As an observer, I think it’s a bit harsh to keep on about ten years of austerity under the Conservatives, as the banking crisis occurred under Labours watch. Alistair Darling was the guy who approved the billions of bail out debt, and quite rightly so. There would have been a catastrophe had he not acted. It’s now evident that public spending should have increased a few years ago, but to say ten years ago is wrong imo. Unless someone out there had a better solution to solving banks going under and those consequences thereafter. I’m no Tory btw, my dad worked for the Royal Mail for 35years, and was in their union. As an 8-9 year old, I stayed up late to watch the results come in. I used to cheer if Labour won a seat as if it was a goal at the footie. Hopefully I’m a bit wiser now.
Labour not responsible for crash, says former Bank of England governor
There is an argument on whether austerity was the correct way to go.
The PFI contracts were a disaster. The spending on no deal Brexit preparation was a shocking waste of money.
Figures released under Freedom of Information show that North Staffordshire NHS trust paid £242 to put a padlock while North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS trust paid £466 to replace a light fitting and £75 for an air freshener. A trust in Salisbury paid £15,000 to “install a laundry door following feasibility study”. Other charges include £8,450 to install an “additional dishwasher” for a NHS trust in Hull, £962 to “supply and fix notice-board” at a trust in Leeds and £26,614 for the “replacement of shower room doors” at the Sussex Partnership Trust. The Coventry and Warwickshire University Hospitals NHS Trust was charged £4,459 to “supply and install a new CCTV camera” while a hospital trust in Ipswich Hospital was billed £120 to call out an engineer to reset an alarm. The same trust in Ipswich also was charged four separate payments of £120 on false call-outs, including one to investigate a static shock received from a door which turned out not to be the contractor’s responsibility. Every man, woman and child in Britain is more than £3,400 in debt – without knowing it and without borrowing a single penny – thanks to the proliferation of controversial deals used to pay for infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. The UK owes more than £222bn to banks and businesses as a result of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) – “buy now, pay later” agreements between the government and private companies on major projects. The startling figure – described by experts as a “financial disaster” – has been calculated as part of an Independent on Sunday analysis of Treasury data on more than 720 PFIs. The analysis has been verified by the National Audit Office (NAO).
Crippling PFI deals leave Britain £222bn in debt Exclusive: Treasury data analysis unearths the 'enormous financial disaster' of Private Finance Initiatives
The headline debt is based on “unitary charges” which start this month and will continue for 35 years. They include fees for services rendered, such as maintenance and cleaning, as well as the repayment of loans underwritten by banks and investment companies.
The system has yielded assets valued at £56.5bn. But Britain will pay more than five times that amount under the terms of the PFIs used to create them, and in some cases be left with nothing to show for it, because the PFI agreed to is effectively a leasing agreement. Some £88bn has already been spent, and even if the projected cost between now and 2049/50 does not change, the total PFI bill will be in excess of £310bn. This is more than four times the budget deficit used to justify austerity cuts to government budgets and local services.
According to Jean Shaoul, professor emerita at Manchester Business School, PFIs have been “an enormous financial disaster in terms of cost”. She added: “Frankly, it’s very corrupt... no rational government, looking at the interests of the citizenry as a whole, would do this.”
Unlike government funding, PFI’s cannot be adjusted to match the economy’s fortunes. They are governed by contracts that often run to thousands of pages. In contrast to the radical cuts to public spending, less than 1 per cent has been trimmed from the total cost of PFI deals since 2012. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, admitted last month: “Too many of the old PFI deals were poorly negotiated... with high costs draining local and national coffers.”
Last year The Independent revealed how firms given 25-year contracts to build and maintain schools doubled their money by selling their shares in the schemes less than five years into the deals. Four – Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Interserve, and Kier – made combined profits of over £300m.
House prices going up by 20% per year, for five years. I see no bubble? Agree there are always dodgy contracts, left , right and Centre. Voters of all parties will likely be the beneficiaries of those though.
The voters or taxpayers are those that will be paying for these contracts for years to come.
House prices going up by 20% per year, for five years. I see no bubble? Agree there are always dodgy contracts, left , right and Centre. Voters of all parties will likely be the beneficiaries of those though.
The system has yielded assets valued at £56.5bn. But Britain will pay more than five times that amount under the terms of the PFIs used to create them, and in some cases be left with nothing to show for it, because the PFI agreed to is effectively a leasing agreement. Some £88bn has already been spent, and even if the projected cost between now and 2049/50 does not change, the total PFI bill will be in excess of £310bn. This is more than four times the budget deficit used to justify austerity cuts to government budgets and local services.
