The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more closer in policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
Really the Conservatives and Labour are not that far apart that they couldn't both compromise to make a grand coalition thus marginalising all the marginal parties and not giving them influence that their share of the vote does not warrant. It would make sense so can't see it ever happening. But coalitions like that are sometimes made to work on the continent. We'd have less austerity than the Tories want but less borrowing than Labour want. Why not?
In European countries with proportional electoral systems, political parties generally expect to need to compromise to form a government, and the public are more accepting of parties disagreeing with each other while still operating a functioning government. I don't believe the British public think in the same way - see the constant criticism the Lib Dems have received for the past 5 years for giving in on student fees.
In such a grand coalition, each party would likely end up alienating their own political base, as Labour are blamed for perceived "Tory anti-poor policies" while the Conservatives are blamed for perceived Labour economic incompetence. In those circumstances, the marginal parties can build their support, especially where there are dodgy 'outsiders' that can be blamed for all the country's problems (take your pick of bankers, immigrants, benefits scroungers, tax evaders etc).
I agree with you that the Conservatives and Labour are not hugely different in policies - their arguments are around the edges and around intangibles like "trust" or "integrity". However, a grand coalition could do serious damage to one of them by alienating support base. I have a feeling on which one would suffer more, but I think airing it would continue the dull red v blue squabbling.
Really the Conservatives and Labour are not that far apart that they couldn't both compromise to make a grand coalition thus marginalising all the marginal parties and not giving them influence that their share of the vote does not warrant. It would make sense so can't see it ever happening. But coalitions like that are sometimes made to work on the continent. We'd have less austerity than the Tories want but less borrowing than Labour want. Why not?
Totally agree. It seems odd, to say the least, that the party that could be argued to have had the best "result" at the last election, actually came third! The LibDems polled fewer seats than either the incumbent Labour Party or the Tories, yet they still found themselves in Government.
Surely the onus should be on the two biggest parties to attempt to find enough common ground in order to govern?
In 2010 the LibDems were the kingmakers and had discussions with both the Tories and Labour over a coalition. Now the Tories had the far superior position as they and the DUP could have tried to form a minority government whereas that simply wasn't available to Labour. However at the talks the Conservatives were far more willing to compromise. Despite what happened afterwards with both parties betraying each other over key pledges, the Coalition worked. During the Labour-LibDem talks, Labour would not budge on a single issue. Labour gave the LibDems an ultimatum - support our manifesto or get lost.
We are a long way off from the coalition politics we see in other countries. All the parties need to drop their hatred for each other and act in the national interest. The SNP's and Labour's hatred of the Tories simply because they hated a woman who is now dead is single-handedly stopping any improvement of the political discourse in this country.
That wasn't one of the options, but it's a possibility. And of course it would be better. As far as I am concerned, *anything* would be better than having Farage in Government.
As far as I'm concerned having Farage in government would be fantastic.
That wasn't one of the options, but it's a possibility. And of course it would be better. As far as I am concerned, *anything* would be better than having Farage in Government.
As far as I'm concerned having Farage in government would be fantastic.
Obviously I disagree completely. But, let me ask you a hypothetical question. What role would you give him? Assuming the top spots are already tied up and he can't be PM or Chancellor or get the Home or Foreign Office gigs. What portfolio do you think would fit?
Going back to the original post, yes - after the 2010 election Brown was still Prime Minister and for a couple of days thought he may be able to carry on in that role. The numbers didn't add up though, which he and the Queen soon realised. Whilst the election will be exciting, the governance issue about who Liz invites to form a government could be very interesting.
Will Self last night was pretty average. What the polling shows is that people tend to be very dismissive of MPs as a whole but if they have had dealings with their own MP they tend to be much more enthusiastic. I was a councillor for a few years and pretty much everyone I knew then and still know is doing it because they think they can help in some small way. I think that we run a risk of devaluing politicians so much that it will become a job nobody wants and so the mostly false reputation that politicians have will actually become truer.
I think there is a global problem where political parties of all persuasions are now too frightened to implement the radical policies necessary to solve problems, and possible solutions are met with voter backlash and condemnation in the media. Hence we have a problem where parties are now abandoning their long term principles in order to try to get elected. This has resulted the parties coming closer together, which has then led to weak coalition governments that muddle along and get very little done. Voters need to wake up, take some tough medicine, stop thinking about their hip pocket today, rather think about the future of their kids and their Grandchildren. Voting for minor parties is simply a waste of a vote. Give one of the major parties a strong mandate and then allow them to get on with the job. For me, it all boils down to the economy. In a strong economy, everybody prospers, in a debt laden, weak economy, the majority suffer. Who is going to manage the economy better, Conservatives or Labour? I know what my answer is!
