The scandal of PFI: invest just £100 ... and make £89m profit from the taxpayer By Rob Edwards THE ASTONISHING profits forecast for institutions and individuals who invest in the UK government private finance initiative (PFI) projects are revealed today in a Sunday
Herald investigation.
Equity of just £100 invested in rebuilding Hairmyres Hospital in East Kilbride is predicted to earn £89 million in dividends over 30 years.
And £500,000 of equity in the new Edinburgh Royal Infirmary is expected to earn £168m in dividends.
The revelations are gleaned from thousands of papers released under freedom of information laws.
They have provoked fury from critics of the PFI schemes.
Alex Neil, a member of the Scottish government's finance committee, said: "PFI has been a total rip-off of the taxpayer and one of the biggest cons every perpetrated. It's morally criminal that this information has been deliberately hidden for years."
|
|
Posted by: Wardoog, Buckie on 11:35pm Sat 17 May 08
Who is responsible for this [bold]SCANDAL?[/bold]
Maybe you could give us a list of what projects were tendered and let under the previous administrations?
Who is responsible for this
SCANDAL?
Maybe you could give us a list of what projects were tendered and let under the previous administrations?
Posted by: nostress, grangemouth on 11:43pm Sat 17 May 08
Either the previous Labour/Liberal-Democ
rat Executive were collectively as thick as two short planks or they were criminally incompetent - stealing from the public purse with no fear of retribution! I leave it to you to decide - CRIMINALLY STUPID or just plain CRIMINALS!
Either the previous Labour/Liberal-Democ
rat Executive were collectively as thick as two short planks or they were criminally incompetent - stealing from the public purse with no fear of retribution! I leave it to you to decide - CRIMINALLY STUPID or just plain CRIMINALS!
Posted by: Im no really here, but over there on 11:44pm Sat 17 May 08
First Maggie Thatcher started the culture that public services should be forced to make profits. Result: job losses and cuts in services, cutting of maintenance leading to run-down and dilapidated buildings. All in order to make profits.
Maggie Brown comes along and instead of the profits being ploughed back into providing better services, he condones them being syphoned off by Financial Institutions and Speculators. No wonder Blair is getting 100k from a Bank for doing nothing. No wonder Brown couldn't give a ****. His future is well secured.
We pay taxes in order for the government and local authorities to provide services. That's what tax money is for
First Maggie Thatcher started the culture that public services should be forced to make profits. Result: job losses and cuts in services, cutting of maintenance leading to run-down and dilapidated buildings. All in order to make profits.
Maggie Brown comes along and instead of the profits being ploughed back into providing better services, he condones them being syphoned off by Financial Institutions and Speculators. No wonder Blair is getting 100k from a Bank for doing nothing. No wonder Brown couldn't give a ****. His future is well secured.
We pay taxes in order for the government and local authorities to provide services. That's what tax money is for
Posted by: Jimbo on 11:49pm Sat 17 May 08
When are those of a 'vote Labour at all costs' mentality going to wake up and pay attention to what these criminally inept conmen they put into Government are doing to our country.
When are those of a 'vote Labour at all costs' mentality going to wake up and pay attention to what these criminally inept conmen they put into Government are doing to our country.
Posted by: Iain MacLaren, Galway, ireland on 11:55pm Sat 17 May 08
Private Eye has been reporting on PFI for years now and provides lots of details of specific schemes. Interestingly they have also discovered that the first PFI schemes where such 'off sheet' accounting was used were under Mussolini and huge profits were being made by companies as part of the inately corrupt Fascist state. Seems then to have been rediscovered by acountants/consultan
ts in new Labour. Amazing and shocking in scale and basic lack of integrity.
Private Eye has been reporting on PFI for years now and provides lots of details of specific schemes. Interestingly they have also discovered that the first PFI schemes where such 'off sheet' accounting was used were under Mussolini and huge profits were being made by companies as part of the inately corrupt Fascist state. Seems then to have been rediscovered by acountants/consultan
ts in new Labour. Amazing and shocking in scale and basic lack of integrity.
Posted by: shocking on 12:15am Sun 18 May 08
You just need to look at the Glasgow schools were a bunch of ex teachers set up the government contracts.
You just need to look at the Glasgow schools were a bunch of ex teachers set up the government contracts.
Posted by: Shocking on 12:16am Sun 18 May 08
You just need to look at the Glasgow schools where a bunch of ex teachers set up the government contracts.
You just need to look at the Glasgow schools where a bunch of ex teachers set up the government contracts.
Posted by: ditchgazza on 12:26am Sun 18 May 08
I hope that a list of all those who will make a profit out of this will be published.
After all, it's our money and we have a right to know.
I hope that a list of all those who will make a profit out of this will be published.
After all, it's our money and we have a right to know.
Posted by: karin on 12:43am Sun 18 May 08
never mind pfi read this scandal.
http://business.time
sonline.co.uk/tol/bu
siness/industry_sect
ors/natural_resource
s/article3954031.ece
never mind pfi read this scandal.
http://business.time
sonline.co.uk/tol/bu
siness/industry_sect
ors/natural_resource
s/article3954031.ece
Posted by: karin on 12:44am Sun 18 May 08
same thing in tiny url
http://tiny.cc/w4UST
same thing in tiny url
http://tiny.cc/w4UST
Posted by: Snarler Barr, Tollcross, Edinburgh on 1:19am Sun 18 May 08
The above headline is quite a ridiculous statement, and to suggest that the investors are receiving a return of £89m on a £100 investment is absurd, even for the excitable users of this forum.
As is shown in the paper by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert (as reported in The Herald several weeks ago), the above projects involve private-sector investors providing both equity and shareholder debt to the Hairmyres and ERI projects. For example, the funders of the ERI project provided around £15-20m of debt funding along with the equity investment, in addition to the senior debt funding raised from other lenders.
