PFI - the policy that ate itself.

[I1L2T3]

I think you'll find that PFI was Labour's baby.

 

The Tories introduced it in 91/92

 

Labour became rather fond of it

 

The coalition is rather fond of it too. A bit of tweaking here and there, re-christen it PF2 and let the madness continue. They have hundreds of pf2 schemes in the pipeline.

 

It hasn't gone away and nor will it if the big three parties can use it to enrich their cronies.

 

---------- Post added 05-06-2014 at 16:06 ----------

 

Reminds me of people who 'release equity' in their homes to buy ultrafast-depreciating gadgets and vehicles.

 

I'd be the Tory Gvt and in need of a popularity boost, I'd tear up the PFIs there and then and re-nationalise the PFI'd lot in the name of reimbursing Labour's bank bail-out

 

Preferably, legally with some horseplay in the Commons. If not, then hey-ho, let the small army of corpo lawyers do their worst (and let Labour, who will probably be at the helm by that time, carry that can when the breach-of-contract and damages ruling eventually comes out...fair's fair, and all is fair in love and war )

 

You know what. I like it!

[L00b]

You know what. I like it!

When it comes to the common interest, and though very far from a 'leftie' generally (it's been quite funny being labelled as that in the context of UKIP-related threads!), I'm all for simple and politically-expedient elegant solutions to needlessly complex problems

 

(Plus, I didn't invest in PFIs...so I'm alright, Jack )

[Mecky]

It is what they have been doing with railtrack since day one.

 

That must be alright then

[erebus]

It was a con from the start, as we elect parasitic morons, who do not understand the legal jargon which goes on almost forever, the accountants spinning their figures to disguise the fraud, and cannot be bothered doing much more than ALLOWING THE EXPERTS TO CONTROL IT ALL. In other words the tail wags the dog!

 

I have no idea what the figure is now, as YOU and I pay for this scam, but it was a debt of 65 billion we owe mainly to the financial industry, on top of the bail outs. It is and always was a money printing exercise where we, the public pay, and the money goes to private corporate bonuses and other excesses.

 

So give inexperienced career politicians the potential, like Blair to capitalize on their term in office, whatever the position or department or even committee, and the self serving gene politicians must have to become politicians in the first place, is activated.

 

They win, as do their friends in finance and corporations and the minority of people that manage to place a cross on a voting slip, allow the country to be milked for the cash greed requires.

[geared]

The Government has announced that they are going to...err...give out Public money to ensure that Private Finance Initiatives are able to keep going

 

 

Old News is good news

 

In 2003 the Labour Government used Public-private partnership (PPP) schemes for the privatisation of London Underground's infrastructure and rolling-stock. The two private companies created under the PPP, Metronet and Tube Lines have now been taken into public ownership due to their financial problems, at significant cost to the UK taxpayer

[geared]

The Tories introduced it in 91/92

 

Labour became rather fond of it

 

No before giving it a good slating when they were not in control of it.

 

Labour Party, Harriet Harman, considered that PFI was really a back-door form of privatisation.

 

Alistair Darling, warned that "apparent savings now could be countered by the formidable commitment on revenue expenditure in years to come"

 

How opinions change when it's your turn to get your snout in the Trough????

:hihi::hihi:

[altus]

It was a con from the start, as we elect parasitic morons, who do not understand the legal jargon which goes on almost forever, the accountants spinning their figures to disguise the fraud, and cannot be bothered doing much more than ALLOWING THE EXPERTS TO CONTROL IT ALL. In other words the tail wags the dog!

 

You give them too much credit. They new EXACTLY what the implications of PFI were. Because PFI spending commitments don't appear as debt on the government's balance sheet it allows them to spend money they don't have (making them look good to the electorate) without it being obvious.