As an observer, I think it’s a bit harsh to keep on about ten years of austerity under the Conservatives, as the banking crisis occurred under Labours watch. Alistair Darling was the guy who approved the billions of bail out debt, and quite rightly so. There would have been a catastrophe had he not acted. It’s now evident that public spending should have increased a few years ago, but to say ten years ago is wrong imo. Unless someone out there had a better solution to solving banks going under and those consequences thereafter. I’m no Tory btw, my dad worked for the Royal Mail for 35years, and was in their union. As an 8-9 year old, I stayed up late to watch the results come in. I used to cheer if Labour won a seat as if it was a goal at the footie. Hopefully I’m a bit wiser now.
A Labour government always leaves the country the same way...skint. A Conservative government then has to pick up the pieces,with the poorest in society paying the heaviest price.Remember the "We're all in this together" claptrap being spouted everywhere.When people having to rely on food banks reached unprecedented highs,just remember,"We're all in this together".
As an observer, I think it’s a bit harsh to keep on about ten years of austerity under the Conservatives, as the banking crisis occurred under Labours watch. Alistair Darling was the guy who approved the billions of bail out debt, and quite rightly so. There would have been a catastrophe had he not acted. It’s now evident that public spending should have increased a few years ago, but to say ten years ago is wrong imo. Unless someone out there had a better solution to solving banks going under and those consequences thereafter. I’m no Tory btw, my dad worked for the Royal Mail for 35years, and was in their union. As an 8-9 year old, I stayed up late to watch the results come in. I used to cheer if Labour won a seat as if it was a goal at the footie. Hopefully I’m a bit wiser now.
Labour not responsible for crash, says former Bank of England governor
There is an argument on whether austerity was the correct way to go.
The PFI contracts were a disaster. The spending on no deal Brexit preparation was a shocking waste of money.
Figures released under Freedom of Information show that North Staffordshire NHS trust paid £242 to put a padlock while North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS trust paid £466 to replace a light fitting and £75 for an air freshener. A trust in Salisbury paid £15,000 to “install a laundry door following feasibility study”. Other charges include £8,450 to install an “additional dishwasher” for a NHS trust in Hull, £962 to “supply and fix notice-board” at a trust in Leeds and £26,614 for the “replacement of shower room doors” at the Sussex Partnership Trust. The Coventry and Warwickshire University Hospitals NHS Trust was charged £4,459 to “supply and install a new CCTV camera” while a hospital trust in Ipswich Hospital was billed £120 to call out an engineer to reset an alarm. The same trust in Ipswich also was charged four separate payments of £120 on false call-outs, including one to investigate a static shock received from a door which turned out not to be the contractor’s responsibility. Every man, woman and child in Britain is more than £3,400 in debt – without knowing it and without borrowing a single penny – thanks to the proliferation of controversial deals used to pay for infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. The UK owes more than £222bn to banks and businesses as a result of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) – “buy now, pay later” agreements between the government and private companies on major projects. The startling figure – described by experts as a “financial disaster” – has been calculated as part of an Independent on Sunday analysis of Treasury data on more than 720 PFIs. The analysis has been verified by the National Audit Office (NAO).
Crippling PFI deals leave Britain £222bn in debt Exclusive: Treasury data analysis unearths the 'enormous financial disaster' of Private Finance Initiatives
The headline debt is based on “unitary charges” which start this month and will continue for 35 years. They include fees for services rendered, such as maintenance and cleaning, as well as the repayment of loans underwritten by banks and investment companies.
The system has yielded assets valued at £56.5bn. But Britain will pay more than five times that amount under the terms of the PFIs used to create them, and in some cases be left with nothing to show for it, because the PFI agreed to is effectively a leasing agreement. Some £88bn has already been spent, and even if the projected cost between now and 2049/50 does not change, the total PFI bill will be in excess of £310bn. This is more than four times the budget deficit used to justify austerity cuts to government budgets and local services.
According to Jean Shaoul, professor emerita at Manchester Business School, PFIs have been “an enormous financial disaster in terms of cost”. She added: “Frankly, it’s very corrupt... no rational government, looking at the interests of the citizenry as a whole, would do this.”
