More Labour chickens coming home to roost
27 June 2012, 11:09 AM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh, I think you know exactly what I'm talking about. And to be pedantic over war or wars when discussing a financial black hole in the NHS is a little silly.
I still don't think it's poor thinking to say Labour had to choose where it spent the money, and millions of people don't feel the Iraq war was in our national interest.
Lots of countries do this all the time.
Also the cost of these rebuilds of hospitals is effectively a 'one off cost' it is not a long term investment in services/staff. The hospitals/services already existed, just the buildings were rebuilt. So it is also a short term cost like THE IRAQ WAR
You have now brought education and other public services into it when we are talking specifically about PFI for hospitals. Please be clear what we are talking about and don't throw in red herrings, it is not allowed on this thread
I still don't think it's poor thinking to say Labour had to choose where it spent the money, and millions of people don't feel the Iraq war was in our national interest.
Lots of countries do this all the time.
Also the cost of these rebuilds of hospitals is effectively a 'one off cost' it is not a long term investment in services/staff. The hospitals/services already existed, just the buildings were rebuilt. So it is also a short term cost like THE IRAQ WAR
You have now brought education and other public services into it when we are talking specifically about PFI for hospitals. Please be clear what we are talking about and don't throw in red herrings, it is not allowed on this thread
It's not pedantic to be clear about which wars you were using as example of wasted monies.
You made the usual mistake of trying to slur the former government by calling 'their' wars as a waste of money, which is just a clumsy attempt at trying to emphasise a point. What you really meant was Iraq.
Out of interest, do you think if we had a Tory government the situation would of turned out any different. After all they were cheerleaders for this conflict and far more aligned to the Republican right in American than Labour ever would or could be.
The truth is they would of made exactly the same choices on Iraq, so this is not a Labour v Tory issue really.
27 June 2012, 11:18 AM
#32
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is the reason why the Labour Party cannot ever be trusted to run anything other than a kids bouncy castle, and even then people should watch over them like a hawk.
As they would claim to run it fairly, and that the kids with more money wouldn`t be allowed on more than the kids with none. They would do a LOT of talking about how the last owners ran the bouncy castle to favour the rich so being "Elitist", but even though it made a profit and everyone had a go, they decided to change it. Their mates could go on when ever they wanted, ad their best mates they gave the tuck shop to as long as they said they could have some sweets , they made the rich pay more than the poor, and whilst being nice as pie to everyone went through their bags and wallets whilst they were on the ride. They also bought a new bouncy castle, but instead of buying one for £5000 they bought the £5000 but spent £5000000 on it. This put the price up and they hid this by selling off their tills takings and float all in gold, but they said they were doing this months in advance, so the price fell through the floor.
Then the leisure centre their bouncy castle was in ran into difficulty, making the rent go up, they couldn`t afford it so re mortgaged the whole lot giving us mahooooosive debt, that the bouncy castle will struggle to pay off, and they wanted to get into more debt to pay of the debt that they created.
Needless to say they lost the bouncy castle business and it was re taken over by the original group, so getting the business profitable again, but in the process making tough awkward decisions.
As they would claim to run it fairly, and that the kids with more money wouldn`t be allowed on more than the kids with none. They would do a LOT of talking about how the last owners ran the bouncy castle to favour the rich so being "Elitist", but even though it made a profit and everyone had a go, they decided to change it. Their mates could go on when ever they wanted, ad their best mates they gave the tuck shop to as long as they said they could have some sweets , they made the rich pay more than the poor, and whilst being nice as pie to everyone went through their bags and wallets whilst they were on the ride. They also bought a new bouncy castle, but instead of buying one for £5000 they bought the £5000 but spent £5000000 on it. This put the price up and they hid this by selling off their tills takings and float all in gold, but they said they were doing this months in advance, so the price fell through the floor.
Then the leisure centre their bouncy castle was in ran into difficulty, making the rent go up, they couldn`t afford it so re mortgaged the whole lot giving us mahooooosive debt, that the bouncy castle will struggle to pay off, and they wanted to get into more debt to pay of the debt that they created.
Needless to say they lost the bouncy castle business and it was re taken over by the original group, so getting the business profitable again, but in the process making tough awkward decisions.
Are really daft enough to believe that there is any serious difference in terms of economic policy and competence between Conservative and Labour?
The usual one-eyed, tribal, ill thought out gibberish!
27 June 2012, 12:24 PM
#33
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
It's not pedantic to be clear about which wars you were using as example of wasted monies.
You made the usual mistake of trying to slur the former government by calling 'their' wars as a waste of money, which is just a clumsy attempt at trying to emphasise a point. What you really meant was Iraq.
Out of interest, do you think if we had a Tory government the situation would of turned out any different. After all they were cheerleaders for this conflict and far more aligned to the Republican right in American than Labour ever would or could be.
The truth is they would of made exactly the same choices on Iraq, so this is not a Labour v Tory issue really.
You made the usual mistake of trying to slur the former government by calling 'their' wars as a waste of money, which is just a clumsy attempt at trying to emphasise a point. What you really meant was Iraq.
Out of interest, do you think if we had a Tory government the situation would of turned out any different. After all they were cheerleaders for this conflict and far more aligned to the Republican right in American than Labour ever would or could be.
The truth is they would of made exactly the same choices on Iraq, so this is not a Labour v Tory issue really.
But then you weren't that pedantic with your own response when you brought education and other public services when it is clear we are talking specifically about PFI for hospitals.
