Carillion

I don’t think the outsourced company were inexperienced, just completed overwhelmed by the rise in referrals with lack of money and resources. In other words....it’s a mess.

So I guess you didn't read Adonis's article, MOnica.
Not surprised.

Nothing to do with Carillion, but everything to do with the poor taxpayer picking up yet more.

There is a block of flats with the type of cladding that was put onto Grenfell. The cost of removing is £4million. The billionaire owner says that the tenants must pay which amounts to £31000 each. Can’t be done.

So now apparently the tax payer is to pick up the tab.

This can’t be right?

Gillybob, you do realise that article was in 2015, don't you?

dj Lord Adonis has his opinions but I do not have to agree with them.

I think he knows more about Grayling's connections with Carrillion and the railways than you do, though.
I suppose you could be one of those who never believes what experts tell them, too.

Not sure if the guy is a billionaire, ww. Is anyone reporting that? The cladding was put on before he purchased the freehold - is it his problem, or the leaseholders who agreed to the work, or the contractor who did it, or the architect who said it was OK, or the LA who agreed to the plans?
Why is one person wholly liable?

What would happen if the govt didn't pick up the tab and there was another Grenfell? I'd rather they step in and sort it out then try and recoup the money personally. It'll cost every taxpayer 13p. If you're really bothered by it, I'll pay your share.

Adonis has an axe to grind as do most of those touched by the Carillion debacle. But I believe experts I respect and I never admired the Vicar of Bray.

I have an axe to grind, too, with people who try and fleece the public.

www.opendemocracy.net/neweconomics/pfi-privatisation-national-accounting-rules-encourage-destructive-decisions-time-change/

Time to change.

"This begs the obvious question: why did we ever enter PFI contracts in the first place? The answer is provided on page 11 of the NAO report: PFI is off-balance sheet for national accounts purposes, which means it “results in lower recorded levels of government debt and public spending in the short term”. "

There's another obvious question; what has the NAO been doing until now?

It was Gordon Brown's way of buying votes by building today and paying tomorrow Jen.
Exactly the same as John McDonnell and his borrowing plans.

And John Major, and George Osborne. You are very selective.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2018/01/18/after-fifteen-years-of-my-saying-pfi-does-not-work-the-nao-finally-agrees-why-has-it-taken-so-long/

www.politics.co.uk/comment-analysis/2018/01/17/carillion-a-story-of-britain-s-fake-markets

An extremely interesting analysis about marketisation of public services, showing why it shouldn't happen.

dj Please could you put the salient points from the sources you quote in your posts please and leave us to click on the link if we want more detail.

Coming to a thread after there have been 8 or more emails posted since it was last seen, it makes it very difficult to get the full flow of the discussion, when all some posts consist of is a link.

The primary reason why John Major introduced PFI and it was continued by later governments is simple. The government needed to make a major investment in new infrastructure, but that would require more public borrowing which is fundamentally undesirable for the Conservative Party. PFI is essentially a way of artificially reducing the amount of public borrowing.

The secondary reason is related to the first. There was so much new infrastructure required and PFI offered a solution to getting more projects started.

As the French say 'apres moi le deluge' Build now and do not worry about the cost because by the time the bills come in those involved will be off the scene.

All that new infrastructure was needed because Mrs Thatcher refused to invest any money, or very little in the public sector during the 1980s and it is worth remembering that she won over 40% of the vote in 79, 83 and 87, while Labour struggled to get above 30%. www.ukpolitical.info/ConvLab.htm We cannot absolve ourselves from blame.

Sorry, Monica, I can't.
If you can't be bothered to read the links, then don't. But don't then comment on links you haven't read.

Your last link is insecure.

We cannot absolve ourselves from blame.

Who are 'we', MOnica?

Not trying to be argumentative, just genuinely wanting to know who you mean by 'we'.

Why was there so much new infrastructure needed by Major?
He followed Thatcher.
Are you suggesting that Thatcher did not build enough roads or houses?
Sold off all the council houses and didn't replace them?

dj, 1) I don't. 2) If you don't remember how Mrs Thatcher slashed investment in infrastructure and sold council houses, then the rest of us must be imagining it.

I think dj's being sarcastic MOnica.

Everyone knows that Thatcher didn't invest in infrastructure, etc. What is more, we all know that she squandered the North Sea oil money on additional bribes to voters tax cuts.

You still haven't explained who the 'we' were that you said had to take some of the blame (for Thatcher?)

It's going to be the same for Brexit, Maizie, we will all be to blame for the mess, including those who wanted to remain.