|
Post by jonah77 on Feb 19, 2012 20:53:20 GMT
mate,if i knew how i could put up loads of links to people saying it isn't a good thing.i'm just a bit thick. i'm not right wing by the way,i just fucking despise new labour.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 19, 2012 20:53:52 GMT
8 x 30 is 240 Are you hung over mate Jesus, is that really the best you can do? Just for you, 7.6667 bn per year I even said approx 8bn a year in a previous post. Pathetic really that, Al. Only £8 billion a year over 30 years top quality comedy ;D You have clearly never worked at any level of business if you think thats a good deal in any way shape or form nevermind the idiocracy of signing up for a deal buying 25-30 years of a service that you can't be sure you'll even need.... PFI is a crock of shit if Brown and Prescott had been councillors and signed some of the deals they did, they'd have been surcharged.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 19, 2012 20:56:59 GMT
Yes the government spending more than the record year on year tax receipts they recieved, happened for many years pre-financial crisis or are you going to try and balme the the bankers for the defecit as well ;D Bless you FYD, always guaranteed to raise a smile ;D Do you not understand the difference between the debt and the defecit I presume you're a teacher at a village school means you can double up with your other job hey ;D
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Feb 19, 2012 21:02:28 GMT
The current high deficit is (to state the obvious) due to a collapse of tax receipts. I'm not sure what people expect the government to do here - we're coming out of one big credit splurge with consumers already laden with debt and they shouldn't be encouraged to keep spending.
The government has very limited means to plug the gap as the bond markets wont allow it - its not a normal recession, its one where the whole system has been called into question which makes investors very jumpy and cautious.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 20, 2012 8:18:04 GMT
The use of PFIs would be fine as long as
a) they were 'value for money' negotiated contracts and b) they were properly considered in the future as a debt that would have to paid.
They weren't though.
Luke
Do not start this 'with hindsight' bollocks either. The one thing that history teaches us is that there are ups and downs in the economy. Other countries had the foresight to save for the future. The most simplisitic truth in any household is that you can't go borrowing for ever....and certaintly when it isn't investment..when you are just throwing it down the tubes. Labour fucked it. They were handed a shrinking deficit from Major...enjoyed a few years of it...then went to spend and increase the defict when the economy wasn't in freefall.
They totally and utterly fucked it and watching Labour supporters cling to anything else is as sad as watching the belief of the PHWs that Pulis is the anti Christ to football.
Come on, get a fucking grip for Christsake.
|
|
|
Post by mcf on Feb 20, 2012 8:28:51 GMT
|
|
|
Post by wizzardofdribble on Feb 20, 2012 10:46:32 GMT
The only way out of the current economic crisis..which the Conservative Party sowed the seeds for by massively de-regulating the Stock Market during the 1980's..is to increase spending
Thank God Mervyn King (Governor of The Bank of England) has realised this and started pumping billions of pounds into the economy via 'Quantitative Easing'
Mr Cameron and Mr Osbourne are telling the voters that they're cutting back spending on welfare..the NHS..etc etc..whilst the Bank of England are massively increasing the money supply
Keith Joseph and Alan Walters must be turning in their graves
And anyone who compares an individual household to a countries economy hasn't got a fucking clue what they're talking about John Maynard Keynes destroyed all that bollocks 70 years ago
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 20, 2012 13:25:54 GMT
The only way out of the current economic crisis..which the Conservative Party sowed the seeds for by massively de-regulating the Stock Market during the 1980's..is to increase spending FFS its always easy for lefties to remember to correctly point out that the Conservative Party de-regulated the finanial industry 20 years ago whilst conveniently failing to point out that the Labour Govt had 13 years to fix it if it was necessary. They were happy to keep it as it was because they were relying on the industry's tax revenues To be honest no party comes out with real credit but is typical that the socialists just want to point the finger with out accepting any blame.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 16:17:04 GMT
Do you not understand how this "deficit" happened? Yes the government spending more than the record year on year tax receipts they recieved, happened for many years pre-financial crisis or are you going to try and balme the the bankers for the defecit as well ;D All of which was manageable: I'm not sure what you find so hard to understand about this graph, FYD! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 16:28:04 GMT