If you want the debate to be that precise and on target then lead by example. You have been even 'clumsier' than me 'trying to emphasise a point'
What would have happened under the Tories we have no idea, we'd both be making it up if we tried to comment.
But Martin the bottom line is this. Labour wanted to build new hospitals and that is fine. They wanted the gdp/debt ratio to remain at a certain number and that is fine. So the only answer was to cut back spending elsewhere, welfare and the Iraq war were just two easy examples that sprang to mind.
But they didn't do that. They went for this flawed PFI programme that would artificially keep this debt off the books and so maintain the gdp/debt ratio.
Now 26 Trusts are struggling to meet the payments.
I am not quite the Tory boy you think I am and see there many faults. However this pfi debacle does show that Labour is always happy to effectively bankrupt the country with its spending programme.
27 June 2012, 02:29 PM
#34
Dingdongler
As I have mentioned the PFI scheme was set up by the Tory Government, they must have equal blame with the Labour Government who simply continued along the same path..
Shaun
As I have mentioned the PFI scheme was set up by the Tory Government, they must have equal blame with the Labour Government who simply continued along the same path..
Shaun
27 June 2012, 02:45 PM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
PFI was an excellent way to make the politicians look ever so capable at the time the building was done, but spread the highly expensive cost on to the taxpayer for years to come.
Les
27 June 2012, 04:04 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Shaun I'm pretty sure you are incorrect with regards to PFI and hospitals. Tories may have introduced the concept of PFI but I don't think any hospitals were built using PFI under the Tories. So I can't see how they could possibly share equal blame if this is true
27 June 2012, 04:31 PM
#37
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
But then you weren't that pedantic with your own response when you brought education and other public services when it is clear we are talking specifically about PFI for hospitals.
If you want the debate to be that precise and on target then lead by example. You have been even 'clumsier' than me 'trying to emphasise a point'
What would have happened under the Tories we have no idea, we'd both be making it up if we tried to comment.
But Martin the bottom line is this. Labour wanted to build new hospitals and that is fine. They wanted the gdp/debt ratio to remain at a certain number and that is fine. So the only answer was to cut back spending elsewhere, welfare and the Iraq war were just two easy examples that sprang to mind.
But they didn't do that. They went for this flawed PFI programme that would artificially keep this debt off the books and so maintain the gdp/debt ratio.
Now 26 Trusts are struggling to meet the payments.
I am not quite the Tory boy you think I am and see there many faults. However this pfi debacle does show that Labour is always happy to effectively bankrupt the country with its spending programme.
If you want the debate to be that precise and on target then lead by example. You have been even 'clumsier' than me 'trying to emphasise a point'
What would have happened under the Tories we have no idea, we'd both be making it up if we tried to comment.
But Martin the bottom line is this. Labour wanted to build new hospitals and that is fine. They wanted the gdp/debt ratio to remain at a certain number and that is fine. So the only answer was to cut back spending elsewhere, welfare and the Iraq war were just two easy examples that sprang to mind.
But they didn't do that. They went for this flawed PFI programme that would artificially keep this debt off the books and so maintain the gdp/debt ratio.
Now 26 Trusts are struggling to meet the payments.
I am not quite the Tory boy you think I am and see there many faults. However this pfi debacle does show that Labour is always happy to effectively bankrupt the country with its spending programme.
Seriously?? I think you are going to have to stretch credibility quite a lot in order to come up with a set of circumstances that would have made a Tory government act in a significantly different way
I don't think someone smart like yourself could believe otherwise
27 June 2012, 07:15 PM
#39
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Oh yeah , cos your an old school leftie
27 June 2012, 08:03 PM
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: manchester
Posts: 1,790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
27 June 2012, 10:14 PM
#41
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
To be fair I don't know for sure but to the best of my knowledge the PFI hospital building programme was all signed and delivered under Labour
27 June 2012, 10:23 PM
#42
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
I stick by what I said. I don't think you can predict how a Conservative leader would have read the situation at that time and acted.
But I don't understand why after talking about 'red herrings' and being so concerned about the debate remaining focused and not becoming a generic excuse for slagging off political parties you want to talk about everything EXCEPT the original topic.
You have brought up the education system, public services as a whole, what the Tories may or may not have done regarding the Iraq war.
However this thread relates to a PFI building programme for hospitals that has conned the British public and now left us the taxpayer exposed to £billions of unaccounted for debt.
Do you actually have an opinion on this? I would be genuinely interested to know
28 June 2012, 02:11 AM
#44
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (13)
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Swansea
Posts: 4,008
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Notes for Editors:
This PFI contract was let by the Dartford & Gravesham NHS Trust in 1997 and was the subject of a previous NAO report: The PFI Contract for the new Dartford and Gravesham Hospital (HC 423 1998-99).
THC Dartford is 60 per cent owned by Barclays Infrastructure. Barclays UK Infrastructure Fund LP had an initial 30 per cent shareholding. Barclays Infrastructure Ltd, a general partner of the fund, acquiried in 2003 a 30 per cent shareholding previously owned by Carillion Private Finance Ltd. Other shareholders are Innisfree PFI Fund LP (30 per cent) and UME Investments Ltd (10 per cent).
So the private sector shouldering 60% of the risk, I wonder what the Labour ones were.
28 June 2012, 11:45 AM
#45
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 39,877
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
28 June 2012, 12:48 PM
#46
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Type 25. Build No.34
Posts: 8,222
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post