It's a testiment to the British just how well our constitution works. The British would never vote for a 4ft tall comically moustached, obviously mad one bollocked dictator.
Can't speak for his height, sanity, or bollock count. But Anthony Eden certainly met the comedy tash criterion.
It's a testiment to the British just how well our constitution works. The British would never vote for a 4ft tall comically moustached, obviously mad one bollocked dictator.
Can't speak for his height, sanity, or bollock count. But Anthony Eden certainly met the comedy tash criterion.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more closer in policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more closer in policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more closer in policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
yeah i know, it was so annoying when labour had to spend all their 13 years in government reversing all the privatisation.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more closer in policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more closer in policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The problem with PFI is if you cock up the procurement, the cost can and did spiral into the billions. Now if you're someone who has actually worked in a job where you have do deal with procurement, generally the company/organisation you're working for will have policies in place (minimum number of quotes, justifying the size of the budget and the payment plans etc.). This is all pretty basic stuff, if you put a contract to build something or provide a service out to tender, you want to get the quote that delivers value for money and you don't go with the provider that will cut corners (buy cheap, buy twice as the old saying going).
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The problem with PFI is if you cock up the procurement, the cost can and did spiral into the billions. Now if you're someone who has actually worked in a job where you have do deal with procurement, generally the company/organisation you're working for will have policies in place (minimum number of quotes, justifying the size of the budget and the payment plans etc.). This is all pretty basic stuff, if you put a contract to build something or provide a service out to tender, you want to get the quote that delivers value for money and you don't go with the provider that will cut corners (buy cheap, buy twice as the old saying going).
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
Sorry Fiiish but this is just another example of your anti-Labour, anti-public sector bias coming through. Anyone working in the public sector either then or now will testify that procurement is subject to far more bureaucratic procedures, regulation and scrutiny than ever likely in the private sector. In fact it's often levelled as a criticism of the public sector and trying to order paperclips can be a pain in the backside let alone a new hospital! To suggest the PFI situation has arisen through a lack of experience or proper procedures is wishful thinking on your part.
For the record I'm not saying they were a good deal at all, far from it they were politically driven decisions that continue to have detrimental effects on the public purse. But I'm certain that there were not a host of better deals on the table that were overlooked by Gordon Brown or whoever was Health Minister at the time because of a lack of procurement advice and procedures from the civil service.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The problem with PFI is if you cock up the procurement, the cost can and did spiral into the billions. Now if you're someone who has actually worked in a job where you have do deal with procurement, generally the company/organisation you're working for will have policies in place (minimum number of quotes, justifying the size of the budget and the payment plans etc.). This is all pretty basic stuff, if you put a contract to build something or provide a service out to tender, you want to get the quote that delivers value for money and you don't go with the provider that will cut corners (buy cheap, buy twice as the old saying going).
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
To suggest the PFI situation has arisen through a lack of experience or proper procedures is wishful thinking on your part.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it's your usual boring blinkered defence of anything paid for by the taxpayers but lets look at the last 3 health ministers of the Blair-Brown period - Hewitt, Johnson and Burnham. None of them held any meaningful position of responsibility before entering politics and can be classed as career politicians. They would have had significant input and sign-off over PFI deals for health infrastructure and indeed publicly defended what they were doing, despite the fact that the actual cost of those deals are costing several times more than the cost of the initial investment. Hewitt even got given a cushy position at one of these private equity firms after she stepped down. I'm not saying that the fact that these three idiots have no real world experience is the sole contributing factor to why the PFI cock-up was of such a huge scale, but it is definitely a contributing factor. Hewitt perhaps being sweet-talked by cowboy investors and the chance to take up a paid position to sweeten the deal is a symptom of this problem. If anyone in my company paid £5bn to another firm for a £1bn job and then left to take up a paid position at the other firm once the job was completed, there would definitely be alarm bells and likely criminal charges under the Bribery Act considered. So, incompetence and corruption are two big problems here. Not that this is exclusive of the public sector and this sort of thing is definitely prevalent in the private sector as well, but in the private sector the likes of Burnham and Johnson would never be anywhere near a position of responsibility like that, they'd more likely be in the post room.
