The Sun blames Brown for coming economic recession

A decadent private company, which enters a contract where it cant loose, is a haven for the gutless who want reward without risk.

Instead of bringing private sector discipline to the public sector, the risk free PFI brings sloppy public sector practices to the private sector.

I am sure that was not the desired intention.

Gaz

I think the Treasury, under both the Conservatives and Labour, got what it wanted, though; they took the spending out of the PSBR figures. Actually getting value for money or anything to work better was a nice bonus but not really the object of the exercise.

Steve

I disagree, I think value for money was what lay behind the PFI. I have no doubt the Treasury jumped onto PFI for the reasons you state above, but that was not the groundwork behind it. I refuse to believe even this sordid spin obsessed gvt would sit down around a table, and devise a major economic policy on the basis that it made the psbr figures look better. PFI was formulates in the era of CCT, and contracting out of front line services was becoming accepted practise. PFI attempted to bring market discipline, and control costs to capital improvements as CCT had to service delivery value. Public Sector had a truly awful record in controlling Capital related costs, PFI was a way of fixing costs, with the risks born by the financiers not the Gvt.

(for a municipal example of poor public sector capital projects, google for Carlisle Millennium scheme, read and weep for the Council Tax payers.)

Gaz

Structurally it has to cost more in the long-term, when you're dealing with vast amounts of debt it obviously costs the private sector more to service than government, since nobody can borrow more cheaply than government, even if it is by proxy. The efficacy of the contractor has to cover this spread and it may well do so during the building phase, but most of the value in the contract is the running and servicing costs which eventually eclipse the building costs, who can guarantee things wont become flabby after a few years? Especially if a new company has bought the PFI at an inflated price.

Fair enough, the bond markets may look pretty benign at the moment with very dubious risk factors only attracting a slight premium, but will that be the case in three decades, or next year for example given the recent bad calls from hedge funds. If a contractor wants to protect its bottom line they can only offset this through cuts, like in cleaning or lack of maintenance in then ageing buildings, or defeating the point by renegotiating the contract for more cash (this has already happened to MOD PFI's), you could end up with countless mini-Railtracks.

Government only has the short-term advantages in mind, they can say you will have a new hospital in place in three years time, sign the PFI, grant the planning and walk off and you end up with a shiny new hospital delivered within the electoral cycle, someone else can worry about the rest.

The only significant efficiencies are in the building phase because the PFI company does its contracts properly so that any cost overruns and delay costs the subcontractor dear, opposed to them benefiting from limitless largess from government regardless of cockups. Given the preponderance of lawyers in government why can't they manage to do the same?

I didn't claim otherwise I said PFI isn't included in PSBR, most agree that to be true

"John Redman" wrote in message news:d65uvt$5v3$ snipped-for-privacy@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk...

Do you have a source for you figures as I would like to view them. Maybe they aren't as sharp as you think

*A report by PKF Accountants showed that young people were being forced into bankruptcy after accumulating big personal loan and credit card debts.

PKF's recent survey of Scottish insolvency cases showed that nearly two thirds of personal bankruptcies were among young people under 30, who were using credit to fund lavish lifestyles they could not afford.

However, in the short term, with interest rates and unemployment still low, most commentators do not expect the credit bubble to burst. *

Well do some searching and stop guessing as there are reports done by estate agents that give a guide to the current temperature of the housing market. Those links I provide are those from actual sales, they are the only real hard data anyone has, as the rest is down to opinion, and that can vary over area.

I have claimed it and shown the evidence.

I ask again, what evidence do you have to support this claim. So far you have not provided a single piece of evidence only waffle.

Compared to your evidence which is? You will find most will say this as to protect themselves against the use of their data. But don't take my word for it, do some actual searching on the www, you will find that I am right and prices are not falling.

There is a difference between saying it and showing it to be true, you have repeatedly and dismally failed the latter.

Let me put it in simple terms There are reports done indicating what asking prices are, i.e. what people are putting their house son the market at. These reports only can give a trend on the market as asking prices and actual sale prices may differ. There are also reports done on actual sales of houses, the one I provided was like this,it is of houses purchased and their price.

I will see better if you can provide a report like I At the moment there is a difference, I have sourced a report, you haven't, repeating claims without proof does not mean you are right. But to address your new point, which is different from that which was about house price falls, you disregard from the above market volume and the ratio between the amount of buyer and seller, which is effected by economics. If there are a set number of buyers and not many houses on the market it can be said to be a sellers market, this in turn can push up prices, which would be reflected in reports such as that I have given. Likewise with the same numbers of buyers high volumes of houses on the market allow the buyer to be fussy, possibly forcing down prices in a market, again this would be reflected in the report I gave. So again you point is nonsense and irrelevant

.. as the above, of questionable accuracy and incomplete. No point in quoting it.

.....which is why I told you at the outset that the only reliable information is in the hands of buyers and sellers - you must pay more attention.

....I don't.

Is that right??!!

(you learn something everyday)

.......so you've given[sic] reports that suggest we're in a sellers' market?

.......so you also gave a report that suggest we're in a buyers' market?

Evidently the high value of your home/s is/are of considerable importance to you. My apologies for trampling on your sensibilities.

This doesn't look to good thought does it?

(p.s. it's better to do a bit of snipping from time to time otherwise things get horribly long).

The report that was given, if you have actually read it, indicates that prices are not falling. I will let you use your logical capacity to decide if that means it is a sellers or a buyers market.

As above, which is my evidence not yours. The reason for the waver to the report is, as it says but you ignore, to avoid financial liability. Of course it also says in the report

ABOUT THE HALIFAX HOUSE PRICE INDEX

The Halifax House Price Index is the UK's longest running monthly house price series with data covering the whole country going back to January

1983. The Index is typically based on around 15,000 house purchases per month, and covers the whole calendar month. From this data, a "standardised" house price is calculated and property price movements on a like-for-like basis (including seasonal adjustments) are analysed over time.Properties over 1 million are included and the index is seasonally adjusted with the seasonal factors updated monthly.

Incorrect, well what I mean you say it is incorrect as you have used a source as evidence of an Estate agent

Here's another agent

After that try the land registry, there data is 100%, not even you could find a flaw with them.

Then read the whole thing and don't post until you have

As above, which is my evidence not yours. The reason for the waver to the report is, as it says but you ignore, to avoid financial liability. Of course it also says in the report

ABOUT THE HALIFAX HOUSE PRICE INDEX

The Halifax House Price Index is the UK's longest running monthly house price series with data covering the whole country going back to January

1983. The Index is typically based on around 15,000 house purchases per month, and covers the whole calendar month. From this data, a "standardised" house price is calculated and property price movements on a like-for-like basis (including seasonal adjustments) are analysed over time.Properties over 1 million are included and the index is seasonally adjusted with the seasonal factors updated monthly.

I will go along with this just as long as you provide some data that shows buyers and sellers believe house prices are falling? You must have some data, don't you? Your opinion that buyers and sellers have reliable information is based on some data is it, eh? You won't as you dealing with opinion not facts.

Here's another agent

After that try the land registry, there data is 100%, not even you could find a flaw with them.

Then read the whole thing and don't post until you have

Watch this space.

Don't be silly!

Are you heavily into BTL by any chance?

Not asking if you think it will, I am asking why YOU would accept data from an estate agent

No but it is quite apparent you're in denial either that or you don't understand the reports

I think this might have a negative impact on prices too.

I think the next 12 months will test your faith.