The overall return earned on the capital invested by those investors is approximately 17%, which given the uncertainty, the political risks, the long time period, and the illiquidity of the investment is actually a reasonable rate of return given the investment options available for capital in the markets (and of course the costs associated with raising this capital).
The real question is whether it is actually beneficial for the Scottish Government to shift the financing risks (and the associated return) to the private sector, at a cost to the taxpayer.
However, this debate should be the subject of a proper analysis, and is not helped by the cheap headlines (and insinuations of outright corruption) which the Sunday Herald comes up with.
The above headline is quite a ridiculous statement, and to suggest that the investors are receiving a return of £89m on a £100 investment is absurd, even for the excitable users of this forum.
As is shown in the paper by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert (as reported in The Herald several weeks ago), the above projects involve private-sector investors providing both equity and shareholder debt to the Hairmyres and ERI projects. For example, the funders of the ERI project provided around £15-20m of debt funding along with the equity investment, in addition to the senior debt funding raised from other lenders.
The overall return earned on the capital invested by those investors is approximately 17%, which given the uncertainty, the political risks, the long time period, and the illiquidity of the investment is actually a reasonable rate of return given the investment options available for capital in the markets (and of course the costs associated with raising this capital).
The real question is whether it is actually beneficial for the Scottish Government to shift the financing risks (and the associated return) to the private sector, at a cost to the taxpayer.
However, this debate should be the subject of a proper analysis, and is not helped by the cheap headlines (and insinuations of outright corruption) which the Sunday Herald comes up with.
Posted by: Harry Shanks, Rutherglen on 1:27am Sun 18 May 08
Well, Well, Well
BRING IT ON!
Wendy xxx
Well, Well, Well
BRING IT ON!
Wendy xxx
Posted by: Scunnert, Travelling in Nihlon on 1:59am Sun 18 May 08
Snarler Barr, Tollcross, Edinburgh on 1:19am today wrote:
[quote]The overall return earned on the capital invested by those investors is approximately 17%, which given the uncertainty, the political risks, the long time period, and the illiquidity of the investment is actually a reasonable rate of return given the investment options available for capital in the markets (and of course the costs associated with raising this capital).[/quote]
Seventeen percent guaranteed return from the taxpayers pockets is reasonable? Aye - how much did you invest?
Snarler Barr, Tollcross, Edinburgh on 1:19am today wrote:
The overall return earned on the capital invested by those investors is approximately 17%, which given the uncertainty, the political risks, the long time period, and the illiquidity of the investment is actually a reasonable rate of return given the investment options available for capital in the markets (and of course the costs associated with raising this capital).
Seventeen percent guaranteed return from the taxpayers pockets is reasonable? Aye - how much did you invest?
Posted by: karin on 2:03am Sun 18 May 08
Here this is much better than any of the scottish papers.
http://debatewise.co
m/debates/3-scotland
-should-cede-from-th
e-union/points/new?t
ype=for
Here this is much better than any of the scottish papers.
http://debatewise.co
m/debates/3-scotland
-should-cede-from-th
e-union/points/new?t
ype=for
Posted by: joe miles on 2:53am Sun 18 May 08
I hope they don't read this in Sicily, even the mafia don't make that return on that outlay and it's legal
I hope they don't read this in Sicily, even the mafia don't make that return on that outlay and it's legal
Posted by: Tom McAlister on 3:14am Sun 18 May 08
Am I surprised at these revelations?
Erm, no. Not really.
Am I surprised at the length of time for even this 'tip of the iceberg' to faintly reveal its-self through fog on a dark moonless night?
No and neither should anyone else. PFI started in Scotland under the remit of Maggie, her cabal in the Scottish Office, Mi Lud Forsyth and Lang. With a full supporting cast of senior civil servants doing their mistress's and master's bidding at the behest of lobbyists and beezness folk with 'special interests'. Gifts and donations technicians off stage, naturally. Nothing like a donation or two or a wee influential word or two to blinker folk from the shortcomings of the bluidy obvious. Some folk call it wealth creation or as Maggie was fond of saying,"Free enterprise works". For myself, I just call plain old fashioned theft aided and abetted by our politicos and public servants on the make with their orders are orders,three monkey commandments and leg up promotions.
...and don't forget the part played by the establishment, their shiny babbles of knighthoods, privileges and favours conferred on obliging lackey's of a unionist establishment 'somebody' for services rendered.
Aye, the grooming of public servants and politicos in their decision making by special interests has it's rewards in life after public service or during it, right enough. A nice little earner or two on the board Mi Lud? How about a nice consultancy or two? Mind you, there's a couple of juicy quango appointments if Mi lud is agreeable. They won't take up much of Mi Lud's valuable time, ah'm sure.
... and if you thought a change of governance by New Labour and their much heralded cleanup of sleaze in their new way agenda eleven years ago would curtail the activities of the lobbyists, the privateers and the carpetbaggers, then more fool you. Where there's money to be made out of the public purse then influences will be brought to bear by those who believe charity begins and ends with themself and $OD the great unwashed. **
...and if somebody starts being a little curious of these goings on,ah weel there's always a few judges(senior or otherwise) to oblige. Not to mention the closed ranks of the establishment for the use of.
...and then there's commercial confidentiality to hide behind. Aye and that "not in the public interest" can be very helpful too.
...and failing that there's ways and means of persuasion to discourage curiousity. The forces of law and order taking an interest in folk with the curiousity perhaps? Tapping of phones, surveillance, spooks obeying their master's commands.Embedded 'specials' posing as pals of like mind. Aye things can certainly go bump and not necessary just in the night.