The big problem with PFI is how it's financed. In order to avoid ramping up the national debt to invest in the infrastructure we needed, under PFI contracts the borrowing was done by the companies and the costs incorporated into what they charged for the work. But this meant that rather than being able to borrow at Government Bond rates, so interest was only a few percent, they had to borrow commercially, and so the interest was a lot higher (more like 20% in certain cases). It doesn't matter how good you are at negotiating contracts, whatever you do it is ALWAYS going to be significantly more expensive in the long term. (As an analogy, PFI is like paying a few quid a week to get your telly from Brighthouse when you could have used your overdraft facility to buy a telly outright from Argos. In the short term you look in better shape financially, but in the long term you pay far far more)
The other problem with PFI is the sheer length of the contracts. When you're talking about 20 or 30 year contracts, there's no way in the world that you can anticipate the kind of technological changes that are going to happen in that time and build them into it. Just think about how computers have changed in the last 20 years, let alone ultrasound, MRIs, CT scanners etc. And that's before we get into the changes that are needed due to the whims of the Government of the day. It's in variations to the contracts where the customer really gets screwed, because you're tied in to dealing with that supplier, and can't get a better deal elsewhere.
It's not an issue of public sector procurement being inefficient or incompetent, it's that PFI is a flawed model that's only popular because it makes the country's finances look better than investing the old-fashioned way.
The big problem with PFI is how it's financed. In order to avoid ramping up the national debt to invest in the infrastructure we needed, under PFI contracts the borrowing was done by the companies and the costs incorporated into what they charged for the work. But this meant that rather than being able to borrow at Government Bond rates, so interest was only a few percent, they had to borrow commercially, and so the interest was a lot higher (more like 20% in certain cases). It doesn't matter how good you are at negotiating contracts, whatever you do it is ALWAYS going to be significantly more expensive in the long term. (As an analogy, PFI is like paying a few quid a week to get your telly from Brighthouse when you could have used your overdraft facility to buy a telly outright from Argos. In the short term you look in better shape financially, but in the long term you pay far far more)
The other problem with PFI is the sheer length of the contracts. When you're talking about 20 or 30 year contracts, there's no way in the world that you can anticipate the kind of technological changes that are going to happen in that time and build them into it. Just think about how computers have changed in the last 20 years, let alone ultrasound, MRIs, CT scanners etc. And that's before we get into the changes that are needed due to the whims of the Government of the day. It's in variations to the contracts where the customer really gets screwed, because you're tied in to dealing with that supplier, and can't get a better deal elsewhere.
It's not an issue of public sector procurement being inefficient or incompetent, it's that PFI is a flawed model that's only popular because it makes the country's finances look better than investing the old-fashioned way.
This is largely my thinking on the subject.
When they were elected it was a way of financing much required investment in the public sector and infrastructure that had several political advantages i.e Blair had made much political capital of turning Labour into a 'business friendly' party (for want of a better word) so a financial partnership arrangement like PFI's ticked that box in the city.
PFI's also meant that they did not have to finance it through immediate rises in the income tax rate for example and NO party wants to touch income tax let alone one that has been recently elected after 18 years in opposition. Frankly I wish they had been braver and stuck a penny on income tax and then we wouldn't be where we are now...but Labour may not have got a second term.
Lastly, it kicked the problem down the road and whilst the economy was doing well and hospitals and schools being built I don't remember PFI's being high on the political agenda.
In hindsight of course they're turning out to be a financial millstone.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The problem with PFI is if you cock up the procurement, the cost can and did spiral into the billions. Now if you're someone who has actually worked in a job where you have do deal with procurement, generally the company/organisation you're working for will have policies in place (minimum number of quotes, justifying the size of the budget and the payment plans etc.). This is all pretty basic stuff, if you put a contract to build something or provide a service out to tender, you want to get the quote that delivers value for money and you don't go with the provider that will cut corners (buy cheap, buy twice as the old saying going).