Jesus, is that really the best you can do? Just for you, 7.6667 bn per year I even said approx 8bn a year in a previous post. Pathetic really that, Al. Only £8 billion a year over 30 years top quality comedy ;D You have clearly never worked at any level of business if you think thats a good deal in any way shape or form nevermind the idiocracy of signing up for a deal buying 25-30 years of a service that you can't be sure you'll even need.... PFI is a crock of shit if Brown and Prescott had been councillors and signed some of the deals they did, they'd have been surcharged. Where to start with this one ;D You miss the point, not surprisingly: over 100bn in one year or 8bn a year spread over thirty years, which is more damaging to our immediate finances do you think? Which do you think left us in the hole we're in now? Which do you think requires punitive austerity measures? Will you even answer I wonder? We might not need new hospitals? Good guess, but probably wrong, as per. You might want to have a word with the Tories who invented PFI, and the current chancellor who's pushing more PFI projects through as we speak. Lifted from the Guardian:"In an interview in November 2009, Conservative George Osborne, subsequently Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coalition, sought to distance his party from the excesses of PFI by blaming Labour for its misuse, despite it still bearing all the hallmarks of the policy devised by his own party" Despite being so critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor. According to Mark Hellowell from the University of Edinburgh: The truth is the coalition government have made a decision that they want to expand PFI at a time when the value for money credentials of the system have never been weaker. The government is very concerned to keep the headline rates of deficit and debt down, so it's looking to use an increasingly expensive form of borrowing through an intermediary knowing the investment costs won't immediately show up on their budgets. Sounds a bit like their great idea of financial deregulation, no?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 16:42:04 GMT
The use of PFIs would be fine as long as a) they were 'value for money' negotiated contracts and b) they were properly considered in the future as a debt that would have to paid. They weren't though. Luke Do not start this 'with hindsight' bollocks either. The one thing that history teaches us is that there are ups and downs in the economy. Other countries had the foresight to save for the future. The most simplisitic truth in any household is that you can't go borrowing for ever....and certaintly when it isn't investment..when you are just throwing it down the tubes. Labour fucked it. They were handed a shrinking deficit from Major...enjoyed a few years of it...then went to spend and increase the defict when the economy wasn't in freefall. They totally and utterly fucked it and watching Labour supporters cling to anything else is as sad as watching the belief of the PHWs that Pulis is the anti Christ to football. Come on, get a fucking grip for Christsake. Mate, the report you yourself posted did not come to those conclusions. If you really can't or won't accept that, I suspect that confirms the findings of the initial study this entire thread was originally about. It's plain from your language ("not investment...throwing it down the tubes" etc...) that you desperately want to believe that Labour fucked it but the evidence does not show that I'm afraid. Look at the figures, look at the graphs. We are where we are simply because we gave out well over 100bn to shore up the banks. Add to that a financial crisis which caused a recession which obviously means lower govt income. That report clearly states, as I've been saying all along, that this was what landed us in the shit. If the previous govt should have put money aside for a crash no-one foresaw, can you answer me one question. Why did the Tory administration of Thatcher operate with similar (and sometimes larger) public debts during the boom years of the 80s when they were coining it in? Shouldn't they have put money aside for the recession of the early 90s? That way Major's public debt wouldn't have been so enormous? Is your conclusion that she utterly fucked it up too? Please answer.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 17:03:09 GMT
Which pretty much summarises what I said, doesn't it? ??? Over 100bn in cash in one year, ffs! Damaged our finances? Might have done, mcf, might have done ;D Hang on, please don't tell me you saw that 7bn figure in the top paragraph or the 4-5bn further down and thought that was our liability ;D You did, didn't you, otherwise why would you post something which underlines what I've been saying all along I quote: " So, not only has the government bailed the banks out to the tune of £123.93bn, and at its peak had liabilities for the banking crisis of £1.2 trillion, but the value of its stakes in the biggest banks has plummeted and the interest it is receiving on the loans is relatively small. The interest collected is smaller than that the government pays on its debts, taken out to refinance the banks.
