Clegg and Cameron and their parties are the ones who are too dependent on state hand-outs - not Scotland, Wales, Northern-Ireland and the North of England ; and their austerity policies (welfare for rich party donors at everyone else's expense) are preventing us getting out of debt

Could someone tell the Prime Minister and Deputy Prime Minister, that they are patronising hypocrites when they try to tell the people of this country - apparently including the whole of Scotland, the North of England, Northern Ireland and Wales according to Nick Clegg - that they can't afford to fund our supposed dependency on welfare any more ; and liars or delusional when they tell us their policies are reducing our debts and our deficit.

At their public relations press conference at a tractor factory in Essex the other day, Cameron and Clegg helpfully explained that they had no choice but to cut the deficit by any means necessary to get us out of debt.

Never mind that their so-called austerity policies - welfare for the richest, cuts for the the majority, (including those who need it most - the disabled, unemployed, poor and pensioners) have pushed us back into recession, unemployment over 2.6 million (with the short term fall of 35,000 soon to be wiped out again by a longer term rise to an estimated 2.85 million by the end of the year). Just to top it off they've actually actually increased the trade deficit (value of exports, minus value of imports) by almost £1 billion between January and February this year alone , by making the vicious circle of falling demand and rising unemployment that happens in a recession worse by sacking so many teachers, doctors, nurses and lecturers and by denying benefit to or cutting benefits for the disabled, unemployed, pensioners and working people on low incomes. Given all that any fall in the budget deficit will be short term and soon reversed without a change in policy (1) - (4).

(For instance the abolition of almost all tax credits has more than cancelled out any benefits to those working on low incomes from raising the starting rate for paying income tax to £8,000. While the 50p tax rate for the richest was cut, the starting rate for the 40% tax rate was lowered, so hitting middle and upper middle earners harder too. ) (5) - (7) (I have to admit here to having been wrong in supporting replacing tax credits with a higher starting rate for income tax)

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg also explained (at the tractor factory) that Scotland, the North of England, Wales and Northern Ireland had all become too dependent on state hand-outs and that this "gravy train" was fine during the boom times but that we couldn't afford it any more.

(Watched this live on the BBC's News 24 , but can't find a complete transcript of it nor a complete video online)

Cameron and Clegg are paid with taxpayer money and dependent on throwing public money and lives to banks, arms companies (including as they sell arms to dictatorships killing Arab Spring democracy protesters), the PFI and PPP contractors, privatised rail operators and the pointless Afghanistan war and the Olympic circus like there's no tomorrow ; while allowing the recipients of taxpayers' money to avoid taxes themselves through tax havens. This gets them donations to their election campaigns from the recipients of these subsidies and tax breaks - big banks, firms and billionaires donating to party funds (8) - (10).

What have Cameron or Clegg ever done for the people of Scotland, Wales, the North of England, Northern Ireland, or the UK as a whole, in return for their £130,000 plus state funded annual salaries - five times the median wage - other than rob us to pay donors to party funds, while pretending that we simply don't understand that whatever's best for them and their donors must be what's best for everyone? (which is a pathetic fallacy based on a false assumption of identity of interests.) (11)

That's apart from the fact that London gets immensely higher levels of public spending on the infrastructure required for a strong economy (particularly transport) than any other part of the UK - and that the heads of the City of London's financial sector are the ones who caused the crisis and recession and who are paying themselves obscene bonuses with taxpayers' money. We are all now paying for the City of London's financial sector - and the Channel Island, Man , Belize and Cayman Island tax havens which caused the financial crisis and will cause another unless they're shut down (12).

Even the banks that didn't get bailed out were only saved from falling like dominoes as banks did in the 1929 Great Crash in the US by the majority of taxpayers paying for the bail-outs. The Conservative party's funding from banks, hedge funds and the rest of the financial sector has increased to at least 50% of all donations to their party's funds (13).

That explains why they cap benefits for people who desperately need the money but not bankers' bonuses for people who already have hundreds of times more than they could possibly need - and why the government hasn't made any serious attempt to close down the tax havens (just some window dressing) or re-regulate the financial sector. It also suggests that when the Conservatives say "we're all in it together" they really mean that they and their billionaire, banker and oil and arms company pals are all working together to rob everyone else.

Come the next general election this pair of public welfare recipient, dependent, hypocrites' days of living off the state and off of people who actually do work that benefits others, while contributing nothing themselves, will be coming to an abrupt end.