Unlike government funding, PFI’s cannot be adjusted to match the economy’s fortunes. They are governed by contracts that often run to thousands of pages. In contrast to the radical cuts to public spending, less than 1 per cent has been trimmed from the total cost of PFI deals since 2012. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, admitted last month: “Too many of the old PFI deals were poorly negotiated... with high costs draining local and national coffers.”
Last year The Independent revealed how firms given 25-year contracts to build and maintain schools doubled their money by selling their shares in the schemes less than five years into the deals. Four – Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Interserve, and Kier – made combined profits of over £300m.
House prices going up by 20% per year, for five years. I see no bubble? Agree there are always dodgy contracts, left , right and Centre. Voters of all parties will likely be the beneficiaries of those though.
The voters or taxpayers are those that will be paying for these contracts for years to come.
As an observer, I think it’s a bit harsh to keep on about ten years of austerity under the Conservatives, as the banking crisis occurred under Labours watch. Alistair Darling was the guy who approved the billions of bail out debt, and quite rightly so. There would have been a catastrophe had he not acted. It’s now evident that public spending should have increased a few years ago, but to say ten years ago is wrong imo. Unless someone out there had a better solution to solving banks going under and those consequences thereafter. I’m no Tory btw, my dad worked for the Royal Mail for 35years, and was in their union. As an 8-9 year old, I stayed up late to watch the results come in. I used to cheer if Labour won a seat as if it was a goal at the footie. Hopefully I’m a bit wiser now.
A bad idea, made worse by Labour. These politicians need vetting. The reason it’s hard to get your head around what they say, is because they’re c rap at their jobs. When you don’t need any qualifications to become an MP, you’re asking for trouble.
Figures released under Freedom of Information show that North Staffordshire NHS trust paid £242 to put a padlock while North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS trust paid £466 to replace a light fitting and £75 for an air freshener. A trust in Salisbury paid £15,000 to “install a laundry door following feasibility study”. Other charges include £8,450 to install an “additional dishwasher” for a NHS trust in Hull, £962 to “supply and fix notice-board” at a trust in Leeds and £26,614 for the “replacement of shower room doors” at the Sussex Partnership Trust. The Coventry and Warwickshire University Hospitals NHS Trust was charged £4,459 to “supply and install a new CCTV camera” while a hospital trust in Ipswich Hospital was billed £120 to call out an engineer to reset an alarm. The same trust in Ipswich also was charged four separate payments of £120 on false call-outs, including one to investigate a static shock received from a door which turned out not to be the contractor’s responsibility. Every man, woman and child in Britain is more than £3,400 in debt – without knowing it and without borrowing a single penny – thanks to the proliferation of controversial deals used to pay for infrastructure such as schools and hospitals. The UK owes more than £222bn to banks and businesses as a result of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) – “buy now, pay later” agreements between the government and private companies on major projects. The startling figure – described by experts as a “financial disaster” – has been calculated as part of an Independent on Sunday analysis of Treasury data on more than 720 PFIs. The analysis has been verified by the National Audit Office (NAO).
Crippling PFI deals leave Britain £222bn in debt Exclusive: Treasury data analysis unearths the 'enormous financial disaster' of Private Finance Initiatives
The headline debt is based on “unitary charges” which start this month and will continue for 35 years. They include fees for services rendered, such as maintenance and cleaning, as well as the repayment of loans underwritten by banks and investment companies.
The system has yielded assets valued at £56.5bn. But Britain will pay more than five times that amount under the terms of the PFIs used to create them, and in some cases be left with nothing to show for it, because the PFI agreed to is effectively a leasing agreement. Some £88bn has already been spent, and even if the projected cost between now and 2049/50 does not change, the total PFI bill will be in excess of £310bn. This is more than four times the budget deficit used to justify austerity cuts to government budgets and local services.
According to Jean Shaoul, professor emerita at Manchester Business School, PFIs have been “an enormous financial disaster in terms of cost”. She added: “Frankly, it’s very corrupt... no rational government, looking at the interests of the citizenry as a whole, would do this.”
Unlike government funding, PFI’s cannot be adjusted to match the economy’s fortunes. They are governed by contracts that often run to thousands of pages. In contrast to the radical cuts to public spending, less than 1 per cent has been trimmed from the total cost of PFI deals since 2012. Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, admitted last month: “Too many of the old PFI deals were poorly negotiated... with high costs draining local and national coffers.”
Last year The Independent revealed how firms given 25-year contracts to build and maintain schools doubled their money by selling their shares in the schemes less than five years into the deals. Four – Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Interserve, and Kier – made combined profits of over £300m.
