european nations as bad as argentina
Discussion
June 1 (Bloomberg) -- Many European governments’ finances are as risky as Argentina’s were at the height of its worst financial crisis, and the U.K. gives cause to be “extremely nervous,” Harvard University professor Niall Ferguson said.
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&am...
and brown says hes a good chancellor, made some hard decisions copying argentina's economic model...
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&am...
and brown says hes a good chancellor, made some hard decisions copying argentina's economic model...
herewego said:
It's a shame the Tories introduced that PFI scheme. Dodgy accounting in my opinion.
Thank god the Labour government didn't make it any worse then....Wiki said:
The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) began under the Conservative government of John Major in 1992. It immediately proved controversial, and was attacked by the Labour Party while in opposition. Labour critics such as the future Secretary of State for Health, Patricia Hewitt considered that PFI was really a back-door form of privatisation (House of Commons, December 7 1993), and the future Chancellor of the Exchequer, Alistair Darling warned that "apparent savings now could be countered by the formidable commitment on revenue expenditure in years to come"[1]. Nonetheless, the Treasury found the scheme advantageous and pushed Labour to adopt it after the 1997 General Election. Two months after the party took office, the Health Secretary, Alan Milburn, announced that "when there is a limited amount of public-sector capital available, as there is, it's PFI or bust"[1]. Since then PFI has continued and, indeed, expanded under Labour, resulting in criticism from many trade unions, elements of the Labour Party, the Scottish National Party (SNP), and the Green Party, as well as independent commentators such as George Monbiot and academics such as Prof. Allyson Pollock, Prof. Jean Shaoul and Dr Adrian Bell.
The current global financial crisis has presented PFI with difficulties because many sources of private capital have dried up. Nevertheless, PFI remains the UK government's preferred method for public sector procurement. In January 2009 the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson reaffirmed this commitment with regard to the health sector, stating that “PFIs have always been the NHS’s ‘plan A’ for building new hospitals … There was never a ‘plan B’"[2]. However, because of banks' unwillingness to lend money for PFI projects, the government is in the "ludicrous" position of having to fund the so-called 'private' finance initiative itself! In March 2009 it was announced that the Treasury is to lend £2bn of public money to private firms building schools and other projects under PFI[3]. In a written statement, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Yvette Cooper claimed that the loans should ensure that projects worth £13bn — including waste treatment projects, environmental schemes and schools — would not be delayed or cancelled. She also promised that the loans would be temporary and would be repaid at a commercial rate. But Liberal Democrats Treasury spokesman Vince Cable argued that the government should return to more traditional public financing structures rather than propping up PFI with public money, saying:
“ "The whole thing has become terribly opaque and dishonest and it's a way of hiding obligations. PFI has now largely broken down and we are in the ludicrous situation where the government is having to provide the funds for the private finance initiative[3]." ”
Even the Conservative Party considers that, with the taxpayer now funding it directly, PFI has become "ridiculous". Philip Hammond, their Treasury spokesman, says
“ "If you take the private finance out of PFI, you haven’t got much left . . . if you transfer the financial risk back to the public sector, then that has to be reflected in the structure of the contracts. The public sector cannot simply step in and lend the money to itself, taking more risk so that the PFI structure can be maintained while leaving the private sector with the high returns these projects can bring. That seems to us fairly ridiculous[4]."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_finance_initiativeThe current global financial crisis has presented PFI with difficulties because many sources of private capital have dried up. Nevertheless, PFI remains the UK government's preferred method for public sector procurement. In January 2009 the Secretary of State for Health, Alan Johnson reaffirmed this commitment with regard to the health sector, stating that “PFIs have always been the NHS’s ‘plan A’ for building new hospitals … There was never a ‘plan B’"[2]. However, because of banks' unwillingness to lend money for PFI projects, the government is in the "ludicrous" position of having to fund the so-called 'private' finance initiative itself! In March 2009 it was announced that the Treasury is to lend £2bn of public money to private firms building schools and other projects under PFI[3]. In a written statement, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, Yvette Cooper claimed that the loans should ensure that projects worth £13bn — including waste treatment projects, environmental schemes and schools — would not be delayed or cancelled. She also promised that the loans would be temporary and would be repaid at a commercial rate. But Liberal Democrats Treasury spokesman Vince Cable argued that the government should return to more traditional public financing structures rather than propping up PFI with public money, saying:
“ "The whole thing has become terribly opaque and dishonest and it's a way of hiding obligations. PFI has now largely broken down and we are in the ludicrous situation where the government is having to provide the funds for the private finance initiative[3]." ”
Even the Conservative Party considers that, with the taxpayer now funding it directly, PFI has become "ridiculous". Philip Hammond, their Treasury spokesman, says
“ "If you take the private finance out of PFI, you haven’t got much left . . . if you transfer the financial risk back to the public sector, then that has to be reflected in the structure of the contracts. The public sector cannot simply step in and lend the money to itself, taking more risk so that the PFI structure can be maintained while leaving the private sector with the high returns these projects can bring. That seems to us fairly ridiculous[4]."
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff