You are indeed correct sir and may I add that Thatcher and Blair should be strung up together on the same gallows, how ironic that would be! It's so easier for some die hard Torys to remember the good old days of Thatcherism, well even a labotomised monkey could turn a profit if all you've done is sell all the assets in the whole country to the not even highest bidder.
She oversaw the biggest transfer of wealth from the people to the wealthy in modern times. The only parallel is the recent re-transfer of wealth from the people to the banks/ wealthy in recent times. Probably the World's greatest confidence trick played on all of us so far !Cigar! !cigar! !cigar!
Arrest Tony Blair...
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Beutelwolf
"That may be true, but I don't think the recession plays a substantial role in the long-term damage of PFIs".
This view is wrong.
The authors of PFI believed that continuous increases in affluence would enable society to pay the excessive costs of the PFI contracts. This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned Brown banging on about abolishing boom and bust. I suspect he believed his own rhetoric and that income from taxes etc would increase.
The obvious analogy for PFI is a mortgage where you initially think it is affordable on some optimistic estimate of continuing short-term growth in personal income, but then disaster strikes i.e. unemployment/a global recession, income growth collapses and repayment becomes a hassle.
The global recession occurs, corporation tax incomes collapse, the contracts still have to be paid and cutbacks in public services have to be more swingeing because of it. The global recession occurs, I lose my job, I can't pay my mortgage, I lose my house and the recession has a big role to pay in the long term damage of mortgages aka pfi's. Without it, I can pay my mortgage, with it, I can't.
Does the "recession play a substantial role in the long-term damage of PFIs". Clearly it does.
Cheers
D
This view is wrong.
The authors of PFI believed that continuous increases in affluence would enable society to pay the excessive costs of the PFI contracts. This is what I was alluding to when I mentioned Brown banging on about abolishing boom and bust. I suspect he believed his own rhetoric and that income from taxes etc would increase.
The obvious analogy for PFI is a mortgage where you initially think it is affordable on some optimistic estimate of continuing short-term growth in personal income, but then disaster strikes i.e. unemployment/a global recession, income growth collapses and repayment becomes a hassle.
The global recession occurs, corporation tax incomes collapse, the contracts still have to be paid and cutbacks in public services have to be more swingeing because of it. The global recession occurs, I lose my job, I can't pay my mortgage, I lose my house and the recession has a big role to pay in the long term damage of mortgages aka pfi's. Without it, I can pay my mortgage, with it, I can't.
Does the "recession play a substantial role in the long-term damage of PFIs". Clearly it does.
Cheers
D
-
beutelwolf
- Posts: 1210
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Beutelwolf
David Johnson wrote:
> "That may be true, but I don't think the recession plays a
> substantial role in the long-term damage of PFIs".
>
> This view is wrong.
>
> The authors of PFI believed that continuous increases in
> affluence would enable society to pay the excessive costs of
> the PFI contracts.
The PFI contracts are bad deals, full stop. They cost the public purse in the long run much more than direct investment would. That extra cost is more painful when a recession comes along (as any extra drain on the budget would), but it is bad deal either way. Thus there is nothing specific about the recession that makes them bad deals. And it was not difficult to see that they were bad deals.
An analogy:
suppose you have become a Premiership footballer
and buy a new house, paying 100,000 pounds more than the current market value. So it's a bad deal. You think it does not matter, because you earn a fortune. Then suddenly your club goes into administration, and no club in the higher divisions is interested in signing you, and the extra hundred grand expenditure now hurt very badly. So now you really feel it was a bad deal. But it was a bad deal anyway - you wasted a hundred grand to begin with, whether the club went into administration or not!
There is no excuse for a government wasting money.
> "That may be true, but I don't think the recession plays a
> substantial role in the long-term damage of PFIs".
>
> This view is wrong.
>
> The authors of PFI believed that continuous increases in
> affluence would enable society to pay the excessive costs of
> the PFI contracts.
The PFI contracts are bad deals, full stop. They cost the public purse in the long run much more than direct investment would. That extra cost is more painful when a recession comes along (as any extra drain on the budget would), but it is bad deal either way. Thus there is nothing specific about the recession that makes them bad deals. And it was not difficult to see that they were bad deals.
An analogy:
suppose you have become a Premiership footballer
and buy a new house, paying 100,000 pounds more than the current market value. So it's a bad deal. You think it does not matter, because you earn a fortune. Then suddenly your club goes into administration, and no club in the higher divisions is interested in signing you, and the extra hundred grand expenditure now hurt very badly. So now you really feel it was a bad deal. But it was a bad deal anyway - you wasted a hundred grand to begin with, whether the club went into administration or not!
There is no excuse for a government wasting money.
-
David Johnson
- Posts: 7844
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Beutelwolf
You said
"That extra cost is more painful when a recession comes along (as any extra drain on the budget would), but it is bad deal either way."
You also said
"but I don't think the recession plays a
substantial role in the long-term damage of PFIs"
You are contradicting yourself. We are both agreed PFI is a bad deal either way.
My point is that the recession increases substantially the long-term damage of PFIs. By your own figures, PFI's in the NHS amount to 10% of the budget. Therefore in a global recession when tax incomes plummet as they have done in the UK, the long-term damage done by PFIs is substantially increased. In an ongoing boom period, PFIs still waste money as we have agreed, but they are nowhere near as big a problem as in a global recession.
You appear to agree with this in your first statement, but not in your second.
Cheers
D
"That extra cost is more painful when a recession comes along (as any extra drain on the budget would), but it is bad deal either way."
You also said
"but I don't think the recession plays a
substantial role in the long-term damage of PFIs"
You are contradicting yourself. We are both agreed PFI is a bad deal either way.
My point is that the recession increases substantially the long-term damage of PFIs. By your own figures, PFI's in the NHS amount to 10% of the budget. Therefore in a global recession when tax incomes plummet as they have done in the UK, the long-term damage done by PFIs is substantially increased. In an ongoing boom period, PFIs still waste money as we have agreed, but they are nowhere near as big a problem as in a global recession.
You appear to agree with this in your first statement, but not in your second.
Cheers
D
-
mrmcfister
- Posts: 1672
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Arrest Tony Blair...
Think someone got 'hands on' yesterday in Ireland!
-
max_tranmere
- Posts: 4734
- Joined: Fri Jul 14, 2017 2:40 am
Re: Arrest Tony Blair...
Blair has cancelled his book signing this Wednesday in London's Piccadilly as he is likely to be attacked if he goes. His lies over Iraq and the immense problems and deaths that have happened as a result will follow him around forever. Iraq for Blair is like what the Rivers Of Blood speech was to Enoch Powell. He will never be allowed to forget it and when he dies all the obituritues will be dominated by it.