As an observer, I think it’s a bit harsh to keep on about ten years of austerity under the Conservatives, as the banking crisis occurred under Labours watch. Alistair Darling was the guy who approved the billions of bail out debt, and quite rightly so. There would have been a catastrophe had he not acted. It’s now evident that public spending should have increased a few years ago, but to say ten years ago is wrong imo. Unless someone out there had a better solution to solving banks going under and those consequences thereafter. I’m no Tory btw, my dad worked for the Royal Mail for 35years, and was in their union. As an 8-9 year old, I stayed up late to watch the results come in. I used to cheer if Labour won a seat as if it was a goal at the footie. Hopefully I’m a bit wiser now.
A bad idea, made worse by Labour. These politicians need vetting. The reason it’s hard to get your head around what they say, is because they’re c rap at their jobs. When you don’t need any qualifications to become an MP, you’re asking for trouble.
£485 million worth of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts were awarded to Carillion during the last Labour government. This compares to £347 million awarded during the Coalition government, and another £439 million awarded over a few months by the Conservative government up to the end of 2015.
PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative Government led by John Major. It immediately proved controversial, and was attacked by Labour critics such as the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Harriet Harman, who said that PFI was really a back-door form of privatisation (House of Commons, 7 December 1993), and the future Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, warned that "apparent savings now could be countered by the formidable commitment on revenue expenditure in years to come".[10] Two months after New Labour took office, the Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, announced that "when there is a limited amount of public-sector capital available, as there is, it's PFI or bust".[10] PFI expanded considerably in 1996 and then expanded much further under New Labour with the NHS (Private Finance) Act 1997,[11] resulting in criticism from many trade unions, elements of the New Labour Party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), and the Green Party,[12] as well as commentators such as George Monbiot. Proponents of the PFI include the World Bank, IMF and (in the UK) the CBI.[13] Both Conservative and Labour governments sought to justify PFI on the practical[14] grounds that the private sector is better at delivering services than the public sector. This position has been supported by the UK National Audit Office with regard to certain projects. However, critics claim that many uses of PFI are ideological rather than practical; Pollock recalls a meeting with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown who could not provide a rationale for PFI other than to "declare repeatedly that the public sector is bad at management, and that only the private sector is efficient and can manage services well."[15]
I’ve always got on the job at 7.30, bang away until 4.30-500pm. Half an hour total breaks combined.Im self employed.
When there’s two, sometimes three vans turn up,and the guys stay inside for three hours, then get out to stretch their legs, then nip down the bakers, then back inside their vans. Then might do an hours work,before going home. It’s obvious where the corruption is. Loads of money on this job, no rush lads. Had that at the bottom of my road in the summer. Work associated to the railways.
Comments
House prices going up by 20% per year, for five years.
I see no bubble?
Agree there are always dodgy contracts, left , right and Centre.
Voters of all parties will likely be the beneficiaries of those though.
The system has yielded assets valued at £56.5bn. But Britain will pay more than five times that amount under the terms of the PFIs used to create them, and in some cases be left with nothing to show for it, because the PFI agreed to is effectively a leasing agreement. Some £88bn has already been spent, and even if the projected cost between now and 2049/50 does not change, the total PFI bill will be in excess of £310bn. This is more than four times the budget deficit used to justify austerity cuts to government budgets and local services.
These politicians need vetting.
The reason it’s hard to get your head around what they say, is because they’re c rap at their jobs.
When you don’t need any qualifications to become an MP, you’re asking for trouble.
Figures released under Freedom of Information show that North Staffordshire NHS trust paid £242 to put a padlock while North Cumbria University Hospitals NHS trust paid £466 to replace a light fitting and £75 for an air freshener. A trust in Salisbury paid £15,000 to “install a laundry door following feasibility study”.
Other charges include £8,450 to install an “additional dishwasher” for a NHS trust in Hull, £962 to “supply and fix notice-board” at a trust in Leeds and £26,614 for the “replacement of shower room doors” at the Sussex Partnership Trust.
The Coventry and Warwickshire University Hospitals NHS Trust was charged £4,459 to “supply and install a new CCTV camera” while a hospital trust in Ipswich Hospital was billed £120 to call out an engineer to reset an alarm.
The same trust in Ipswich also was charged four separate payments of £120 on false call-outs, including one to investigate a static shock received from a door which turned out not to be the contractor’s responsibility.