It may seem unremittingly bleak, however the NAO concluded last December:
If the support measures had not been put in place, the scale of the economic and social costs if one or more major UK banks had collapsed would be so large as to be difficult to envision. The support provided to the banks was therefore justified, but the final cost to the taxpayer of the support would not be known for a number of years." FYD gets his knickers in a twist over 8bn a year spread over 30 years. Yet some on the right on here appear not to see any problems with 120bn in a fraction of the time. Quality reasoning, fellas, quality ;D
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 17:12:17 GMT
The only way out of the current economic crisis..which the Conservative Party sowed the seeds for by massively de-regulating the Stock Market during the 1980's..is to increase spending FFS its always easy for lefties to remember to correctly point out that the Conservative Party de-regulated the finanial industry 20 years ago whilst conveniently failing to point out that the Labour Govt had 13 years to fix it if it was necessary. They were happy to keep it as it was because they were relying on the industry's tax revenues To be honest no party comes out with real credit but is typical that the socialists just want to point the finger with out accepting any blame. Yes, and if you remember from the start of this thread, it was the continuation of those right wing policies which ultimately led to the financial crash. And when Brown tried to introduce tighter (ie less free-market, less rightwing) regulation, the Tories lambasted him for it.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 20, 2012 18:34:30 GMT
FFS its always easy for lefties to remember to correctly point out that the Conservative Party de-regulated the finanial industry 20 years ago whilst conveniently failing to point out that the Labour Govt had 13 years to fix it if it was necessary. They were happy to keep it as it was because they were relying on the industry's tax revenues To be honest no party comes out with real credit but is typical that the socialists just want to point the finger with out accepting any blame. Yes, and if you remember from the start of this thread, it was the continuation of those right wing policies which ultimately led to the financial crash. And when Brown tried to introduce tighter (ie less free-market, less rightwing) regulation, the Tories lambasted him for it. since when did labour start dancing to the Tory tune though. Opposition is exactly that. Who is to say what would happened if the Tories had got in earlier. My point is we will criticise the Tories when we need to and not look through labour tinted glasses.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 20, 2012 18:43:48 GMT
Yes the government spending more than the record year on year tax receipts they recieved, happened for many years pre-financial crisis or are you going to try and balme the the bankers for the defecit as well ;D All of which was manageable: I'm not sure what you find so hard to understand about this graph, FYD! ;D I'm not sure why you find it so hard to understand that i'm talking about the defecit but thanks for the graph about debt anyway
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 20, 2012 19:04:51 GMT
Only £8 billion a year over 30 years top quality comedy ;D You have clearly never worked at any level of business if you think thats a good deal in any way shape or form nevermind the idiocracy of signing up for a deal buying 25-30 years of a service that you can't be sure you'll even need.... PFI is a crock of shit if Brown and Prescott had been councillors and signed some of the deals they did, they'd have been surcharged. Where to start with this one ;D You miss the point, not surprisingly: over 100bn in one year or 8bn a year spread over thirty years, which is more damaging to our immediate finances do you think? Which do you think left us in the hole we're in now? Which do you think requires punitive austerity measures? Will you even answer I wonder? We might not need new hospitals? Good guess, but probably wrong, as per. You might want to have a word with the Tories who invented PFI, and the current chancellor who's pushing more PFI projects through as we speak. Lifted from the Guardian:"In an interview in November 2009, Conservative George Osborne, subsequently Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coalition, sought to distance his party from the excesses of PFI by blaming Labour for its misuse, despite it still bearing all the hallmarks of the policy devised by his own party" Despite being so critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor. According to Mark Hellowell from the University of Edinburgh: The truth is the coalition government have made a decision that they want to expand PFI at a time when the value for money credentials of the system have never been weaker. The government is very concerned to keep the headline rates of deficit and debt down, so it's looking to use an increasingly expensive form of borrowing through an intermediary knowing the investment costs won't immediately show up on their budgets. Sounds a bit like their great idea of financial deregulation, no? It's actually you Mr "only 8 billion a year" that misses the point, these punitive austerity measures (that were actually pretty similar to those nice fluffy cuts Labour were going to introduce) are designed to cut the defecit - there is no attempt to payback debt. To claim spending more than record tax receipts year on year is manageable is laughable, the IMF were warning Labour as far back as 2004 that it was borrowing and spending too much. Put all the graphs up you want but I'd say they'd have more of an idea than you. I'm really not sure why you keep peddling the lie that the choice was paying 4 times as much through PFI or no new hospitals it just makes you look silly.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 19:16:40 GMT
