Defence PFIs Get a Proper Kicking

#2
meridian said:
http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/bg2278.cfm

This is an article by a US research foundation comparing UK and US outsourcing looking particularly at the MoD's use of PFI's

Its no wonder we only have 8 Chinooks in Afghanistan, oh hang on a minute, I forgot, Bob reckons helicopters aren't the answer to battlefield mobility
Stand by for ashie, Whet and parapauk rushing to the defence of the PFI. The Qinetiq story is all true - I was there and it was all started by that w@anker Rifkind :evil:
 
#3
So, the Defence Select Committee of the House of Commons should investigate the MoD's reliance on PFI and assess whether it has

delivered value for money

produced perverse incentives

become a way to manufacture private-sector jobs that in reality are paid for by the public sector

supported ineffective procurement practices

been used to conceal inappropriate levels of debt.


Well, that should not take very long. :roll:
 
#4
Where does the Heritage Foundation sit in the Yank political spectrum? Quick scan suggests somewhere on the Republican side of the fence...

On the PFI front - can't help but agree that the lack of willingness to invest in anything up front seems mad, although it made some fairly big projects affordable for a while. Unfortunately seems that salami slicing of budgets is now making even the PFIs too expensive, bit tricky to deal with that when you're in a 25 year fixed price contract though!
 
#5
Since the author is Senior Research Fellow in the Margaret Thatcher Center for Freedom, that should give some idea of his leanings.

However, he is right and PFI's as vastly abused by Labour are a menace to future generations. Even now they are stil trying to hide the appalling truth

Treasury 'manipulating' PFI books

The Government is manipulating new accountancy rules to favour future Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes, the BBC has been told.


"New international accounting standards which Britain is adopting this year mean that, for the first time, most existing PFI schemes will be put onto the balance sheets of government departments.

But new guidelines issued by the Treasury earlier this month are alleged to be a deliberate way of avoiding treating PFI projects in the same way in the future spending budgets of government departments.

Nobody at the Treasury was available for comment"


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8112758.stm
 
#6
PFI - Lots of jobs for the boys, lots of profits to be made and if you can't provide what you promised, the Governmrnt takes over all the loses/risk.

PFI really is having your cake and eating it for the contractor.
 
#7
empty_vessel said:
Where does the Heritage Foundation sit in the Yank political spectrum? Quick scan suggests somewhere on the Republican side of the fence...

On the PFI front - can't help but agree that the lack of willingness to invest in anything up front seems mad, although it made some fairly big projects affordable for a while. Unfortunately seems that salami slicing of budgets is now making even the PFIs too expensive, bit tricky to deal with that when you're in a 25 year fixed price contract though!
It only SEEMED to make them affordable. They were used to take the money off the books. If I did that in my business then I would go to jail,
 
#9
rickshaw-major said:
It only SEEMED to make them affordable. They were used to take the money off the books. If I did that in my business then I would go to jail,
I'm no expert on the accounting methods used, but we did get a service, capability, etc for a few years for very minimal capital investment.

The real problem hiding underneath all this has got to be that we cannot afford PFIs over the long term because budgets are consistently being reduced. This may be something to do with the long term costs of the PFIs being hidden from proper scrutiny and therefore being missed from planning assumptions but how you get away with that I don't know!
 
#10
tattybadger said:
ENRON did a similar trick to PFI by mooving its debt off BS and look what happened there.......
If Gordon Brown had been the Finance Director of a listed company running the way the UK Treasury does he would have been in jail long ago.

What he and Labour have done will hit not just us but our children with crippling financial burdens.

Never mind the politics, it is beyond that now because in practical terms the finances of the next few Governments will be cursed by his stupidity. FFS state spending is pushing the levels of Cuba.

There is no easy way out and all the bullsh1t in the world will not change that
 
#11
Anyone heard about the new gym/pool at catterick that was financed by the mod but costs soldiers £30 quid a month, run by some company called bladerunner seemingly going to shut down the old pool this week correct me if im wrong
 
#12
empty_vessel said:
rickshaw-major said:
It only SEEMED to make them affordable. They were used to take the money off the books. If I did that in my business then I would go to jail,
I'm no expert on the accounting methods used, but we did get a service, capability, etc for a few years for very minimal capital investment.
The real problem hiding underneath all this has got to be that we cannot afford PFIs over the long term because budgets are consistently being reduced. This may be something to do with the long term costs of the PFIs being hidden from proper scrutiny and therefore being missed from planning assumptions but how you get away with that I don't know!
And there is the rub. Not only will w be paying for it, so will our successors 30 years from now. The first thing a new Government will do will to identify exactly how skint we are and for how long. I can assure you - it will be very, for a long time!