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
To suggest the PFI situation has arisen through a lack of experience or proper procedures is wishful thinking on your part.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it's your usual boring blinkered defence of anything paid for by the taxpayers but lets look at the last 3 health ministers of the Blair-Brown period - Hewitt, Johnson and Burnham. None of them held any meaningful position of responsibility before entering politics and can be classed as career politicians. They would have had significant input and sign-off over PFI deals for health infrastructure and indeed publicly defended what they were doing, despite the fact that the actual cost of those deals are costing several times more than the cost of the initial investment. Hewitt even got given a cushy position at one of these private equity firms after she stepped down. I'm not saying that the fact that these three idiots have no real world experience is the sole contributing factor to why the PFI cock-up was of such a huge scale, but it is definitely a contributing factor. Hewitt perhaps being sweet-talked by cowboy investors and the chance to take up a paid position to sweeten the deal is a symptom of this problem. If anyone in my company paid £5bn to another firm for a £1bn job and then left to take up a paid position at the other firm once the job was completed, there would definitely be alarm bells and likely criminal charges under the Bribery Act considered. So, incompetence and corruption are two big problems here. Not that this is exclusive of the public sector and this sort of thing is definitely prevalent in the private sector as well, but in the private sector the likes of Burnham and Johnson would never be anywhere near a position of responsibility like that, they'd more likely be in the post room.
Terribly sorry to bore you with an alternative view and on second thoughts Fiiish I'm sure you're right with your theory that not one person in the entire cabinet, the civil service or the NHS thought to get more than one quote for the multibillion pound contracts that were being awarded. Makes perfect sense now you've pointed it out.
Your accusations of my posting bias are, to coin an overused phrase, beyond parody given that within the last few days you have described Labour as, and I quote, "The Scum"...
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The problem with PFI is if you cock up the procurement, the cost can and did spiral into the billions. Now if you're someone who has actually worked in a job where you have do deal with procurement, generally the company/organisation you're working for will have policies in place (minimum number of quotes, justifying the size of the budget and the payment plans etc.). This is all pretty basic stuff, if you put a contract to build something or provide a service out to tender, you want to get the quote that delivers value for money and you don't go with the provider that will cut corners (buy cheap, buy twice as the old saying going).
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
To suggest the PFI situation has arisen through a lack of experience or proper procedures is wishful thinking on your part.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it's your usual boring blinkered defence of anything paid for by the taxpayers but lets look at the last 3 health ministers of the Blair-Brown period - Hewitt, Johnson and Burnham. None of them held any meaningful position of responsibility before entering politics and can be classed as career politicians. They would have had significant input and sign-off over PFI deals for health infrastructure and indeed publicly defended what they were doing, despite the fact that the actual cost of those deals are costing several times more than the cost of the initial investment. Hewitt even got given a cushy position at one of these private equity firms after she stepped down. I'm not saying that the fact that these three idiots have no real world experience is the sole contributing factor to why the PFI cock-up was of such a huge scale, but it is definitely a contributing factor. Hewitt perhaps being sweet-talked by cowboy investors and the chance to take up a paid position to sweeten the deal is a symptom of this problem. If anyone in my company paid £5bn to another firm for a £1bn job and then left to take up a paid position at the other firm once the job was completed, there would definitely be alarm bells and likely criminal charges under the Bribery Act considered. So, incompetence and corruption are two big problems here. Not that this is exclusive of the public sector and this sort of thing is definitely prevalent in the private sector as well, but in the private sector the likes of Burnham and Johnson would never be anywhere near a position of responsibility like that, they'd more likely be in the post room.
Terribly sorry to bore you with an alternative view and on second thoughts Fiiish I'm sure you're right with your theory that not one person in the entire cabinet, the civil service or the NHS thought to get more than one quote for the multibillion pound contracts that were being awarded. Makes perfect sense now you've pointed it out.
Your accusations of my posting bias are, to coin an overused phrase, beyond parody given that within the last few days you have described Labour as, and I quote, "The Scum"...
I find it boring because you never actually introduce any kind of facts or insight and instead you just try to shut down any kind of discussion by referring to how upset you get by posts I've made in other threads. You also tend to misrepresent my point of view (for example I never said anything about only getting one quote), just as when you took a light-hearted jibe at something annoying that my bin men did and tried to make it look like I was attacking the entire public sector. Stop making straw men and actually contribute to a discussion for once in your life.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The problem with PFI is if you cock up the procurement, the cost can and did spiral into the billions. Now if you're someone who has actually worked in a job where you have do deal with procurement, generally the company/organisation you're working for will have policies in place (minimum number of quotes, justifying the size of the budget and the payment plans etc.). This is all pretty basic stuff, if you put a contract to build something or provide a service out to tender, you want to get the quote that delivers value for money and you don't go with the provider that will cut corners (buy cheap, buy twice as the old saying going).
