FAO IC1967

[Move DRFC]

Keep up the top work on the tips chief. Hopefully Bitter Billy and baffling Bob keep out of your next thread.

[IC1967]

I live in hope. I don't know what's wrong with that pair. I don't know why they begrudge me helping people put a few extra quid in their pockets.

Right. Seeing as I'm a magnanimous soul I'm going to show people how they can make a bit of extra money. The only way you can lose is if you make a mistake so you need to be careful. However the good news is that even if you make a mistake your losses will be dwarfed by your profits. I'll start a new thread called 'Bookie Bashing' and will show various ways of making a few extra quid and having a bit of fun at the same time.

[grayx]

Get in..

[Savvy]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/05/pfi-contracts-list

Just recently stumbled on this article what say you on this PFI mularky?

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

That is nowhere clear cut as pfi actually is though there is much more to it than that.

[idler]

That is truly frightening. It's as bad as using Wonga.com.

[BillyStubbsTears]

http://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2012/jul/05/pfi-contracts-list

Just recently stumbled on this article what say you on this PFI mularky?

Bit of perspective.

They are saying that we will have spent £300bn on these projects over about 60 years (1990-2050). Our GDP is currently about £2trillion. So the payments on these projects (assuming GDP is constant at £2tr for the whole period) come to about 0.3% of everything we earn per year.

Put it another way. Say you earn £300 per week. It's the same as having a long term debt which costs you 90p per week to finance.

I'm not saying I agree with PFI by the way. I'd much rather we paid more tax and Govt spent the money on these infrastructure projects directly. But we live in an age where that doesn't happen. So if you need to spend a couple of billion pounds on a new bridge over the River Severn, this is the only way to finance it.

[IC1967]

PFI is a total disgrace. It is a terrible abuse of tax payers money.

It was first introduced by the Tories for non NHS projects. When in opposition, Labour criticised this way of funding projects but when in power they really took the piss with tax payers' money. They were responsible for 136 new hospitals built using PFI.

What is PFI I hear you ask? PFI is short for Private Finance Initiative. It is a system  where the Government borrows money from the private sector to build public infrastructure in return for part-privatisation. These hospitals were all paid for privately and leased back to the NHS for 45 years. And guess what. At the end of the 45 years the PFI consortiums own the hospitals!

By doing it this way, the Government was forced to pay higher interest rates to PFI consortiums than it would have paid to borrow on the open market. This is causing financial shortages for cash-strapped primary care trusts. This means that clinical care is being compromised because funding considerations are being put before medical conditions. A lot of the money allocated to the hospitals is going to the PFI consortium instead of being spent on clinical need.

Why you may ask were Labour so keen to use PFI? Because it meant future generations would pick up the bill and because the cost of PFI projects do not appear as part of our national debt. Brilliant news for spendthrift politicians.

PFI is incredibly poor value for money. The NHS has been saddled with debt. Had the Government borrowed in the usual way, the amounts would have faded into insignificance by now.

The NHS is just one example of how Labour let rip with this scheme. Ask yourself a question. Would you pay for your mortgage for 45 years paying credit card interest rates only to be told at the end of the term you wouldn't own your house? Of course not. Labour funded projects this way because they are financially incompetent and they could keep the costs off the balance sheet.

Do we really want this bunch of clowns in charge of the economy again?



 

[Savvy]

Surely issuing Government Bonds would have been the way to fund these projects?

The example that caught my attention involved Brent NHS who apparently have 43 years of a deal remaining. The total cost of the project being 1.7 billion for which total repayments accrue to 7.1 billion how the hell can that be best value for any project?

[IC1967]

Of course it would. The reason Labour didn't do it this way is because they didn't want the cost to show up as part of the national debt. They were far happier to pay way over the odds and for it not to show up on the national debt figures.

This is dishonesty on a humongous scale. It is no wonder we are struggling to finance the NHS when a lot of the money allocated to it goes to the private sector. It really makes my piss boil that Labour constantly bang on about the Tories privatising the NHS given their appalling track record.

[wilts rover]

Wow that is fascinating, I mean all those modern, well-built and well-maintained hospitals, all fitted out with the most modern and upto date equipment that Labour took over from the Tories in 1997, I mean why did they have to spend all that money on them? If people had to wait 2 years for a life-changing operation, is that anything really? Just because most of the rich people were in BUPA and didnt use them so didnt want to fund them?