...and as for the media. Ah weel, there's always the P45 and consequences for the curious or brave with a story to impart. Incentives such as guidelines, promotion, a pat on the head from the boss and something extra in a pay poke is not too much of a price to pay for censorship and the terrible offence of upsetting the wrong sort of people.
perhaps some folk reading this will be thinking I'm paranoid?
Please yerself. I've been there, experienced 'happenings' by folk with vested interests or influenced by same at first hand,been there and got the tee shirt.
PFI/PPP scams eh? Aye just so. I was one of the curious as I protested with other like minded folk (SKAT) against PFI on the Skye toll bridge, one wet and windy dark night many years ago and that curiousity of scams and the cretins who purvey, procure and those who aid and acquiesce them has remained with me ever since.
Ever been in the jail? Ever been given a "rendition flight" to stand trial accused of the terribly henious crime of refusing to pay a PFI bridge toll of £4-30p?
Ever witnessed the contortions of Ukrania(as Robbie the Pict would say) state employees to avoid upsetting the wrong kind of folk, usually of a unionist persuasion?
Aye, the lengths some folk will go to in the avoidance of upsetting the wrong kind of folk by revelations of the wrong kind of practices has to be witnessed to be believed.
Mind numbing so it is and all done in your name and at your expence.Just wait till the full facts emerge. He11 mend us all for allowing them to get away with it. All of the major unionist UK political parties approved in one form or another of this rape and grand larceny of the public purse. There were some honorable individuals within these political organizations who voiced doubts but action against PFI/PPP and a calling to account and transparancy was as rare as rocking horse cr@p.
Thankyou SNP for attempting to make amends and abolish these PFI/PPP scams but Mr Justice Minister, Mr MacAskill MSP Sir. About those one hundred and thirty plus good folk and their unsound and wrong, criminal convictions who are still waiting for justice.
Patience is running out, Sir to be sure.
**See George Monbiot's book "Captive State".
.
.
Am I surprised at these revelations?
Erm, no. Not really.
Am I surprised at the length of time for even this 'tip of the iceberg' to faintly reveal its-self through fog on a dark moonless night?
No and neither should anyone else. PFI started in Scotland under the remit of Maggie, her cabal in the Scottish Office, Mi Lud Forsyth and Lang. With a full supporting cast of senior civil servants doing their mistress's and master's bidding at the behest of lobbyists and beezness folk with 'special interests'. Gifts and donations technicians off stage, naturally. Nothing like a donation or two or a wee influential word or two to blinker folk from the shortcomings of the bluidy obvious. Some folk call it wealth creation or as Maggie was fond of saying,"Free enterprise works". For myself, I just call plain old fashioned theft aided and abetted by our politicos and public servants on the make with their orders are orders,three monkey commandments and leg up promotions.
...and don't forget the part played by the establishment, their shiny babbles of knighthoods, privileges and favours conferred on obliging lackey's of a unionist establishment 'somebody' for services rendered.
Aye, the grooming of public servants and politicos in their decision making by special interests has it's rewards in life after public service or during it, right enough. A nice little earner or two on the board Mi Lud? How about a nice consultancy or two? Mind you, there's a couple of juicy quango appointments if Mi lud is agreeable. They won't take up much of Mi Lud's valuable time, ah'm sure.
... and if you thought a change of governance by New Labour and their much heralded cleanup of sleaze in their new way agenda eleven years ago would curtail the activities of the lobbyists, the privateers and the carpetbaggers, then more fool you. Where there's money to be made out of the public purse then influences will be brought to bear by those who believe charity begins and ends with themself and $OD the great unwashed. **
...and if somebody starts being a little curious of these goings on,ah weel there's always a few judges(senior or otherwise) to oblige. Not to mention the closed ranks of the establishment for the use of.
...and then there's commercial confidentiality to hide behind. Aye and that "not in the public interest" can be very helpful too.
...and failing that there's ways and means of persuasion to discourage curiousity. The forces of law and order taking an interest in folk with the curiousity perhaps? Tapping of phones, surveillance, spooks obeying their master's commands.Embedded 'specials' posing as pals of like mind. Aye things can certainly go bump and not necessary just in the night.
...and as for the media. Ah weel, there's always the P45 and consequences for the curious or brave with a story to impart. Incentives such as guidelines, promotion, a pat on the head from the boss and something extra in a pay poke is not too much of a price to pay for censorship and the terrible offence of upsetting the wrong sort of people.
perhaps some folk reading this will be thinking I'm paranoid?
Please yerself. I've been there, experienced 'happenings' by folk with vested interests or influenced by same at first hand,been there and got the tee shirt.
PFI/PPP scams eh? Aye just so. I was one of the curious as I protested with other like minded folk (SKAT) against PFI on the Skye toll bridge, one wet and windy dark night many years ago and that curiousity of scams and the cretins who purvey, procure and those who aid and acquiesce them has remained with me ever since.
Ever been in the jail? Ever been given a "rendition flight" to stand trial accused of the terribly henious crime of refusing to pay a PFI bridge toll of £4-30p?
Ever witnessed the contortions of Ukrania(as Robbie the Pict would say) state employees to avoid upsetting the wrong kind of folk, usually of a unionist persuasion?
Aye, the lengths some folk will go to in the avoidance of upsetting the wrong kind of folk by revelations of the wrong kind of practices has to be witnessed to be believed.
Mind numbing so it is and all done in your name and at your expence.Just wait till the full facts emerge. He11 mend us all for allowing them to get away with it. All of the major unionist UK political parties approved in one form or another of this rape and grand larceny of the public purse. There were some honorable individuals within these political organizations who voiced doubts but action against PFI/PPP and a calling to account and transparancy was as rare as rocking horse cr@p.