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
To suggest the PFI situation has arisen through a lack of experience or proper procedures is wishful thinking on your part.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it's your usual boring blinkered defence of anything paid for by the taxpayers but lets look at the last 3 health ministers of the Blair-Brown period - Hewitt, Johnson and Burnham. None of them held any meaningful position of responsibility before entering politics and can be classed as career politicians. They would have had significant input and sign-off over PFI deals for health infrastructure and indeed publicly defended what they were doing, despite the fact that the actual cost of those deals are costing several times more than the cost of the initial investment. Hewitt even got given a cushy position at one of these private equity firms after she stepped down. I'm not saying that the fact that these three idiots have no real world experience is the sole contributing factor to why the PFI cock-up was of such a huge scale, but it is definitely a contributing factor. Hewitt perhaps being sweet-talked by cowboy investors and the chance to take up a paid position to sweeten the deal is a symptom of this problem. If anyone in my company paid £5bn to another firm for a £1bn job and then left to take up a paid position at the other firm once the job was completed, there would definitely be alarm bells and likely criminal charges under the Bribery Act considered. So, incompetence and corruption are two big problems here. Not that this is exclusive of the public sector and this sort of thing is definitely prevalent in the private sector as well, but in the private sector the likes of Burnham and Johnson would never be anywhere near a position of responsibility like that, they'd more likely be in the post room.
Terribly sorry to bore you with an alternative view and on second thoughts Fiiish I'm sure you're right with your theory that not one person in the entire cabinet, the civil service or the NHS thought to get more than one quote for the multibillion pound contracts that were being awarded. Makes perfect sense now you've pointed it out.
Your accusations of my posting bias are, to coin an overused phrase, beyond parody given that within the last few days you have described Labour as, and I quote, "The Scum"...
I find it boring because you never actually introduce any kind of facts or insight and instead you just try to shut down any kind of discussion by referring to how upset you get by posts I've made in other threads. You also tend to misrepresent my point of view (for example I never said anything about only getting one quote), just as when you took a light-hearted jibe at something annoying that my bin men did and tried to make it look like I was attacking the entire public sector. Stop making straw men and actually contribute to a discussion for once in your life.
...what you mean facts like the three different, independent sources of info on pay rates that I quoted/sourced in the previous thread you're referring to? The fact is because they don't fit in with your existing theories anything I post supporting a different view just doesn't register with you.
Anyway, for the sake of avoiding Big Rob's argument brewing thread I think we'll just have to agree to differ on the introduction of PFI's.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The problem with PFI is if you cock up the procurement, the cost can and did spiral into the billions. Now if you're someone who has actually worked in a job where you have do deal with procurement, generally the company/organisation you're working for will have policies in place (minimum number of quotes, justifying the size of the budget and the payment plans etc.). This is all pretty basic stuff, if you put a contract to build something or provide a service out to tender, you want to get the quote that delivers value for money and you don't go with the provider that will cut corners (buy cheap, buy twice as the old saying going).
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
To suggest the PFI situation has arisen through a lack of experience or proper procedures is wishful thinking on your part.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it's your usual boring blinkered defence of anything paid for by the taxpayers but lets look at the last 3 health ministers of the Blair-Brown period - Hewitt, Johnson and Burnham. None of them held any meaningful position of responsibility before entering politics and can be classed as career politicians. They would have had significant input and sign-off over PFI deals for health infrastructure and indeed publicly defended what they were doing, despite the fact that the actual cost of those deals are costing several times more than the cost of the initial investment. Hewitt even got given a cushy position at one of these private equity firms after she stepped down. I'm not saying that the fact that these three idiots have no real world experience is the sole contributing factor to why the PFI cock-up was of such a huge scale, but it is definitely a contributing factor. Hewitt perhaps being sweet-talked by cowboy investors and the chance to take up a paid position to sweeten the deal is a symptom of this problem. If anyone in my company paid £5bn to another firm for a £1bn job and then left to take up a paid position at the other firm once the job was completed, there would definitely be alarm bells and likely criminal charges under the Bribery Act considered. So, incompetence and corruption are two big problems here. Not that this is exclusive of the public sector and this sort of thing is definitely prevalent in the private sector as well, but in the private sector the likes of Burnham and Johnson would never be anywhere near a position of responsibility like that, they'd more likely be in the post room.