Every man, woman and child in Britain is more than £3,400 in debt – without knowing it and without borrowing a single penny – thanks to the proliferation of controversial deals used to pay for infrastructure such as schools and hospitals.
The UK owes more than £222bn to banks and businesses as a result of Private Finance Initiatives (PFIs) – “buy now, pay later” agreements between the government and private companies on major projects. The startling figure – described by experts as a “financial disaster” – has been calculated as part of an Independent on Sunday analysis of Treasury data on more than 720 PFIs. The analysis has been verified by the National Audit Office (NAO).
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8973557/Hospitals-being-charged-extortionate-sums-by-PFI-sums-to-carry-out-basic-DIY-jobs.html
Crippling PFI deals leave Britain £222bn in debt
Exclusive: Treasury data analysis unearths the 'enormous financial disaster' of Private Finance Initiatives
The headline debt is based on “unitary charges” which start this month and will continue for 35 years. They include fees for services rendered, such as maintenance and cleaning, as well as the repayment of loans underwritten by banks and investment companies.
The system has yielded assets valued at £56.5bn. But Britain will pay more than five times that amount under the terms of the PFIs used to create them, and in some cases be left with nothing to show for it, because the PFI agreed to is effectively a leasing agreement. Some £88bn has already been spent, and even if the projected cost between now and 2049/50 does not change, the total PFI bill will be in excess of £310bn. This is more than four times the budget deficit used to justify austerity cuts to government budgets and local services.
According to Jean Shaoul, professor emerita at Manchester Business School, PFIs have been “an enormous financial disaster in terms of cost”. She added: “Frankly, it’s very corrupt... no rational government, looking at the interests of the citizenry as a whole, would do this.”
Unlike government funding, PFI’s cannot be adjusted to match the economy’s fortunes. They are governed by contracts that often run to thousands of pages. In contrast to the radical cuts to public spending, less than 1 per cent has been trimmed from the total cost of PFI deals since 2012.
Danny Alexander, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, admitted last month: “Too many of the old PFI deals were poorly negotiated... with high costs draining local and national coffers.”
Last year The Independent revealed how firms given 25-year contracts to build and maintain schools doubled their money by selling their shares in the schemes less than five years into the deals. Four – Balfour Beatty, Carillion, Interserve, and Kier – made combined profits of over £300m.
https://www.independent.co.uk/money/loans-credit/crippling-pfi-deals-leave-britain-222bn-in-debt-10170214.html
A bad idea, made worse by Labour.
These politicians need vetting.
The reason it’s hard to get your head around what they say, is because they’re c rap at their jobs.
When you don’t need any qualifications to become an MP, you’re asking for trouble.
£485 million worth of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) contracts were awarded to Carillion during the last Labour government. This compares to £347 million awarded during the Coalition government, and another £439 million awarded over a few months by the Conservative government up to the end of 2015.
PFI was implemented for the first time in the UK by the Conservative Government led by John Major. It immediately proved controversial, and was attacked by Labour critics such as the Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury Harriet Harman, who said that PFI was really a back-door form of privatisation (House of Commons, 7 December 1993), and the future Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling, warned that "apparent savings now could be countered by the formidable commitment on revenue expenditure in years to come".[10]
Two months after New Labour took office, the Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, announced that "when there is a limited amount of public-sector capital available, as there is, it's PFI or bust".[10] PFI expanded considerably in 1996 and then expanded much further under New Labour with the NHS (Private Finance) Act 1997,[11] resulting in criticism from many trade unions, elements of the New Labour Party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), and the Green Party,[12] as well as commentators such as George Monbiot. Proponents of the PFI include the World Bank, IMF and (in the UK) the CBI.[13]
Both Conservative and Labour governments sought to justify PFI on the practical[14] grounds that the private sector is better at delivering services than the public sector. This position has been supported by the UK National Audit Office with regard to certain projects. However, critics claim that many uses of PFI are ideological rather than practical; Pollock recalls a meeting with the then Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown who could not provide a rationale for PFI other than to "declare repeatedly that the public sector is bad at management, and that only the private sector is efficient and can manage services well."[15]
Half an hour total breaks combined.Im self employed.
When there’s two, sometimes three vans turn up,and the guys stay inside for three hours, then get out to stretch their legs, then nip down the bakers, then back inside their vans.
Then might do an hours work,before going home.
It’s obvious where the corruption is.
Loads of money on this job, no rush lads.
Had that at the bottom of my road in the summer.
Work associated to the railways.