Thankyou SNP for attempting to make amends and abolish these PFI/PPP scams but Mr Justice Minister, Mr MacAskill MSP Sir. About those one hundred and thirty plus good folk and their unsound and wrong, criminal convictions who are still waiting for justice.
Patience is running out, Sir to be sure.
**See George Monbiot's book "Captive State".
.
.
Posted by: wenceslas on 6:45am Sun 18 May 08
[quote][bold]Snarler Barr[/bold] wrote:
The above headline is quite a ridiculous statement, and to suggest that the investors are receiving a return of £89m on a £100 investment is absurd, even for the excitable users of this forum. As is shown in the paper by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert (as reported in The Herald several weeks ago), the above projects involve private-sector investors providing both equity and shareholder debt to the Hairmyres and ERI projects. For example, the funders of the ERI project provided around £15-20m of debt funding along with the equity investment, in addition to the senior debt funding raised from other lenders. The overall return earned on the capital invested by those investors is approximately 17%, which given the uncertainty, the political risks, the long time period, and the illiquidity of the investment is actually a reasonable rate of return given the investment options available for capital in the markets (and of course the costs associated with raising this capital). The real question is whether it is actually beneficial for the Scottish Government to shift the financing risks (and the associated return) to the private sector, at a cost to the taxpayer. However, this debate should be the subject of a proper analysis, and is not helped by the cheap headlines (and insinuations of outright corruption) which the Sunday Herald comes up with. [/quote] 17% (if accurate) does not seem a ridiculous rate of return - given the risks and timescales involved.
The other question which needs to be considered is the costs and practicalities of alternative means of funding. Presumably the Scottish government when in opposition had fully costed and considered the viability of the Scottish Futures Trust - and it would be ready to roll out asap...
Snarler Barr wrote:
The above headline is quite a ridiculous statement, and to suggest that the investors are receiving a return of £89m on a £100 investment is absurd, even for the excitable users of this forum. As is shown in the paper by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert (as reported in The Herald several weeks ago), the above projects involve private-sector investors providing both equity and shareholder debt to the Hairmyres and ERI projects. For example, the funders of the ERI project provided around £15-20m of debt funding along with the equity investment, in addition to the senior debt funding raised from other lenders. The overall return earned on the capital invested by those investors is approximately 17%, which given the uncertainty, the political risks, the long time period, and the illiquidity of the investment is actually a reasonable rate of return given the investment options available for capital in the markets (and of course the costs associated with raising this capital). The real question is whether it is actually beneficial for the Scottish Government to shift the financing risks (and the associated return) to the private sector, at a cost to the taxpayer. However, this debate should be the subject of a proper analysis, and is not helped by the cheap headlines (and insinuations of outright corruption) which the Sunday Herald comes up with.
17% (if accurate) does not seem a ridiculous rate of return - given the risks and timescales involved.
The other question which needs to be considered is the costs and practicalities of alternative means of funding. Presumably the Scottish government when in opposition had fully costed and considered the viability of the Scottish Futures Trust - and it would be ready to roll out asap...
Posted by: Scot, land on 7:33am Sun 18 May 08
[quote][bold]karin[/bold] wrote:
never mind pfi read this scandal. http://business.time sonline.co.uk/tol/bu siness/industry_sect ors/natural_resource s/article3954031.ece[/quote] it's a good article karin, but those leeches in london will never let us go now.
8% nvmbnvt, 11% fvckwit ....come out, come out wherever you are....
karin wrote:
never mind pfi read this scandal. http://business.time sonline.co.uk/tol/bu siness/industry_sect ors/natural_resource s/article3954031.ece
it's a good article karin, but those leeches in london will never let us go now.
8% nvmbnvt, 11% fvckwit ....come out, come out wherever you are....
Posted by: Donald Anderson, glasgow on 8:01am Sun 18 May 08
Wot. No mention of Broon Labour envelopes?
Wot. No mention of Broon Labour envelopes?
Posted by: Cynicus, North Fife on 8:14am Sun 18 May 08
PFI = Pocket filling Initiative.
PPP = Packing Pals Pockets
As with the Skye Bridge, crooked from the start. The over-paid obligatory Consultants and Civil Service collaborators ensure that a false public sector comparison figure will make the plan look 'best value'.
From then on it's down hill all the way for the taxpayer. Worst value, highest longest running costs. The NuLabour Projectors thought it was great, pleasing their bestest friends - making money flow from poor to rich.
Prudence Brown was much involved in its imposition on NHS and local authorities - schools, infrastructure - as the only permissible funding route. What a bunch of crooks.
PFI = Pocket filling Initiative.
PPP = Packing Pals Pockets
As with the Skye Bridge, crooked from the start. The over-paid obligatory Consultants and Civil Service collaborators ensure that a false public sector comparison figure will make the plan look 'best value'.
From then on it's down hill all the way for the taxpayer. Worst value, highest longest running costs. The NuLabour Projectors thought it was great, pleasing their bestest friends - making money flow from poor to rich.
Prudence Brown was much involved in its imposition on NHS and local authorities - schools, infrastructure - as the only permissible funding route. What a bunch of crooks.
Posted by: frank mcbride, lusitania on 8:30am Sun 18 May 08
Snarler Barr & wenceslas.
You are obviously 2 of PFI/PPP's philanthopists!!!
17% overall return??? Over 30 years???
You could get a better return from a Current Account.
So, are you saying that all the Private Equity providers for PFI/PPP are philanthopists or, are you saying that the yearly, overall, return is 17%?
Snarler Barr & wenceslas.
You are obviously 2 of PFI/PPP's philanthopists!!!
17% overall return??? Over 30 years???