Terribly sorry to bore you with an alternative view and on second thoughts Fiiish I'm sure you're right with your theory that not one person in the entire cabinet, the civil service or the NHS thought to get more than one quote for the multibillion pound contracts that were being awarded. Makes perfect sense now you've pointed it out.
Your accusations of my posting bias are, to coin an overused phrase, beyond parody given that within the last few days you have described Labour as, and I quote, "The Scum"...
I find it boring because you never actually introduce any kind of facts or insight and instead you just try to shut down any kind of discussion by referring to how upset you get by posts I've made in other threads. You also tend to misrepresent my point of view (for example I never said anything about only getting one quote), just as when you took a light-hearted jibe at something annoying that my bin men did and tried to make it look like I was attacking the entire public sector. Stop making straw men and actually contribute to a discussion for once in your life.
...what you mean facts like the three different, independent sources of info on pay rates that I quoted/sourced in the previous thread you're referring to? The fact is because they don't fit in with your existing theories anything I post supporting a different view just doesn't register with you.
Anyway, for the sake of avoiding Big Rob's argument brewing thread I think we'll just have to agree to differ on the introduction of PFI's.
I welcome opposing views so long as they don't rely on anecdotes or aren't completely at odds with reality. There's also the issue you never actually address the content of my posts and instead create straw men to attack, for example, quoting pay rates had absolutely nothing to do with my lighthearted jibe at my binman.
The Churchill/Attlee government during the war did not do too badly. A Tory/Labour government would be best for the country as they do have the most competent politicians and are far more policies than any other parties even though we all hate them.
It would need for the Conservatives to drop their ideological obsession with privatising everything that moves.
Going by the last Labour administration's head-long rush to privatisation, I don't think that would be an obstacle at all.
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
True enough, Labour carried on with the enabling legislation to privatise the NHS that allowed the Conservatives to continue with the job. Totally agree about PFI contracts (started by the Conservatives and continued by Labour) which are a terrible waste of money and very badly put together. When putting those PFI contracts together they should have at least ensured value for money on the contracts rather than over paying for everything. The whole thing was / is a shambles.
The problem with PFI is if you cock up the procurement, the cost can and did spiral into the billions. Now if you're someone who has actually worked in a job where you have do deal with procurement, generally the company/organisation you're working for will have policies in place (minimum number of quotes, justifying the size of the budget and the payment plans etc.). This is all pretty basic stuff, if you put a contract to build something or provide a service out to tender, you want to get the quote that delivers value for money and you don't go with the provider that will cut corners (buy cheap, buy twice as the old saying going).
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
To suggest the PFI situation has arisen through a lack of experience or proper procedures is wishful thinking on your part.
Ignoring the rest of your post because it's your usual boring blinkered defence of anything paid for by the taxpayers but lets look at the last 3 health ministers of the Blair-Brown period - Hewitt, Johnson and Burnham. None of them held any meaningful position of responsibility before entering politics and can be classed as career politicians. They would have had significant input and sign-off over PFI deals for health infrastructure and indeed publicly defended what they were doing, despite the fact that the actual cost of those deals are costing several times more than the cost of the initial investment. Hewitt even got given a cushy position at one of these private equity firms after she stepped down. I'm not saying that the fact that these three idiots have no real world experience is the sole contributing factor to why the PFI cock-up was of such a huge scale, but it is definitely a contributing factor. Hewitt perhaps being sweet-talked by cowboy investors and the chance to take up a paid position to sweeten the deal is a symptom of this problem. If anyone in my company paid £5bn to another firm for a £1bn job and then left to take up a paid position at the other firm once the job was completed, there would definitely be alarm bells and likely criminal charges under the Bribery Act considered. So, incompetence and corruption are two big problems here. Not that this is exclusive of the public sector and this sort of thing is definitely prevalent in the private sector as well, but in the private sector the likes of Burnham and Johnson would never be anywhere near a position of responsibility like that, they'd more likely be in the post room.
Terribly sorry to bore you with an alternative view and on second thoughts Fiiish I'm sure you're right with your theory that not one person in the entire cabinet, the civil service or the NHS thought to get more than one quote for the multibillion pound contracts that were being awarded. Makes perfect sense now you've pointed it out.