Yes, and if you remember from the start of this thread, it was the continuation of those right wing policies which ultimately led to the financial crash. And when Brown tried to introduce tighter (ie less free-market, less rightwing) regulation, the Tories lambasted him for it. since when did labour start dancing to the Tory tune though. Opposition is exactly that. Who is to say what would happened if the Tories had got in earlier. My point is we will criticise the Tories when we need to and not look through labour tinted glasses. Since they embraced right wing monetarist policies, a process which started not long after Kinnock stood down. Have you seen much criticism of the right on here, Al? If you look at the figures in my graphs there isn't a great deal of difference between debt levels from 1980 onwards (as a % of GDP) whatever the govt, yet I don't see anyone screaming about reckless overspending by previous Tory govts? Simply, the reason why the right on here bangs on about the "mess we're in" is because they are desperate to blame it solely on Labour's administration for political purposes and just won't accept, even in the face of evidence posted by rightwingers and widley available from the NAO, that the financial crisis fucked things up for everyone. In that context, there's no Labour-tinted glasses about it, simply what actually happened.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 19:26:10 GMT
Where to start with this one ;D You miss the point, not surprisingly: over 100bn in one year or 8bn a year spread over thirty years, which is more damaging to our immediate finances do you think? Which do you think left us in the hole we're in now? Which do you think requires punitive austerity measures? Will you even answer I wonder? We might not need new hospitals? Good guess, but probably wrong, as per. You might want to have a word with the Tories who invented PFI, and the current chancellor who's pushing more PFI projects through as we speak. Lifted from the Guardian:"In an interview in November 2009, Conservative George Osborne, subsequently Chancellor of the Exchequer in the coalition, sought to distance his party from the excesses of PFI by blaming Labour for its misuse, despite it still bearing all the hallmarks of the policy devised by his own party" Despite being so critical of PFI while in opposition and promising reform, once in power George Osborne progressed 61 PFI schemes worth a total of £6.9bn in his first year as Chancellor. According to Mark Hellowell from the University of Edinburgh: The truth is the coalition government have made a decision that they want to expand PFI at a time when the value for money credentials of the system have never been weaker. The government is very concerned to keep the headline rates of deficit and debt down, so it's looking to use an increasingly expensive form of borrowing through an intermediary knowing the investment costs won't immediately show up on their budgets. Sounds a bit like their great idea of financial deregulation, no? It's actually you Mr "only 8 billion a year" that misses the point, these punitive austerity measures (that were actually pretty similar to those nice fluffy cuts Labour were going to introduce) are designed to cut the defecit - there is no attempt to payback debt. To claim spending more than record tax receipts year on year is manageable is laughable, the IMF were warning Labour as far back as 2004 that it was borrowing and spending too much. Put all the graphs up you want but I'd say they'd have more of an idea than you. I'm really not sure why you keep peddling the lie that the choice was paying 4 times as much through PFI or no new hospitals it just makes you look silly. The point is simple. Simple question for you. Did paying out over 123bn in one year damage the government's finances more than 8bn over the next 30 years?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 20, 2012 19:39:54 GMT
I'm really not sure why you keep peddling the lie that the choice was paying 4 times as much through PFI or no new hospitals it just makes you look silly. For this reason maybe? "In January 2009 the Labour Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson, reaffirmed this commitment with regard to the health sector, stating that “PFIs have always been the NHS’s ‘plan A’ for building new hospitals … There was never a ‘plan B’". And, guess what, I'm not a big fan of PFI either. I just don't follow your obsession with it in terms of "the mess we're in" as it's largely irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by salopstick on Feb 20, 2012 19:59:05 GMT
