapsed and the investors took a massive haircut on their investment. However, taxpayers were protected from the spiralling costs, which was one of the key drivers for selecting PFI for this project.

For more conventional infrastructure and state operations, PFI is less suitable due to the higher costs and lower control, which are not outweighed by the risks of the projects. E.g. building a school or hospital is not a high risk project - projects on this scale can be managed fairly easily and the costs predicted accurately.

The problem has been a breathtaking level of misuse of PFI for low-risk projects, which can be more cheaply and more effectively provided by conventional government procurement. And, most galling of all, the bailing out of bust PFI private sector firms because their projects collapsed due to financial mismanagement. Not only had the tax payer paid a high price so that the private sector could take the project risks, Gordon simply took the risk back when things went bad - completely undermining the whole point of PFI.

Edited by ChumpusRex

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Globals think they are the masters of the universe but govts are the real 'daddies'.

Many bankers are now like Tommy DeVito in Goodfellas, you see them throwing their weight around and you know that, even if it takes a long time, things will end suddenly and badly for them.

You'd think so but, it seems even governments can't resist the force of oil companies when they ask for Lockerbie bombers to be released.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Quite. People forget what PFI was intended for:

Big, capital projects with a relatively high level of uncertainty and risk - such that it would be unacceptable to leave the taxpayer with the bag if things went sour.

The epitome of PFI was the Channel Tunnel. A risky venture, as the scale of engineering work was in uncharted territory, with enormous cost. The govt of the time set it up as a PFI scheme - so that the private sector, in the form of Euro Tunnel, would finance and oversee the construction. Investors were attracted as the venture looked attractive at the time.

As it was, the project went massively over budget and was completed late. Euro Tunnel collapsed and the investors took a massive haircut on their investment. However, taxpayers were protected from the spiralling costs, which was one of the key drivers for selecting PFI for this project.

For more conventional infrastructure and state operations, PFI is less suitable due to the higher costs and lower control, which are not outweighed by the risks of the projects. E.g. building a school or hospital is not a high risk project - projects on this scale can be managed fairly easily and the costs predicted accurately.

The problem has been a breathtaking level of misuse of PFI for low-risk projects, which can be more cheaply and more effectively provided by conventional government procurement. And, most galling of all, the bailing out of bust PFI private sector firms because their projects collapsed due to financial mismanagement. Not only had the tax payer paid a high price so that the private sector could take the project risks, Gordon simply took the risk back when things went bad - completely undermining the whole point of PFI.

Good post and summary of the PFI con. I believe the whole PFI debacle is yet to unravel. Political expediency and rotten to the core.

The scale of the money (we didn't have) that was squandered over the Brown decade is beyond criminal. Everything were the taxpayer had to foot the bill has been overprices and simply poor value for money.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • 259 Brexit, House prices and Summer 2020

    1. 1. Including the effects Brexit, where do you think average UK house prices will be relative to now in June 2020?


      • down 5% +
      • down 2.5%
      • Even
      • up 2.5%
      • up 5%



×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.