If you can't afford it, don't have it!
 
#13
sleeper said:
Anyone heard about the new gym/pool at catterick that was financed by the mod but costs soldiers £30 quid a month, run by some company called bladerunner seemingly going to shut down the old pool this week correct me if im wrong
That would surprise me if true, I'm all for charging non-military personnel if they want to use the facilities but charging soldiers to use the gym at ITC would be a step too far...
 
#14
big development opposite tesco up here not quite open yet but like it says on the paperwork financed by the mod run by civi company (Bladerunner) one of the lads asked about cost and was qouted 30 for mod and i think 32 for civi a month dont know ins and outs but pool is shutting so everyone will use this one
 
#15
PFI is just an extension of leasing

There is nothing inherrantly wrong with leasing, organisations all over the world lease things to keep the expenditure in revenue rather than capital.

But as usual, this Government take a perfectly good concept and fcuk things up by using for items that simply should not be outsourced because they are warlike, have hugely unpredictable usage/wear rates and are risky. An outsource is all about risk, risk to profit.

The outsourcers can afford the best commercial and legal talent, whilst the MoD faces them with a handful of halfwits, bot uniformed and civil service, who go into negotiations like lambs to the slaughter, bent over the desk and given a thorough going over.

Because there is an overwhelming desire on the part of the MoD to do the PFI, i.e. its a buyers market and they know it. In order to mitigigate the risk of say for example, your HET getting blown up by the Taleban, you make the contract all in your favour.

RE C Vehicles, HET, FSTA and the list then goes on to the construction/infrastructure projects

Yes, the author is biased politically but does that make him wrong, no it doesnt
 
#16
Seems to be some kind of PFI but no details on costs to military personnel, more details here:

Bladerunner

MOD appoints Bladerunner for new £21m leisure development

The MOD has appointed Bladerunner as its preferred management company for the new pioneering leisure development in North Yorkshire.

The new £21m sports and leisure development will boast a variety of facilities including a triple pool swimming complex, a military rehabilitation centre, a six-court sports hall and a fitness suite with aerobic studio.

David Brame, Managing Director at Bladerunner said: “This is a unique opportunity for Bladerunner. It’s extremely important that we balance maximisation of use in the community with the extensive training needs of the Garrison at Catterick. The whole team will have to work very hard to ensure that every aspect of the management and day-to-day running of the site is expertly coordinated and efficient.”

This will be the first Bladerunner-managed MOD sports and leisure site. The facility will not only be open to the local community but used in partnership with North Yorkshire County Council libraries’ service, Richmondshire District Council Sports Development and the MOD’s Regional Rehabilitation unit. The facility is due to open in July 2009.
 
#18
Bladerunner

This will be the first Bladerunner-managed MOD sports and leisure site. The facility will not only be open to the local community but used in partnership with North Yorkshire County Council libraries’ service, Richmondshire District Council Sports Development and the MOD’s Regional Rehabilitation unit. The facility is due to open in July 2009.
[/quote]


1. open to the local community will no doubt have highest priority over facilities

2. used in partnership with North Yorkshire County Council libraries’ service? library 8O

3. Richmondshire District Council Sports Development! Would have thought they will have precedence over a library.

4. When they can fit in a spare slot MOD’s Regional Rehabilitation unit

cynical moi :roll:
 
#19
Is this the 'mysterious benefactor' ?
 
#20
meridian said:
....The outsourcers can afford the best commercial and legal talent, whilst the MoD faces them with a handful of halfwits, bot uniformed and civil service, who go into negotiations like lambs to the slaughter, bent over the desk and given a thorough going over.

....
Surely, Meridian, you cannot mean my colleagues and moi?

:D

In reality, it is the dead hand of the Treasury that drives these deals. We decide the capability we want. The IPT works out the best options and the associated costs. Those options go to the planners and financiers who try to fit the spending into the Defence budget.

As the planners are working 5-20 years hence, the Treasury is closely involved because the MOD is not allowed to commit to expenditure that far ahead on its own!

The Treasury then says "no chance, but why don't you follow this PFI option which will flatten the spending curve and you won't over-spend in FY2020/24?"

The IPT returns to the company and the Finance Director rubs his hands with glee because he now has a fixed contract for 10-20 years!

And so on, until we lose all the flexibility in our budget because we've already spent the money!

Litotes
 

Similar threads

Top