since when did labour start dancing to the Tory tune though. Opposition is exactly that. Who is to say what would happened if the Tories had got in earlier. My point is we will criticise the Tories when we need to and not look through labour tinted glasses. Since they embraced right wing monetarist policies, a process which started not long after Kinnock stood down. Have you seen much criticism of the right on here, Al? If you look at the figures in my graphs there isn't a great deal of difference between debt levels from 1980 onwards (as a % of GDP) whatever the govt, yet I don't see anyone screaming about reckless overspending by previous Tory govts? Simply, the reason why the right on here bangs on about the "mess we're in" is because they are desperate to blame it solely on Labour's administration for political purposes and just won't accept, even in the face of evidence posted by rightwingers and widley available from the NAO, that the financial crisis fucked things up for everyone. In that context, there's no Labour-tinted glasses about it, simply what actually happened. so you are saying that labour had nothing to do with it? labour has to shoulder some of the blame even if the party itself and the lefties on here choose not to proportion any blame on labour, no graphs can change that they can blart all they want on here about the tories but all they doing is trying to deflect blame from labour i will criticise the tories when needed as i did a few weeks ago ref solar, i just wish the socialist could do the same
|
|
|
Post by jonah77 on Feb 20, 2012 20:05:47 GMT
sif,you keep excusing labours policies by saying they were the policies left over by the tories i.e.deregulation of the banks,a free market economy etc,this doesn't excuse labour though does it,it just makes them another version of the tory party,surely making them right wing thus making anyone who voted for them right wing.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 8:24:06 GMT
Since they embraced right wing monetarist policies, a process which started not long after Kinnock stood down. Have you seen much criticism of the right on here, Al? If you look at the figures in my graphs there isn't a great deal of difference between debt levels from 1980 onwards (as a % of GDP) whatever the govt, yet I don't see anyone screaming about reckless overspending by previous Tory govts? Simply, the reason why the right on here bangs on about the "mess we're in" is because they are desperate to blame it solely on Labour's administration for political purposes and just won't accept, even in the face of evidence posted by rightwingers and widley available from the NAO, that the financial crisis fucked things up for everyone. In that context, there's no Labour-tinted glasses about it, simply what actually happened. so you are saying that labour had nothing to do with it? labour has to shoulder some of the blame even if the party itself and the lefties on here choose not to proportion any blame on labour, no graphs can change that they can blart all they want on here about the tories but all they doing is trying to deflect blame from labour i will criticise the tories when needed as i did a few weeks ago ref solar, i just wish the socialist could do the same No, I (together with pretty much every other current non-Tory voter on here) am not saying Labour had nothing to do with it. That has never been my position or anyone else who thinks the banks left us with this mess as far as I can see. I'm saying, once again, that, all the evidence shows that the collapse of the economy was due to the financial crisis - I assume we agree on that? That, plus the fact that we had to bail out the banks to the tune of 123bn in one year has left us with the financial hole we are currently in. Btw, 123bn is about ::)25% extra spending on top of existing spending for one year which we suddenyl had to find (borrow). The figures from the NAO (my graphs) and the report mcf posted show that it wasn't "reckless overspending", "spunking away cash on the public sector" "Labour utterly fucked it up" and other such phrases beloved of the right on here that left us where we are. Do we agree on that I wonder? Labour does indeed have to shoulder some blame for following the policy of financial deregulation. They should have tightened it to prevent the ridiculous excesses of the banking sector, no-one disputes that. (Brown did try as I've said and got lampooned for being the enemy of business as a result!) But, as mcf's report stated, it wasn't that or the public debt which left us where we are. That is the crucial point and probably why many on here don't understand or choose to take issue with the kind of phrases above, which in the light of the evidence simply look like unthinking rightwing dogma. If there is any deflection of any aspect of the blame away from Labour, it is simply to get the right bits apportioned to the right places.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 8:25:27 GMT
sif,you keep excusing labours policies by saying they were the policies left over by the tories i.e.deregulation of the banks,a free market economy etc,this doesn't excuse labour though does it,it just makes them another version of the tory party,surely making them right wing thus making anyone who voted for them right wing. Correct.
