| Topic: | Re:Re::Bashing the bankers? | |
| Posted by: | Richard Carter | |
| Date/Time: | 16/12/09 18:02:00 |
| Hmm, I read the Times report and the evidence is a bit thin - but even if it's correct, at what cost were any improvements achieved? One of the major problems with PFI is the huge cost over time that authorities are locked into, and you'd want to be sure of value for money. There's a pretty large literature showing the defects of PFI: for example, there's this: "There is now a significant evidence base to show that most PPP projects have little or no democratic control or transparency, are costly, poor value, lack innovation and flexibility, reduce employment and erode public service values." (http://www.guardianpublic.co.uk/ppp-projects-investment-funds). The Institute of Public Policy Research found that “In theory the PFI can deliver better quality services at less cost to the taxpayer, but in sectors such as health and education these expected benefits are in doubt. Also, there is currently no evidence about whether the PFI delivers once schemes are up and running." (http://www.ippr.org.uk/pressreleases/?id=675) Professor Allyson Pollock has persistently criticised health care PFI projects as secretive and expensive (see, for example, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2006/jan/26/publicservices.health). And the Tube modernisation is a horror story all on its own... Finally, the complete and catastrophic failure of the Putney Hospital scheme before it even got to the point where contracts were let is an example we all know only too well. Altogether, there's far too much to worry about in PFI even considering these few examples, and I think describing it as a rip-off is probably over generous. |