Have you got the figures that show how well the Tories were looking after the NHS in Thatcher and Major's time? Here is a graph that will help you.

http://liberalconspiracy.org/2011/10/31/cameron-is-spending-less-on-the-nhs-than-even-thatcher-would-have/

[IC1967]

You've lost me (as usual). What is your point? You seem to be saying that the Tories didn't spend anywhere near enough on the NHS when they were in power. You then seem to be suggesting that because of this it was good for Labour to spend a lot more.

Look. It's very simple. It's not how much you spend it's how you use what you spend that counts. Paying for PFI projects on a credit card certainly meant Labour spent a lot more. Unfortunately they stuck us all with a huge bill for their profligacy.

[Savvy]

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225362/01_pfi_hedging120506.pdf

Interesting!

[wilts rover]

Sorry Mick, I forgot I had to make my questions simple for you. I have asked you;

a) Why did the Labour Party suddenly begin spending huge amounts of money on the NHS in 1997? (some reasons are givin in my previous post, all of which are connected to their landslide electoral victory that year btw, and there is a graph there to help you)

[Savvy]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAWfico4JYw

This is the original article that caught my attention........mindblowing!

[IC1967]

Sorry Mick, I forgot I had to make my questions simple for you. I have asked you;

a) Why did the Labour Party suddenly begin spending huge amounts of money on the NHS in 1997? (some reasons are givin in my previous post, all of which are connected to their landslide electoral victory that year btw, and there is a graph there to help you)

You need to answer that question. In their manifesto they said they were going to be wise spenders not big spenders like the Tories. They thought the Tories were spending too much!

You obviously don't realise this. Labour then proved they were massive liars by going on the mother of all spending sprees paid for with the nation's credit card at huge rates of interest.

Look. Before you start debating with me I'd appreciate it if you could do a bit of research first and get clued up on the subject. I'm getting fed up of making you look daft every time you go up against me. Cop yourself on man. How many batterings do you need before you learn your lesson?

I'll make it easy for you. Here's the relevant extract:

The myth that the solution to every problem is increased spending has been comprehensively dispelled under the Conservatives. Spending has risen. But more spending has brought neither greater fairness nor less poverty. Quite the reverse - our society is more divided than it has been for generations. The level of public spending is no longer the best measure of the effectiveness of government action in the public interest. It is what money is actually spent on that counts more than how much money is spent.

The national debt has doubled under John Major. The public finances remain weak. A new Labour government will give immediate high priority to seeing how public money can be better used.

New Labour will be wise spenders, not big spenders

Save to invest is our approach, not tax and spend.

New Labour will establish a new trust on tax with the British people.

Our long-term objective is a lower starting rate of income tax of ten pence in the pound.

We will examine the interaction of the tax and benefits systems so that they can be streamlined and modernised.

We will enforce the 'golden rule' of public spending - over the economic cycle, we will only borrow to invest and not to fund current expenditure.

We will ensure that - over the economic cycle - public debt as a proportion of national income is at a stable and prudent level.

Small business: We will cut unnecessary red tape.

We will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime

Police on the beat not pushing paper
Crackdown on petty crimes and neighbourhood disorder

Protect the basic state pension and promote secure second pensions.

We will reject the boom and bust policies which caused the collapse of the housing market.

We will reform party funding to end sleaze

What an absolute load of cobblers. Is it any wonder people don't trust Labour politicians on the economy. Any of you thinking of voting Labour need to have a look at this list and cop yourselves on. They did just about the opposite on nearly every commitment.

Now, given the above, I think the very least you should do is offer up an abject apology. I will immediately forgive you and wipe the slate clean with all the other ones you owe me. Get on with it man. You know you should.

[wilts rover]

Mick, thank you for your reply......now can you answer the question I asked rather than than some irrelevant rambling reply. If you would like to include an apology for you not doing so in the first place and going so far off the subject that you hit three others on the way back that would be acceptable. I wont bother boasting how stupid I have made you look in disproving your 'facts' in previous topics as that just makes me look as bad as you.

[IC1967]

I can't get my breath!

Here's your question:

a) Why did the Labour Party suddenly begin spending huge amounts of money on the NHS in 1997? (some reasons are givin in my previous post, all of which are connected to their landslide electoral victory that year btw, and there is a graph there to help you)


I don't know why they did. I thought that much was obvious. The Tories had doubled the national debt whilst in power and were big spenders. So correct me if I'm wrong they hadn't skimped on things. In fact they'd done the complete opposite. They were very big spenders.

You are trying to make out they weren't and that's why Labour had to embark on PFI contracts. Complete cobblers. Labour at the time think what you're saying is complete cobblers.

The current Tory government is accused of not spending enough. They've doubled the national debt again!

You lefties really make my piss boil with your totally incorrect view of spending under the Tories. The last 2 Tory governments have doubled the national debt when in office! What more proof do you want that they are not the mean minded so and so's that you lefties try to portray?

