I am taking it (fairly) quietly this morning. Yesterday's Twitter thread still seems to be working: I am leaving it to do the work for me today.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Javid must know that Tory Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes have taken £250 billion out of public services, which would have paid the £28 billion public sector wage rises (nurses, teachers, railway workers, etc) for years to come, and include free dental treatment. Sources:
2011: Private Finance Initiative: hospitals will bring taxpayers 60 years of pain (£173B in 2011), https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/8279974/Private-Finance-Initiative-hospitals-will-bring-taxpayers-60-years-of-pain.html
2018: How to Dismantle the NHS in 10 Easy Steps by Dr Youssef El-Gingihy “The total PFI tab for the taxpayer stands at over £300 billion for infrastructure projects with a capital worth of £54.7 billion. That’s a difference of approaching £250 billion.” (Ch.2) https://www.amazon.co.uk/How-Dismantle-Easy-Steps-second/dp/1789041783/
2023: “The NHS spends around £2.25 billion on dental treatment a year and patients only pay £550 million of this.” https://www.dentalhealth.org/paying-for-dental-treatment-in-the-united-kingdom
Only yesterday I saw a post on the Independent saying that most of the PFI s were during the time of New Labour. Certainly both parties used them to keep, as I understand it, borrowing off of the Public Sector Borrowing Requirement figures. I presume as it would affected ‘confidence’ in the City. However, the sums that would have been spent on new hospitals etc have been much lower than the totals for PFIs.
Whether it was Labour or Conservative, the point is that we have all paid an unnecessary levy to satisfy the demands of a flawed economic doctrine-just as we did in the 1930s or with austerity in the past dozen years or so. I say all, a small percentage have gained a great deal, leaving the nation with a debt greater than it need have been.
I may be a bit cynical but surely a lot of people could have foreseen this? Some of those who did were no doubt rubbing their hands in anticipation of earning large sums without too much work.
If only we had a government which would write down these debts.
I was sounded out if I wanted to work on PFIs by Labour in 1997. I have a resounding no in reply. The problems were glaringly apparent from a mile off
I once read a PFI prospectus at university in the late 1990’s.
I kid you not, it mentioned that investors had to prepared to see lower returns over longer periods and that this was part of the deal apparently. The thing was you were contributing to society.
I thought to myself at the time that that was bullshit and although I thought I was being too cynical at the time, it has turned out to be the case. It maybe that those who invested in PFI felt that they were carrying all the risk. But in a real partnership, risk is shared.
It just goes to show that if you are half-hearted about something, it does you no good, nor the people you say you want to help.
New Labour had a lot to be proud of, but keeping to the PSBR (which was all the rage at the time) and other artificially imposed Tory constraints means that you’ve lost as soon as you start.
Again, I’m making good progress with Mattei’s ‘The Capital Order’. PFI is just another form of austerity enabling money to circulate upwards to the rich and disabling direct investment from government.
When you consider the chronic under investment in this country – from infrastructure like
the railways, water to the way we even been dumping our rubbish – all done on the cheap – it’s no wonder we face so many calamities.
False economy indeed – except for the rich of course.
I would speculate that the argument was something like: PFI will work on a 10% profit margin, so if you can get schools and the NHS to save 15%, then everyone is happy.
But capitalism does not focus on efficiencies, it focuses on profit. So as mentioned in the Telegraph article above, “Private contractors who agreed PFI deals with the Government are [..] due to see returns of up to 71 per cent.” Of course this does not mean 71% on average over all contracts, but I suspect that greed increased PFI margins way above the profit margins envisaged, and then blamed the schools and nurses for not working efficiently enough.
Just look at the links between former New Labour politicians and the private health sector.
We should also bear in mind that the current leader of the opposition and shadow health secretary apparently accept donations from that sector.
Enough said!
The public service unions were shouting against them at the time.