merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Jul 12, 2011 16:19:31 GMT 1
|
|
daleylama
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
[M0:14]
Posts: 4,061
|
Post by daleylama on Jul 12, 2011 21:31:32 GMT 1
It's all the fault of PFI's.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Jul 13, 2011 9:47:15 GMT 1
Public sector service providers not run as a business shocker?
|
|
|
|
Post by markelt on Jul 13, 2011 9:51:08 GMT 1
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Jul 13, 2011 12:45:36 GMT 1
I think the Tories are now introducing more PFIs than Labour (to build boats btw) because they will be miles (nautical miles at that!) better at managing the production of boats for less money than their predessors.
I think we will now get to see the full boat costing schedule, in terms of the wider transport budget now that all transport liabilities are now on the table including the massive transport pension fund....which is good.
Tory shipbuilders have always had a better record at producing boats for less money so its all ok really.
Labour shipbuilders made a right fucking mess of the shipyards, roads, tram lines and bus routes though so there will be less money spend on boats, cars, trams and buses.
|
|
|
|
Post by GlasgowTangerine on Jul 13, 2011 13:00:43 GMT 1
Sigh.
Ships. Not boats. There's a difference.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Jul 13, 2011 13:09:51 GMT 1
Fucking hell. He's even lost me now.
|
|
|
|
Post by markelt on Jul 13, 2011 15:11:03 GMT 1
Cognitive dissonance in action.
Belief No. 1 - PFI is complete shit. Labour used it to as a con and look where it got us. Knee deep in the debt.
Belief No 2 - The Tories will sort the debt out. They won't get dragged into all that nonsense.
Uncomfortable fact - The Tories are implementing more PFI projects than Labour.
Justification - They'll do it better than Labour.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001 
|
Post by ab on Jul 13, 2011 16:55:53 GMT 1
Simple partisan answer - because there's no money left and PFI's main advantage is the accounting one of being off-balance sheet thereby enabling continued investment in public infrastructure. I thought all the neo-Keynesians were whining about horrible Osborne not doing the rational thing and investing in infrastracture and public services. PFI is sadly the only mechanism available to do that while reducing the deficit. Direct investment would be impossible or at least counter-productive during deficit reduction and Labour would also have been in a big deficit reduction programme had they been in government now.
Alternative (HT Douglas Adams) "Is it because they're all a bunch of bloody useless loonies?"
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Jul 13, 2011 16:58:40 GMT 1
Business will start to pay for local infrastructure. Nottingham has already implemented a workplace parking levy. Bristol may follow or at the very least do a supplementary business rate.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Jul 13, 2011 17:51:47 GMT 1
It'll take a lot of parking fees to get to £6bn. Isn't that about 20 years of the surplus generated by the Congestion Charge in London?
|
|
daleylama
Jimmy Glazzard Terrier
[M0:14]
Posts: 4,061
|
Post by daleylama on Jul 13, 2011 19:06:36 GMT 1
Novel idea.
Stick Income tax up until the debt is gone.
Tadaah, I'm a super intelligent economist. Everybody pays, not just those who are suffering from cuts, or those who want a new TV, or those who smoke and drink.
Cuts to Dole should also happen to make sure scroungers aren't laughing at all of us workers and wa la, were a financial super power once more.
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Jul 14, 2011 7:09:03 GMT 1
Never quite get it do you Elt.
All we want and require is full visibility.
Labour could have managed the PFI projects really well but if they hadn't factored in the costs in the overall debt then you have an issue. It's like an household that conveniently ignores they have a £10k Amex balance as they keep sending the minimum payments through on a monthly basis - is that one you can understand?
To be fair though, piss face's Dad got the answer wrong. PFI's in this case is small fry compared the the £1 trillion penison issue.
What do say on this brispo? Shall we keep letting public sector have these wonderful pensions or should we keep sticking it to the bankers - how much of this £2 trillion is their debt and how much will it account for this year's deficit?
|
|
|
|
Post by markelt on Jul 14, 2011 7:25:40 GMT 1
No. I do get it merk. Very much so.
Good analogy though. PFIs are like credit cards. Like it.
|
|
|
|
Post by AndyM on Jul 14, 2011 8:30:38 GMT 1
If private companies had to show all their future pension payments on the balance sheet, they would also look to be in deep shit.