Your accusations of my posting bias are, to coin an overused phrase, beyond parody given that within the last few days you have described Labour as, and I quote, "The Scum"...
I find it boring because you never actually introduce any kind of facts or insight and instead you just try to shut down any kind of discussion by referring to how upset you get by posts I've made in other threads. You also tend to misrepresent my point of view (for example I never said anything about only getting one quote), just as when you took a light-hearted jibe at something annoying that my bin men did and tried to make it look like I was attacking the entire public sector. Stop making straw men and actually contribute to a discussion for once in your life.
...what you mean facts like the three different, independent sources of info on pay rates that I quoted/sourced in the previous thread you're referring to? The fact is because they don't fit in with your existing theories anything I post supporting a different view just doesn't register with you.
Anyway, for the sake of avoiding Big Rob's argument brewing thread I think we'll just have to agree to differ on the introduction of PFI's.
I welcome opposing views so long as they don't rely on anecdotes or aren't completely at odds with reality. There's also the issue you never actually address the content of my posts and instead create straw men to attack, for example, quoting pay rates had absolutely nothing to do with my lighthearted jibe at my binman.
Well no you're right, that particular spat started because I said in response to your 'lighthearted jibe' (in which you called them all lazy c**ts) that my own bin men were great and I never had any problems. Which is true.
Others then launched in with their views quoting inflated wages as a criticism and comparisons to nurses which I knew and was able to prove was bollocks frankly.
There is a problem if another persons position is misrepresented. However a so called 'straw man' argument is a good way of generating discussion, and reflecting on the theoretical possibilities as well as looking at the phenomenology of a variety of positions. To accuse somebody of setting up a straw man position is not a debate winner as far as my understanding of the concept goes.
There is a problem if another persons position is misrepresented. However a so called 'straw man' argument is a good way of generating discussion, and reflecting on the theoretical possibilities as well as looking at the phenomenology of a variety of positions. To accuse somebody of setting up a straw man position is not a debate winner as far as my understanding of the concept goes.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man A straw man is...an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
In this case, my original argument is that a contributing factor to the scale of the PFI cock-up was that the politicians involved were completely out of their depth when it came to signing off these deals. The straw man invoked was that my position was that the entire public sector's procurement procedure is terrible and that everyone in the public sector is a moron. Bournemouth also likes to work from the false premise that the public sector cannot, under any circumstances, ever be criticised, therefore any argument that involves portraying any element of the public sector in a negative light can be conveniently ignored under this false premise. Unfortunately, that is not how the world works and as a taxpayer I am livid at how much money elected politicians have wasted. As both a voter and a taxpayer it is my civic duty to support holding those spending or being paid with my money to account.
Comments
In such a grand coalition, each party would likely end up alienating their own political base, as Labour are blamed for perceived "Tory anti-poor policies" while the Conservatives are blamed for perceived Labour economic incompetence. In those circumstances, the marginal parties can build their support, especially where there are dodgy 'outsiders' that can be blamed for all the country's problems (take your pick of bankers, immigrants, benefits scroungers, tax evaders etc).
I agree with you that the Conservatives and Labour are not hugely different in policies - their arguments are around the edges and around intangibles like "trust" or "integrity". However, a grand coalition could do serious damage to one of them by alienating support base. I have a feeling on which one would suffer more, but I think airing it would continue the dull red v blue squabbling.
We are a long way off from the coalition politics we see in other countries. All the parties need to drop their hatred for each other and act in the national interest. The SNP's and Labour's hatred of the Tories simply because they hated a woman who is now dead is single-handedly stopping any improvement of the political discourse in this country.
Will Self last night was pretty average. What the polling shows is that people tend to be very dismissive of MPs as a whole but if they have had dealings with their own MP they tend to be much more enthusiastic. I was a councillor for a few years and pretty much everyone I knew then and still know is doing it because they think they can help in some small way. I think that we run a risk of devaluing politicians so much that it will become a job nobody wants and so the mostly false reputation that politicians have will actually become truer.
Hence we have a problem where parties are now abandoning their long term principles in order to try to get elected. This has resulted the parties coming closer together, which has then led to weak coalition governments that muddle along and get very little done. Voters need to wake up, take some tough medicine, stop thinking about their hip pocket today, rather think about the future of their kids and their Grandchildren. Voting for minor parties is simply a waste of a vote. Give one of the major parties a strong mandate and then allow them to get on with the job. For me, it all boils down to the economy. In a strong economy, everybody prospers, in a debt laden, weak economy, the majority suffer. Who is going to manage the economy better, Conservatives or Labour? I know what my answer is!