Now get that abject apology sorted and we'll all try to stop laughing behind your back.

[wilts rover]

I can't get my breath!

Here's your question:

a) Why did the Labour Party suddenly begin spending huge amounts of money on the NHS in 1997? (some reasons are givin in my previous post, all of which are connected to their landslide electoral victory that year btw, and there is a graph there to help you)


I don't know why they did. I thought that much was obvious.

There you are people, finally, finally after all these years a direct admission from the mouth of the horse - he hasn't got a clue what he is arguing about!

Then I will tell you Mick. I will tell you why Labour won a landslide in the General Election of 1997. But first I have another question. You say the National Debt has doubled under the last two Tory Governments (which is correct), so, where has the money gone? As proven in my original graph it hadn't gone on the NHS until 1997.

The answer to my question is simple the Tories under Thatcher and Major were killing people. People were dying prematurely as waiting times at hospitals were unacceptably high, so the Labour government began a massive programme of hospital construction, renovation and recruitment - which cost a lot of money. And the result was:

Number of Doctors
1997: 552,960
2009: 1,158,004

Number of Nurses
1998:323,457
2008:408,160

Waiting lists for an operation needing a stay in hospital
1997: 1,158,004
2009: 552,960

Average time waiting for an operation needing a stay in hospital
1997: 13.2 WEEKS
2009: 3.9 WEEKS

Average waiting time for a cataract operation
1996: 2 YEARS
2009: 3 MONTHS

Number of people waiting for more than 18 months for an operation
1997: 143
2009: 0

Percentage of people with suspected cancer seen within two weeks
1997: 63%
2009: 99.7%

Percentage of people seen in casualty within four hours:
2003/04: 91%
2007/08: 98%

Rate of cancer deaths in the under-75s
1997: 141 per 100,000 of population
2009: 115 per 100,000 of population


Life Expectancy
1997 men 74. 5 years
women 79.6 years
2007 men 77.5 years
women 81.7 years

Number of NHS walk-in centres
1997: 0
2009: 90

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/exclusive-nhs-hospital-waiting-times-385245

What more proof do you want that they are not the mean minded.

In 2007 David Cameron stood with a poster outside Chase Farm Hospital promising it would be safe under him and no service would be cut there. What happened to Chase Farm Hospital Mick?

Keep it coming Mick, keep it coming, go on give me the chance to make you look even sillier, you don't know what you are arguing about, brilliant!!!

[big fat yorkshire pudding]

Any stats on the nhs under labour in Wales compared to England right now then wilts?

[BillyStubbsTears]

Wilts

I really wish you wouldn't quote laddo's witterings, so I didn't have to come across them by accident when I'm ignoring them. But you're bang on about the Tories not spending sufficiently on the NHS in the run up to 97. The reason why the national debt doubled under them is because they were spending so much on social security because we had two extended periods of >10% unemployment which hadn't happened since the 1930s. Under the Major Govt, spending on the NHS as a proportion of GDP flat lined. Spending on education as a proportion of GDP disgracefully fell by more than 25%.

See figure 2.1b at this link to see how the Tories throttled public investment in the 80s and 90s, then see Figures 4.2, 4.3 and 4.6 to see what happened to social security, health and education spending through the 90s.
http://www.ifs.org.uk/bns/bn43.pdf
A national disgrace. When Cameron used that glib phrase about Lab not "fixing the roof while the sun was shining" I don't know how he could look in the mirror. He was an adviser at the Treasury in the 1990s when the policies that resulted in this collapse in infrastructure investment were applied. Labour fixed the f**king roofs alright. The ones over our schools and hospitals that had been left to rot by that bunch of bas**rds.

They stopped investing in the stuff that does the underpinning of a civilised society. Shockingly, under Blair's first term, Labour carried on that policy and by 2000 public infrastructure was in an utterly shocking state.

[wilts rover]

If it relates to the funding priorities of the 1997 Labour Government I will look it up for you BFYP - if not you can Google it yourself!

[wilts rover]

Sorry Billy I will try harder in future but sometimes he steps right in it and I cant help myself showing how silly he is in his own words. For example:

What Mick says:

PFI is a total disgrace. It is a terrible abuse of tax payers money.
It was first introduced by the Tories for non NHS projects.