You could get a better return from a Current Account.
So, are you saying that all the Private Equity providers for PFI/PPP are philanthopists or, are you saying that the yearly, overall, return is 17%?
Posted by: McSomeone, Scotland on 8:36am Sun 18 May 08
Looks like the only thing left that hasn't been nationalised and handed over to the private sector for plundering is the air we breathe. Surely soemone in the treasury, on behalf of the CBI must have got that minor problem sorted by now. Especially as they already appear to have sorted out a personal carbon allowance for which to make money with, rather than control carbon emissions by industry.
Looks like the only thing left that hasn't been nationalised and handed over to the private sector for plundering is the air we breathe. Surely soemone in the treasury, on behalf of the CBI must have got that minor problem sorted by now. Especially as they already appear to have sorted out a personal carbon allowance for which to make money with, rather than control carbon emissions by industry.
Posted by: Free Thinker, North Lanarkshire on 8:40am Sun 18 May 08
[quote][bold]Snarler Barr[/bold] wrote:
The above headline is quite a ridiculous statement, and to suggest that the investors are receiving a return of £89m on a £100 investment is absurd, even for the excitable users of this forum. As is shown in the paper by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert (as reported in The Herald several weeks ago), the above projects involve private-sector investors providing both equity and shareholder debt to the Hairmyres and ERI projects. For example, the funders of the ERI project provided around £15-20m of debt funding along with the equity investment, in addition to the senior debt funding raised from other lenders. The overall return earned on the capital invested by those investors is approximately 17%, which given the uncertainty, the political risks, the long time period, and the illiquidity of the investment is actually a reasonable rate of return given the investment options available for capital in the markets (and of course the costs associated with raising this capital). The real question is whether it is actually beneficial for the Scottish Government to shift the financing risks (and the associated return) to the private sector, at a cost to the taxpayer. However, this debate should be the subject of a proper analysis, and is not helped by the cheap headlines (and insinuations of outright corruption) which the Sunday Herald comes up with. [/quote]
What risk? Utter clap-trap. Psychobabble.
Snarler Barr wrote:
The above headline is quite a ridiculous statement, and to suggest that the investors are receiving a return of £89m on a £100 investment is absurd, even for the excitable users of this forum. As is shown in the paper by Jim and Margaret Cuthbert (as reported in The Herald several weeks ago), the above projects involve private-sector investors providing both equity and shareholder debt to the Hairmyres and ERI projects. For example, the funders of the ERI project provided around £15-20m of debt funding along with the equity investment, in addition to the senior debt funding raised from other lenders. The overall return earned on the capital invested by those investors is approximately 17%, which given the uncertainty, the political risks, the long time period, and the illiquidity of the investment is actually a reasonable rate of return given the investment options available for capital in the markets (and of course the costs associated with raising this capital). The real question is whether it is actually beneficial for the Scottish Government to shift the financing risks (and the associated return) to the private sector, at a cost to the taxpayer. However, this debate should be the subject of a proper analysis, and is not helped by the cheap headlines (and insinuations of outright corruption) which the Sunday Herald comes up with.
What risk? Utter clap-trap. Psychobabble.
Posted by: Alan on 8:47am Sun 18 May 08
[quote][bold]Tom McAlister[/bold] wrote:
Am I surprised at these revelations? Erm, no. Not really. Am I surprised at the length of time for even this \'tip of the iceberg\' to faintly reveal its-self through fog on a dark moonless night? No and neither should anyone else. PFI started in Scotland under the remit of Maggie, her cabal in the Scottish Office, Mi Lud Forsyth and Lang. With a full supporting cast of senior civil servants doing their mistress\'s and master\'s bidding at the behest of lobbyists and beezness folk with \'special interests\'. Gifts and donations technicians off stage, naturally. Nothing like a donation or two or a wee influential word or two to blinker folk from the shortcomings of the bluidy obvious. Some folk call it wealth creation or as Maggie was fond of saying,\"Free enterprise works\". For myself, I just call plain old fashioned theft aided and abetted by our politicos and public servants on the make with their orders are orders,three monkey commandments and leg up promotions. ...and don\'t forget the part played by the establishment, their shiny babbles of knighthoods, privileges and favours conferred on obliging lackey\'s of a unionist establishment \'somebody\' for services rendered. Aye, the grooming of public servants and politicos in their decision making by special interests has it\'s rewards in life after public service or during it, right enough. A nice little earner or two on the board Mi Lud? How about a nice consultancy or two? Mind you, there\'s a couple of juicy quango appointments if Mi lud is agreeable. They won\'t take up much of Mi Lud\'s valuable time, ah\'m sure. ... and if you thought a change of governance by New Labour and their much heralded cleanup of sleaze in their new way agenda eleven years ago would curtail the activities of the lobbyists, the privateers and the carpetbaggers, then more fool you. Where there\'s money to be made out of the public purse then influences will be brought to bear by those who believe charity begins and ends with themself and $OD the great unwashed. ** ...and if somebody starts being a little curious of these goings on,ah weel there\'s always a few judges(senior or otherwise) to oblige. Not to mention the closed ranks of the establishment for the use of. ...and then there\'s commercial confidentiality to hide behind. Aye and that \"not in the public interest\" can be very helpful too. ...and failing that there\'s ways and means of persuasion to discourage curiousity. The forces of law and order taking an interest in folk with the curiousity perhaps? Tapping of phones, surveillance, spooks obeying their master\'s commands.Embedded \'specials\' posing as pals of like mind. Aye things can certainly go bump and not necessary just in the night. ...and as for the media. Ah weel, there\'s always the P45 and consequences for the curious or brave with a story to impart. Incentives such as guidelines, promotion, a pat on the head from the boss and something extra in a pay poke is not too much