Despite Labour luminaries such as the laughable Harriet Harman and Alistair Darling (yes, really) denouncing PFI when they were in opposition, as soon as they got into power the Labour Party were very, very enthusiastic adopters of Norman Lamont's (borrowed from the Australians) concept of PFI. This has cost the country dearly. With outstanding PFI obligations being somewhere in the region of £300bn. The NHS, for example, owes private companies £50bn for infrastructure that cost only £11bn to build, plus £15bn for maintenance charges. Thanks go largely to Tony and Gordon for that little number!
However, considering most of those politicians making these PFI decisions during the Blair/Brown years have never held any kind of meaningful position outside of politics or mandarin-style positions, they've never had any experience of real world procurement where you need to deliver on budget and on time. No wonder that they got completely swindled and the taxpayers are having to pick up the bill.
For the record I'm not saying they were a good deal at all, far from it they were politically driven decisions that continue to have detrimental effects on the public purse. But I'm certain that there were not a host of better deals on the table that were overlooked by Gordon Brown or whoever was Health Minister at the time because of a lack of procurement advice and procedures from the civil service.
The other problem with PFI is the sheer length of the contracts. When you're talking about 20 or 30 year contracts, there's no way in the world that you can anticipate the kind of technological changes that are going to happen in that time and build them into it. Just think about how computers have changed in the last 20 years, let alone ultrasound, MRIs, CT scanners etc. And that's before we get into the changes that are needed due to the whims of the Government of the day. It's in variations to the contracts where the customer really gets screwed, because you're tied in to dealing with that supplier, and can't get a better deal elsewhere.
It's not an issue of public sector procurement being inefficient or incompetent, it's that PFI is a flawed model that's only popular because it makes the country's finances look better than investing the old-fashioned way.
When they were elected it was a way of financing much required investment in the public sector and infrastructure that had several political advantages i.e Blair had made much political capital of turning Labour into a 'business friendly' party (for want of a better word) so a financial partnership arrangement like PFI's ticked that box in the city.
PFI's also meant that they did not have to finance it through immediate rises in the income tax rate for example and NO party wants to touch income tax let alone one that has been recently elected after 18 years in opposition. Frankly I wish they had been braver and stuck a penny on income tax and then we wouldn't be where we are now...but Labour may not have got a second term.
Lastly, it kicked the problem down the road and whilst the economy was doing well and hospitals and schools being built I don't remember PFI's being high on the political agenda.
In hindsight of course they're turning out to be a financial millstone.
Your accusations of my posting bias are, to coin an overused phrase, beyond parody given that within the last few days you have described Labour as, and I quote, "The Scum"...
Anyway, for the sake of avoiding Big Rob's argument brewing thread I think we'll just have to agree to differ on the introduction of PFI's.
Others then launched in with their views quoting inflated wages as a criticism and comparisons to nurses which I knew and was able to prove was bollocks frankly.
Anyways....until next time.
To accuse somebody of setting up a straw man position is not a debate winner as far as my understanding of the concept goes.
A straw man is...an informal fallacy based on false representation of an opponent's argument. To be successful, a straw man argument requires that the audience be ignorant or uninformed of the original argument.
The so-called typical "attacking a straw man" argument creates the illusion of having completely refuted or defeated an opponent's proposition by covertly replacing it with a different proposition (i.e., "stand up a straw man") and then to refute or defeat that false argument ("knock down a straw man") instead of the original proposition.
In this case, my original argument is that a contributing factor to the scale of the PFI cock-up was that the politicians involved were completely out of their depth when it came to signing off these deals. The straw man invoked was that my position was that the entire public sector's procurement procedure is terrible and that everyone in the public sector is a moron. Bournemouth also likes to work from the false premise that the public sector cannot, under any circumstances, ever be criticised, therefore any argument that involves portraying any element of the public sector in a negative light can be conveniently ignored under this false premise. Unfortunately, that is not how the world works and as a taxpayer I am livid at how much money elected politicians have wasted. As both a voter and a taxpayer it is my civic duty to support holding those spending or being paid with my money to account.