What the truth is:
Baroness Cumberlege, speaking on 3 June 1997 in the House of Lords, summarised the situation as follows:
‘… 71 NHS PFI schemes have been approved since the launch of the scheme, bringing in private sector capital amounting to £626 million. Of these, 43, with a capital value of £317 million, have reached contract signature state – 32 have been completed and 11 are under way

http://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/ImportedDocuments/tech_resrep_the_private_finance_initiative_in_the_national_health_service_2004.pdf

[IC1967]

Hahaha! You lefties do make me laugh. The debate was about PFI. It was not about the NHS. I merely used the NHS as an example of how PFI was abused by Labour. I more than proved my point.

You and your leftie friends try to justify PFI by claiming the Tories hadn't spent enough during their time in office so Labour had to use PFI to catch up with all the under spending by the evil Tories.

I conclusively disprove this by quoting Labour's 1997 manifesto in which Labour accused the Tories of spending too much! You lefties can't have it both ways.

The totally conclusive proof that the Tories didn't under spend the last 2 times they were in office is the fact that each time they've doubled the national debt!

PFI was first introduced for non NHS projects. This changed as time went on. So nothing to see here I'm afraid. Labour were against it initially. They soon changed their tune when they realised they could spend a fortune without it showing up in the accounts.

It's very simple. PFI as implemented by Labour is a total and utter disgrace. Anyone that tries to argue otherwise is a totally deluded fool.

[Savvy]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32366391

Makes my piss boil this!!! They keep going on about the legacy we leave our grandkids and they continue to sell the family silver. Just sold of the Tax Payers share of the Euro tunnel for 740 million, despite the fact that it returned an 18 million pound dividend to the tax payer last year!!!! Who the fook they bullshitting!!!

[IC1967]

The only way to get proper change is to vote UKIP.

[BillyStubbsTears]

Savvy

The Tories are panicking.

Their attack dog strategist, Lynton Crosby from Australia, had told them that is they held their nerve, the polls would have swung their way by now. He told them to attack Miliband and that the UK public would come flocking to the Tories.

None of this has happened. They've attacked Miliband but his ratings have recovered strongly throughout the campaign.
http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9364

So they've started chucking out bribe ideas left, right and centre. A couple of weeks ago, they suddenly announced that Osborne had found £8bn down the back of the sofa to fund the NHS. Then they came up with the Right-to-Buy approach that even a right-wing commentator like Dominic Lawson called a disgraceful election bribe in the Sunday Times today. And now they are saying that they will sell off the Lloyds shares at BELOW the market rate. Which in normal language is what we call a "bribe".  In fact, an absolute obscenity, since they've spent 6 years telling us that the only game in town was reducing the deficit. If it is, then sell the f**king shares AT market value.

Desperate, panicky measures from the Tories as they see the Election slipping through their fingers.

No point getting wound up about it. Save your blood pressure
a) There'll be more over the next 2.5 weeks.
b) They won't be in power after the Election, so they'll never be in a position to do any of this.

[Glyn_Wigley]

The only way to get proper change is to vote UKIP.

Yep. It'll change to a Labour government.

Thanks for your recommending of how people should vote.

Get in.

[Savvy]

Probably right Bill.....notice how the actual planned share offload is 9 billion?  They may have well said "vote us in and we'll cut you in on this nice little earner"!!!  No prizes for guessing where the other 5 billion pounds worth of shares is going then!!!

[wilts rover]

Wrong again Mick. Dont worry, I have beaten better men then you, nothing to be ashamed of.

What Mick said:

PFI is a total disgrace. It is a terrible abuse of tax payers money.
It was first introduced by the Tories for non NHS projects.

What Mick now says

PFI was first introduced for non NHS projects. This changed as time went on.

What the truth is:
Baroness Cumberlege, speaking on 3 June 1997 in the House of Lords, summarised the situation as follows:
‘… 71 NHS PFI schemes have been approved since the launch of the scheme, bringing in private sector capital amounting to £626 million. Of these, 43, with a capital value of £317 million, have reached contract signature state – 32 have been completed and 11 are under way

http://www.cimaglobal.com/Documents/ImportedDocuments/tech_resrep_the_private_finance_initiative_in_the_national_health_service_2004.pdf
[/quote]

Go on admit that you were wrong and I wont quote the report that set up PFI scheme for all government contracts to enhance your embarassment. 71 NHS ones were under discussion and the only reason none of them began under the Tories is because they wouldn't pay the going rate - as their ethos was to run down the NHS and make us all take out private health insurance.

My debate was about WHY Labour was agreed so many PFI schemes in the NHS. The answer is there in my previous reply, so people would live longer and have healthier lives. The Tories had run it down, as they will do again, (£2 billion was required just for repairs in 1997) and Labour required the finance to rebuild it.

Actually you are wrong on 3 points as I campaigned against PFI's at the time. Just one apology will suffice however.