|
|
|
Post by trickydicky73 on Feb 21, 2012 8:47:04 GMT
The study went to great pains to emphasise that it was based on innate intelligence and cognitive ability rather than educational qualifications. Without wanting to offend Rhodesy, pretty much every post you make, on any any topic, anywhere on this board, is further evidence for what the researchers found to be honest. So left wingers are lazy fuckers who couldn't be arsed to get good qualifications and a good job and all feel like they're owed something? Yes!
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 21, 2012 9:34:54 GMT
I'm really not sure why you keep peddling the lie that the choice was paying 4 times as much through PFI or no new hospitals it just makes you look silly. For this reason maybe? "In January 2009 the Labour Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson, reaffirmed this commitment with regard to the health sector, stating that “PFIs have always been the NHS’s ‘plan A’ for building new hospitals … There was never a ‘plan B’". And, guess what, I'm not a big fan of PFI either. I just don't follow your obsession with it in terms of "the mess we're in" as it's largely irrelevant. Didn't Labour also say they'd end boom and bust guess you believed that too. But lets take that quote at face value, seems a bit strange that if the economy was so hunky dory pre the financial crisis PFI was the only option so either it wasn't and they knew it or it was done for Brown's vanity to meet his borrowing tests so soft touches could keep putting up graphs and saying no it was manageable ;D It's very relevant to the mess we're in now as its indicative of Labours approach to spending money on projects very poorly the cumulative effect of 6-13 years worth plays just as large a part in projects having to be cut now.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 21, 2012 9:40:37 GMT
It's actually you Mr "only 8 billion a year" that misses the point, these punitive austerity measures (that were actually pretty similar to those nice fluffy cuts Labour were going to introduce) are designed to cut the defecit - there is no attempt to payback debt. To claim spending more than record tax receipts year on year is manageable is laughable, the IMF were warning Labour as far back as 2004 that it was borrowing and spending too much. Put all the graphs up you want but I'd say they'd have more of an idea than you. I'm really not sure why you keep peddling the lie that the choice was paying 4 times as much through PFI or no new hospitals it just makes you look silly. The point is simple. Simple question for you. Did paying out over 123bn in one year damage the economy more than 8bn over the next 30 years? Over the next 30 years, what about how much was wasted in the previous 13 years of Labour government - 4 or 5 years of PFI payments makes a pretty big dent in the 123 billion. To answer your question why don't you ask me again in 30 years when we see what the real cost of PFI turns out to be.