of a price to pay for censorship and the terrible offence of upsetting the wrong sort of people. perhaps some folk reading this will be thinking I\'m paranoid? Please yerself. I\'ve been there, experienced \'happenings\' by folk with vested interests or influenced by same at first hand,been there and got the tee shirt. PFI/PPP scams eh? Aye just so. I was one of the curious as I protested with other like minded folk (SKAT) against PFI on the Skye toll bridge, one wet and windy dark night many years ago and that curiousity of scams and the cretins who purvey, procure and those who aid and acquiesce them has remained with me ever since. Ever been in the jail? Ever been given a \"rendition flight\" to stand trial accused of the terribly henious crime of refusing to pay a PFI bridge toll of £4-30p? Ever witnessed the contortions of Ukrania(as Robbie the Pict would say) state employees to avoid upsetting the wrong kind of folk, usually of a unionist persuasion? Aye, the lengths some folk will go to in the avoidance of upsetting the wrong kind of folk by revelations of the wrong kind of practices has to be witnessed to be believed. Mind numbing so it is and all done in your name and at your expence.Just wait till the full facts emerge. He11 mend us all for allowing them to get away with it. All of the major unionist UK political parties approved in one form or another of this rape and grand larceny of the public purse. There were some honorable individuals within these political organizations who voiced doubts but action against PFI/PPP and a calling to account and transparancy was as rare as rocking horse cr@p. Thankyou SNP for attempting to make amends and abolish these PFI/PPP scams but Mr Justice Minister, Mr MacAskill MSP Sir. About those one hundred and thirty plus good folk and their unsound and wrong, criminal convictions who are still waiting for justice. Patience is running out, Sir to be sure. **See George Monbiot\'s book \"Captive State\". . . [/quote] Very well said. Worth repeating... And the rabbit hole goes deeper than this. Oh yes! I know it does!
Tom McAlister wrote:
Am I surprised at these revelations? Erm, no. Not really. Am I surprised at the length of time for even this \'tip of the iceberg\' to faintly reveal its-self through fog on a dark moonless night? No and neither should anyone else. PFI started in Scotland under the remit of Maggie, her cabal in the Scottish Office, Mi Lud Forsyth and Lang. With a full supporting cast of senior civil servants doing their mistress\'s and master\'s bidding at the behest of lobbyists and beezness folk with \'special interests\'. Gifts and donations technicians off stage, naturally. Nothing like a donation or two or a wee influential word or two to blinker folk from the shortcomings of the bluidy obvious. Some folk call it wealth creation or as Maggie was fond of saying,\"Free enterprise works\". For myself, I just call plain old fashioned theft aided and abetted by our politicos and public servants on the make with their orders are orders,three monkey commandments and leg up promotions. ...and don\'t forget the part played by the establishment, their shiny babbles of knighthoods, privileges and favours conferred on obliging lackey\'s of a unionist establishment \'somebody\' for services rendered. Aye, the grooming of public servants and politicos in their decision making by special interests has it\'s rewards in life after public service or during it, right enough. A nice little earner or two on the board Mi Lud? How about a nice consultancy or two? Mind you, there\'s a couple of juicy quango appointments if Mi lud is agreeable. They won\'t take up much of Mi Lud\'s valuable time, ah\'m sure. ... and if you thought a change of governance by New Labour and their much heralded cleanup of sleaze in their new way agenda eleven years ago would curtail the activities of the lobbyists, the privateers and the carpetbaggers, then more fool you. Where there\'s money to be made out of the public purse then influences will be brought to bear by those who believe charity begins and ends with themself and $OD the great unwashed. ** ...and if somebody starts being a little curious of these goings on,ah weel there\'s always a few judges(senior or otherwise) to oblige. Not to mention the closed ranks of the establishment for the use of. ...and then there\'s commercial confidentiality to hide behind. Aye and that \"not in the public interest\" can be very helpful too. ...and failing that there\'s ways and means of persuasion to discourage curiousity. The forces of law and order taking an interest in folk with the curiousity perhaps? Tapping of phones, surveillance, spooks obeying their master\'s commands.Embedded \'specials\' posing as pals of like mind. Aye things can certainly go bump and not necessary just in the night. ...and as for the media. Ah weel, there\'s always the P45 and consequences for the curious or brave with a story to impart. Incentives such as guidelines, promotion, a pat on the head from the boss and something extra in a pay poke is not too much of a price to pay for censorship and the terrible offence of upsetting the wrong sort of people. perhaps some folk reading this will be thinking I\'m paranoid? Please yerself. I\'ve been there, experienced \'happenings\' by folk with vested interests or influenced by same at first hand,been there and got the tee shirt. PFI/PPP scams eh? Aye just so. I was one of the curious as I protested with other like minded folk (SKAT) against PFI on the Skye toll bridge, one wet and windy dark night many years ago and that curiousity of scams and the cretins who purvey, procure and those who aid and acquiesce them has remained with me ever since. Ever been in the jail? Ever been given a \"rendition flight\" to stand trial accused of the terribly henious crime of refusing to pay a PFI bridge toll of £4-30p? Ever witnessed the contortions of Ukrania(as Robbie the Pict would say) state employees to avoid upsetting the wrong kind of folk, usually of a unionist persuasion? Aye, the lengths some folk will go to in the avoidance of upsetting the wrong kind of folk by revelations of the wrong kind of practices has to be witnessed to be believed. Mind numbing so it is and all done in your name and at your expence.Just wait till the full facts emerge. He11 mend us all for allowing them to get away with it. All of the major unionist UK political parties approved in one form or another of this rape and grand larceny of the public purse. There were some honorable individuals within these political organizations who voiced doubts but action against PFI/PPP and a calling to account and transparancy was as rare as rocking horse cr@p. Thankyou SNP for attempting to make amends and abolish these PFI/PPP scams but Mr Justice Minister, Mr MacAskill MSP Sir. About those one hundred and thirty plus good folk and their unsound and wrong, criminal convictions who are still waiting for justice. Patience is running out, Sir to be sure. **See George Monbiot\'s book \"Captive State\". . .