This is just a scaremongering ploy by twatto Osborne to justify picking on anyone who isn't in his Eton OB club.
|
|
|
|
Post by oldstokie on Jul 14, 2011 9:29:45 GMT 1
>The new figures do not include future receipts from tax revenues.
It's a bit like a company pleading poverty and telling us how much they've got to pay out, but they forgot to add in the sum of how much they've got coming in. JCB would be billions of quid in debt if they didn't sell any diggers.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Jul 14, 2011 9:55:42 GMT 1
This is just a scaremongering ploy by twatto Osborne to justify picking on anyone who isn't in his Eton OB club. To be fair, the Oik didn't go to Eton. |
|
|
|
Post by AndyM on Jul 14, 2011 9:59:12 GMT 1
I don't let facts get in the way of a good old moan.
I could get a job at the Daily Mail
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Jul 14, 2011 10:48:42 GMT 1
Prudential borrowing AB. If you can get a guaranteed income stream, which only business appear to be able to give in the current climate, you can borrow to fund new schemes.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Jul 14, 2011 13:29:53 GMT 1
Still need the revenue stream to be big enough to service the underlying debt.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Jul 14, 2011 13:49:54 GMT 1
It depends how heavy you can hammer business. There are also at least 2 different methods of doing it which could work concurrently.
|
|
merkin
Darren Bullock Terrier
Posts: 878
|
Post by merkin on Jul 14, 2011 15:55:54 GMT 1
Tell us more...
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Jul 15, 2011 11:04:37 GMT 1
Thing about hammers is that they need to be used very carefully otherwise they can cause unsightly damage or breakage to the things being hammered. Sometimes the prospect of being hit with a hammer leads to the hammeree deciding to fuck off somewhere where they might not get hit, or where the hammers are more like Mallett's Mallet.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Jul 15, 2011 12:00:21 GMT 1
Of course, but it is still a tool that can be used and will be used more widely by the public sector now that it's got fuck all money to actually deliver anything.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Jul 15, 2011 16:50:33 GMT 1
Or perhaps it could just take the hint and decide that some stuff doesn't need delivering. Like the bloody newspaper that Leeds City Council and local NHS Trust just delivered the main purpose of which appears to be to increase the amount of paper going straight in the recycling.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Jul 18, 2011 13:09:05 GMT 1
Yes, but that doesn't cost £112 million to produce.
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Jul 18, 2011 15:19:28 GMT 1
It's a start. That it's still going while people are whining about services being cut to the bone suggests that there's some cutting that could happen without affecting services. Sadly, I suspect that it is easier for some of our fine, upstanding public servants to cut a few meals on wheels than the bumf PR publication that employs their mates.
|
|
brispie
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,386
|
Post by brispie on Jul 18, 2011 15:37:52 GMT 1
If Leeds is like Bristol, then it's trying to keep all work in house to protect current staff, rather than outsourcing. I'm guessing that this wasn't the intention of central government when it carried out the CSR.
|
|
|
|
Post by fgrfc_dan on Jul 19, 2011 9:38:53 GMT 1
Speaking of meals, they'll order them in for a full ward of patients, even on weekend days when most of the patients are elsewhere, and the staff are banned from eating them, so a whole wards' worth of food is wasted every mealtime every weekend. It can't be hard to cut something like that, surely?
|
|
ab
Andy Booth Terrier
[M0:0]
Posts: 3,001
|
Post by ab on Jul 19, 2011 12:43:49 GMT 1
I don't know whether Leeds City Council is keeping things inhouse to protect jobs. I do know that I have a degree of admiration for the local councillor who is one of my fellow LEA governors and spent months of bureaucratic wrangling with the highways department over the positioning of a traffic light. It was of some importance because it regulated the entry into the street the school was on but I marvel at how brispie's northern counterparts can generate such complex and time-consuming work out of such things. To volunteer to deal with such people on behalf of the great unwashed is heroic stuff indeed.
I can barely imagine the work one of the other councillors in my ward had to do to persuade the highways department to replace all the stolen york stone paving on my street. Even though he was a LibDem I felt rather sad when he lost his seat to some weirdy bloke I've never seen since earlier in the year. Wanky students protesting about fees in an election about local stuff and the masochism needed to deal with the public sector in trying to get stuff done.
|
|