|
|
|
Post by adri2008 on Feb 21, 2012 9:47:59 GMT
Amazing how much the whole crisis has changed people's perceptions of money in general. I know for me, a billion £ was an unfathamable amount of money. A 'mere' million feels like chicken feed these days in the grand scale of things.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 14:44:36 GMT
For this reason maybe? "In January 2009 the Labour Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson, reaffirmed this commitment with regard to the health sector, stating that “PFIs have always been the NHS’s ‘plan A’ for building new hospitals … There was never a ‘plan B’". And, guess what, I'm not a big fan of PFI either. I just don't follow your obsession with it in terms of "the mess we're in" as it's largely irrelevant. Didn't Labour also say they'd end boom and bust guess you believed that too. But lets take that quote at face value, seems a bit strange that if the economy was so hunky dory pre the financial crisis PFI was the only option so either it wasn't and they knew it or it was done for Brown's vanity to meet his borrowing tests so soft touches could keep putting up graphs and saying no it was manageable ;D It's very relevant to the mess we're in now as its indicative of Labours approach to spending money on projects very poorly the cumulative effect of 6-13 years worth plays just as large a part in projects having to be cut now. Tell you what, I'll ask again. Why don't you put up a graph which adds in the PFI contribution you're so obsessed with and see what that does to spending and debt as a % of GDP overall? Then we can all see whether there's any foundation to your obsession. Here's a clue though: in 2008, 8bn would have been an extra 1.38% of planned spending; in 2008 123bn was an extra 21.4% of unplanned extra spending. Which do you think was more damaging? I'll help with this too: the OBR estimates adding in PFI costs adds approx 2.5% to national debt as a % of GDP. So pre-crash that takes debt to approx 39% of GDP. Hardly worth obsessing over, FYD. That figure, with your beloved PFI added is still less than 1980-1987 and what Major left us with ;D. I wonder why there aren't more headlines screaming about how PFI brought the economy to its knees?
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 21, 2012 14:49:32 GMT
The point is simple. Simple question for you. Did paying out over 123bn in one year damage the government's finances more than paying out 8bn over the next 30 years? Over the next 30 years, what about how much was wasted in the previous 13 years of Labour government - 4 or 5 years of PFI payments makes a pretty big dent in the 123 billion. To answer your question why don't you ask me again in 30 years when we see what the real cost of PFI turns out to be. I'm asking you now though about the impact on the economy now. Do you think shelling out an unplanned for 123bn in one year, approx 21% extra borrowing, might have damaged the government's finances right now more than a planned for 8bn a year every year? Simple yes or no will do. I'll happily ask you again in 30 years and you might be right, but I want to know what your answer is to the above question.
|
|
|
Post by followyoudown on Feb 22, 2012 14:01:44 GMT
Didn't Labour also say they'd end boom and bust guess you believed that too. But lets take that quote at face value, seems a bit strange that if the economy was so hunky dory pre the financial crisis PFI was the only option so either it wasn't and they knew it or it was done for Brown's vanity to meet his borrowing tests so soft touches could keep putting up graphs and saying no it was manageable ;D It's very relevant to the mess we're in now as its indicative of Labours approach to spending money on projects very poorly the cumulative effect of 6-13 years worth plays just as large a part in projects having to be cut now. Tell you what, I'll ask again. Why don't you put up a graph which adds in the PFI contribution you're so obsessed with and see what that does to spending and debt as a % of GDP overall? Then we can all see whether there's any foundation to your obsession. Here's a clue though: in 2008, 8bn would have been an extra 1.38% of planned spending; in 2008 123bn was an extra 21.4% of unplanned extra spending. Which do you think was more damaging? I'll help with this too: the OBR estimates adding in PFI costs adds approx 2.5% to national debt as a % of GDP. So pre-crash that takes debt to approx 39% of GDP. Hardly worth obsessing over, FYD. That figure, with your beloved PFI added is still less than 1980-1987 and what Major left us with ;D. I wonder why there aren't more headlines screaming about how PFI brought the economy to its knees? Wow you're comparing like with like aren't you 1 year out of 30 years costs with a one off cost - but lets use your figures anyway on the basis £6 billion out of the £8 billion is overpaying compared to building directly by the government, wasting £180 billion isn't damaging to the government finances but lending £123 billion that you might get back is - stunning ;D I wonder why there aren't headlines from any political party talking about actually paying back any national debt but instead they are all merely talking about reducing or eliminating the yearly budget defecit ;D Love to carry on but off to Valencia old boy.
|
|