Very well said. Worth repeating... And the rabbit hole goes deeper than this. Oh yes! I know it does!
Posted by: Dr Mike, Edinburgh on 9:45am Sun 18 May 08
These figures do seem absurd.
However, the same huge ROIs apply in the water industry.
These figures do seem absurd.
However, the same huge ROIs apply in the water industry.
Posted by: Angus MacDonald, Grangemouth on 11:16am Sun 18 May 08
Jimbo at the start of this thread is on the right track.
"Criminally inept" - Check
Liars and Warmongers - Check
At least some local adminstrations like Falkirk (previously SNP-led) had the sense to get through some 'not-for-profit' schools before Labour tried to stop them - which the new Labour / Tory administration did try to do in Falkirk. The new SNP Government were too quick for them though, so don't let Labour lie and say that the new Government has not passed any schools in Scotland! One of the first things (within hours) that the SNP Government did was pass the 'NPDO' schools (not for profit) for Falkirk District. Another example of the SNP delivering for the people!
Jimbo at the start of this thread is on the right track.
"Criminally inept" - Check
Liars and Warmongers - Check
At least some local adminstrations like Falkirk (previously SNP-led) had the sense to get through some 'not-for-profit' schools before Labour tried to stop them - which the new Labour / Tory administration did try to do in Falkirk. The new SNP Government were too quick for them though, so don't let Labour lie and say that the new Government has not passed any schools in Scotland! One of the first things (within hours) that the SNP Government did was pass the 'NPDO' schools (not for profit) for Falkirk District. Another example of the SNP delivering for the people!
Posted by: Angry Albannach, Larbert on 11:27am Sun 18 May 08
Are we all thick or what? It didn't take a genius to figure that one out! The new Forth Valley Acute hospital in Larbert is to cost £300 milion plus to build. It'll cost the people £1.1billion at the end of 30 years.
Have I missed something?
Or better still, can I get shares in Lang O'Rourke or Henry Boot, coz thes guys really are taking the proverbial!
Are we all thick or what? It didn't take a genius to figure that one out! The new Forth Valley Acute hospital in Larbert is to cost £300 milion plus to build. It'll cost the people £1.1billion at the end of 30 years.
Have I missed something?
Or better still, can I get shares in Lang O'Rourke or Henry Boot, coz thes guys really are taking the proverbial!
Posted by: Politicalliy-incorre
ct Man, Glasgow on 11:57am Sun 18 May 08
Government effectively chose to create money to prop up Northern Rock when its fellow usurers chose to abandon it. It could, if it so wished to, adopt the same policy to build the hospitals and schools we need but doesn't. Why?
Government effectively chose to create money to prop up Northern Rock when its fellow usurers chose to abandon it. It could, if it so wished to, adopt the same policy to build the hospitals and schools we need but doesn't. Why?
Posted by: Alex, Glasgow on 12:44pm Sun 18 May 08
A return of 17% per annum is usually achievavble by only the very best fund managers and stock pickers over a period of 25-30 years. Less than that is very much the norm.
That such a huge return should not only be gleaned from, but underwritten by taxpayers is frankly astounding. There has to be more investiagtion done into this. Just how many politicians or their family members or close associates have benefitted from this borderline fraudulent appropriation of people's cash?
A footnote - remember 1999 or thereabouts, when the parliament building was being constructed - several members of the Lib-Lab coalition, as well as a number of Tories, advocated building the scheme by PFI. If this had been taken up, the cost of Holyrood would have rocketed from the £391 million it cost, to a staggering £2.09 BILLION over a 25 year period, assuming interest rates stay relatively low.
A return of 17% per annum is usually achievavble by only the very best fund managers and stock pickers over a period of 25-30 years. Less than that is very much the norm.
That such a huge return should not only be gleaned from, but underwritten by taxpayers is frankly astounding. There has to be more investiagtion done into this. Just how many politicians or their family members or close associates have benefitted from this borderline fraudulent appropriation of people's cash?
A footnote - remember 1999 or thereabouts, when the parliament building was being constructed - several members of the Lib-Lab coalition, as well as a number of Tories, advocated building the scheme by PFI. If this had been taken up, the cost of Holyrood would have rocketed from the £391 million it cost, to a staggering £2.09 BILLION over a 25 year period, assuming interest rates stay relatively low.
Posted by: Niall Aslen, Cairnbulg Aberdeenshire on 1:27pm Sun 18 May 08
This has been a long subject of debate on the Herald forum. A lot of this was discussed last year and the thread is still up. Audit Scotland has calculated that PPP/PFI has cost the Scottish Taxpayer £981 Millions which is £660 Millions more than if the traditional equity based funding had been used. £660 Million buys a lot of schools, healthcare, social provision, infrastructure etc, need I go on? That £660 million criminal spent by Neu Liebour is lining the pockets of fatcat financiers and not doing what it was intended to do - PROVIDE SERVICES.
'S Mise le meas
Niall Ban
This has been a long subject of debate on the Herald forum. A lot of this was discussed last year and the thread is still up. Audit Scotland has calculated that PPP/PFI has cost the Scottish Taxpayer £981 Millions which is £660 Millions more than if the traditional equity based funding had been used. £660 Million buys a lot of schools, healthcare, social provision, infrastructure etc, need I go on? That £660 million criminal spent by Neu Liebour is lining the pockets of fatcat financiers and not doing what it was intended to do - PROVIDE SERVICES.
