2024 Election thread
Comments
-
Isn’t the issue precisely that the state is very poor at representing the state interest in the arrangements so often get taken to the cleaners?
0 -
The tender process was very competitive, so no one was getting fleeced.
0 -
I'll say it again, if the people running the tender process don't know what getting fleeced on that particular deal looks like...
0 -
General maintenance is a constant but different things need replacing at different times. Do you keep an NHS team of roofers or window fitters permanently on standby for replacement every 20 years?d
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Yes not everything needs to be state run. Next you'll be complaining pharmaceuticals make money so the state should take pfizer into public ownership.
0 -
no, you employ a team of professional facilities managers who know their site(s) and contract direct with whichever skill/capability is needed
any task where it's significantly more cost effective to do in-house, you bring in-house
if employing complex multi-entity structures, many offshored to avoid tax, to do maintenance/repairs made sense, we'd all do it, but we don't, because it's a really bad idea
pfi was a tool to keep projects off the balance sheet, i.e. its primary objective was fantasy bookkeeping, rather than providing a good outcome for the consumer/taxpayer
i'm all for the private sector, but it generally doesn't make sense for taxpayers to have large scale public (often monopoly) infrastructure in private hands
my bike - faster than god's and twice as shiny0 -
You are glossing over the relationship between the cost of building something and the cost of maintaining it. The point being that if you make the people building it responsible for maintaining it, everything works a bit better.
0 -
Not really. The public sector defines the service they want and then receive bids for providing that service.
0 -
For infra investors, where the payoff runs over decades, it's very hard to price it effectively. This usually ends up with the private investors making off with a massive, unreasonable, profit because they have more expertise in that kind of thing than the govt does.
There's an asymmetry of expertise in PFI deals.
0 -
Do you know that the government had advisors as well? Usually the same people that would advise the private sector on other transactions.
0 -
There are things that PFI did badly, but none of them have been posted yet.
0 -
-
It did. Relevance?
0 -
An example of the conflict of interest for governments and PFI.
It's a very convenient way to line the pockets of your mates.
0 -
Possible Hail Mary from the Tories as Kemi B is being touted as a replacement for Sunak prior to GE . . .
Wilier Izoard XP0 -
I don't see that at all.
0 -
-
😎🧑🏻🦯
The above may be fact, or fiction, I may be serious, I may be jesting.
I am not sure. You have no chance.Veronese68 wrote:PB is the most sensible person on here.0 -
Sunak has finally done something not utterly useless by calling their bluff and saying he'll call a snap election if they try to unseat him.
0 -
I appreciate Starmer gets various "how are you going to afford it" questions from press, but how on earth do the Tories get away with promising to get rid of NIC without the same questioning?
0 -
I don't see the need to inspect at the border in some circumstances. It's something of a mainstream view now.
This seems to be another subject that you don't know much about. If I was a corrupt minister in the UK, I can't think of a harder way to channel money to my mates, than launching a PFI tender. Far easier to create a novel virus and skip the procurement process.
0 -
They've scraped the barrel so much there is no base left to it.
0 -
-
The EU decided to regulate something? Surely not.
Please talk me through how a UK PFI tender allows governments to funnel money to their mates.
0 -
😀
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
Because no one seriously thinks the will be in government for long enough to do it.
0 -
A team with that level of skill sounds expensive and it doesn't get over the point that TBB made regarding extended liability. If you are employing trades on an ad hoc basis you won't benefit from the extended liability that you would with a more formal contract. So every roof that leaks or valve that jams or whatever would be chargeable. That doesn't sound like great value for money either.
1985 Mercian King of Mercia - work in progress (Hah! Who am I kidding?)
Pinnacle Monzonite
Part of the anti-growth coalition0 -
Maybe some people have read about the Laffer curve and the point that lower taxes can stimulate growth? You can't tax your way to prosperity, as the saying goes.
"I spent most of my money on birds, booze and fast cars: the rest of it I just squandered." [George Best]0 -
We've done this before.
The idea that tax cut pay for themselves has been widely debunked by economists, including by three leading economic advisers to recent Republican Presidents, Martin Feldstein, Glenn Hubbard and Gregory Mankiw. We explained the fundamental flaws in Laffer’s use of Oklahoma tax data and several Oklahoma economists, along with the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy, identified methodological problems with their projection of the economic impact of their income tax proposal. Now comes a survey of a group known as the IGM Economics Experts panel, made up of 40 of the nation’s leading economists from top research universities chosen to represent a range of political and ideological orientations. The economists were asked whether they agreed or disagreed with the following statement: “A cut in federal income tax rates in the US right now would raise taxable income enough so that the annual total tax revenue would be higher within five years than without the tax cut.” Of the 40 members of the panel, 28 ‘disagreed’ or ‘strongly disagreed’ with the statement (71 percent). The remainder were uncertain or had no opinion (5) or did not vote (7). None agreed or strongly agreed.
0 -
Not surprisingly, Laffer and Trump love each other, despite Trump's tax cuts having ballooned the US debt.
0