'S Mise le meas
Niall Ban
Posted by: Observer on 1:29pm Sun 18 May 08
This is not news. Trade Unions have been campaigning against PFI for precisely these reasons for years. Furthermore the quality of the buildings delivered by PFI is inferior to that which could have been deliverd by traditional procurement methods. But it took the ''debt'' off the balance books, and enabled Brown to make his sums add up thus maintaining the fiction that he was a prudent Chancellor, when the reverse was true.
And remember also that the building companies tasked with constructing the gerry built schools and hospitals that Gordon Brown has gifted us were not in competition with each other at all, so no aspect of ''best value'' has been delivered by Labour, it has all been a giant con.
This is not news. Trade Unions have been campaigning against PFI for precisely these reasons for years. Furthermore the quality of the buildings delivered by PFI is inferior to that which could have been deliverd by traditional procurement methods. But it took the ''debt'' off the balance books, and enabled Brown to make his sums add up thus maintaining the fiction that he was a prudent Chancellor, when the reverse was true.
And remember also that the building companies tasked with constructing the gerry built schools and hospitals that Gordon Brown has gifted us were not in competition with each other at all, so no aspect of ''best value'' has been delivered by Labour, it has all been a giant con.
Posted by: Jimbo on 1:49pm Sun 18 May 08
Hi Observer
[quote]Trade Unions have been campaigning against PFI for precisely these reasons for years.[/quote]
These are the very same trade unions that fund the Labour Party and let themselves be talked round by Brown & Co year after year.
If they were really serious about scrapping PFI/PPP, and just not making the right noises, they should withhold all funding until such times as the Labour Party changed it's policy.
Hi Observer
Trade Unions have been campaigning against PFI for precisely these reasons for years.
These are the very same trade unions that fund the Labour Party and let themselves be talked round by Brown & Co year after year.
If they were really serious about scrapping PFI/PPP, and just not making the right noises, they should withhold all funding until such times as the Labour Party changed it's policy.
Posted by: Observer on 2:21pm Sun 18 May 08
I know that they fund the Labour Party, I am not daft. I am just pointing out that this story is not news. Trade Unions have been running campaigns against PFI for at least a decade, albeit funding Labour at the same time. And there has been serial coverage of the PFI scandal in the Private Eye too.
I know that they fund the Labour Party, I am not daft. I am just pointing out that this story is not news. Trade Unions have been running campaigns against PFI for at least a decade, albeit funding Labour at the same time. And there has been serial coverage of the PFI scandal in the Private Eye too.
Posted by: Grant, Greenock on 2:36pm Sun 18 May 08
It seems that Labour has given this country a legacy that will be costing most of us well into retirement and beyond.
Perhaps when all is said and done we will look on 18 years of tory rule as the glory days!
It seems that Labour has given this country a legacy that will be costing most of us well into retirement and beyond.
Perhaps when all is said and done we will look on 18 years of tory rule as the glory days!
Posted by: James Currie on 12:49am Mon 19 May 08
Unto them that hath it will be given. Unto them that hath not it shall be taken away, even that which they hath.
NuLabour is not a decent party. They have gone even further than that evil scumbag Thatcher.
Unto them that hath it will be given. Unto them that hath not it shall be taken away, even that which they hath.
NuLabour is not a decent party. They have gone even further than that evil scumbag Thatcher.
Posted by: Audrey, Dundee on 1:59pm Mon 19 May 08
[bold]invest just £100 ... and make £89m [/bold]
I was outraged by this headline - it is grossly misleading. I realise that a newspaper cannot be held responsible for the level of education or numeracy of its readers - but there should be some basic standard of honest disclosure.
This headline demonstrates an outrageous lack of judgement on the part of the writer and the editor. This headline should never have been printed.
invest just £100 ... and make £89m
I was outraged by this headline - it is grossly misleading. I realise that a newspaper cannot be held responsible for the level of education or numeracy of its readers - but there should be some basic standard of honest disclosure.
This headline demonstrates an outrageous lack of judgement on the part of the writer and the editor. This headline should never have been printed.
Posted by: Tolle1 on 2:22pm Mon 19 May 08
Where does the money come from to pay for this rip-off, as we cannot afford to house people, care for the elderly (Lord Sutherland said £40 million shortfall) etc.
Where does the money come from to pay for this rip-off, as we cannot afford to house people, care for the elderly (Lord Sutherland said £40 million shortfall) etc.
Posted by: Los Angeles, Edinburgh on 5:12pm Mon 19 May 08
Outraged Audrey[quote]I was outraged by this headline - it is grossly misleading.[/quote]In what way?
Outraged Audrey
I was outraged by this headline - it is grossly misleading.
In what way?
Posted by: Jimbo on 6:54pm Mon 19 May 08
Meanwhile, Norway's Oil Fund is on the rise. The value of the fund, officially called Norway's Government Pension Fund -- Global now stands at [bold]396.5 billion dollars[/bold] (US). Scotland's potential Oil Fund has been squandered by Westminster. This would have been the Scottish Futures Trust. Remember that when the likes of Labour's Andy Kerr & Co tell us that PPP/PFI is best value.
Meanwhile, Norway's Oil Fund is on the rise. The value of the fund, officially called Norway's Government Pension Fund -- Global now stands at
396.5 billion dollars (US). Scotland's potential Oil Fund has been squandered by Westminster. This would have been the Scottish Futures Trust. Remember that when the likes of Labour's Andy Kerr & Co tell us that PPP/PFI is best value.
Comment | Read Comments (39)
Print this story
Email to a friend