Sources

(1) = BBC News 25 Apr 2012 'UK economy in double-dip recession', , 'The UK economy has returned to recession, after shrinking by 0.2% in the first three months of 2012.A sharp fall in construction output was behind the surprise contraction, the Office for National Statistics said.A recession is defined as two consecutive quarters of contraction. The economy shrank by 0.3% in the fourth quarter of 2011.'

(2) = ONS Press Release 16 April 2012 'Labour Market Statistics, April.', http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/lms/labour-market-statistics/april-2012/index.html , 'The unemployment rate was 8.3 per cent of the economically active population, down 0.1 on the quarter. There were 2.65 million unemployed people, down 35,000 on the quarter. This is the first quarterly fall in unemployment since the three months to May 2011.

(3) = BBC News 04 May 2012 'High unemployment to do 'permanent damage' to UK', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17942814 ; 'The UK unemployment rate will rise from its current 8.3% to almost 9% by the end of this year, doing "permanent damage to the UK's productive capacity", a think tank has said.The National Institute of Economic and Social Research (NIESR) said that the persistent weakness in the economy was "unprecedented".'

(4) = ONS Press Release 12 Apr 2012 'UK Trade, February 2012',
http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/uktrade/uk-trade/february-2012/index.html , 'The deficit on seasonally adjusted trade in goods was £8.8 billion in February, compared with the deficit of £7.9 billion in January.'

(5) = Independent 27 Dec 2011 'Britain's poorest hit by £2.5bn 'stealth tax' , http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britains-poorest-hit-by-25bn-stealth-tax-6281832.html , 'Tax cuts for low and middle-income families in April will be dwarfed by hidden reductions in tax credits, according to a study for The Independent.

The analysis found that the £1bn of tax cuts in April will be outweighed by reductions of more than £2.5bn in the complex tax-credit scheme.'

(6) = Independent on Sunday 18 Mar 2012 'Working poor left out in the cold as benefit U-turn targets better-off ', http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/working-poor-left-out-in-the-cold-as-benefit-uturn-targets-betteroff-7576431.html

(7) = DirectGov Budget 2011 Tax Changes, http://www.direct.gov.uk/en/nl1/newsroom/budget/budget2011/dg_wp195609

(8) = Campaign Against the Arams Trade - Export Credits,
http://www.caat.org.uk/issues/ecgd.php

9) = guardian.co.uk 09 Jul 2011 '300 schools to be built with £2bn PFI scheme', http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2011/jul/19/300-schools-built-private-finance-scheme

(10) = Guardian 09 Mar 2012 'Olympic Games risk going over budget as cost hits £11bn, say MPs', http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/2012/mar/09/olympic-games-budget-cost

(11) = www.parliament.uk 'Frequently Asked Questions: MPs ',
http://www.parliament.uk/about/faqs/house-of-commons-faqs/members-faq-page2/

(12) = BBC News 18 Dec 2011 'Transport spending 'skewed towards London', http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-16235349

(13) = Bureau of Investigative Journalism 08 Feb 2011 'Tory Party funding from City doubles under Cameron', http://www.thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/02/08/city-financing-of-the-conservative-party-doubles-under-cameron/

Cameron’s ‘public service reforms’ would mean a privatised but publicly subsidised NHS – without any electoral mandate

Prime Minister David Cameron’s ‘Big Society’ ‘public service reforms’ would be PFI on steroids – the end of free healthcare paid for by taxes and it’s replacement with private healthcare only for those who can afford it, but subsidised by all tax payers and effectively paid for twice by those who can get it – once in taxes and once in charges.

Cameron in his recent speech on ‘public service reform’ and ‘The Big Society’, claimed that ‘Sometimes, a charity or social enterprise trying to come into public services will find strong forces trying to keep them out…vested interests, people who want to stick to the status quo…We need a level playing field so that anyone with a good idea can get involved.’ (1)

Here Cameron pretends that the main bidders for health service contracts will be charities or not-for-profit groups. In fact most bidders will be private healthcare firms such as ‘Assura’ a firm he also referred to in his speech as one which could provide ‘NHS walk in clinic’ services, or privatised GP consortia profit sharing with these firms.’

The Bureau for Investigative Journalism found that ‘At least half the board members of some GP consortia, the new bodies that will take over commissioning, have links with… Assura Medical, majority controlled by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group… Most were GP members of Assura, meaning their practice had formed a joint company with it…. with profits split 50:50 between Assura Medical and member practices.’ (2)

One of Cameron’s principal advisers on healthcare ‘reform’ is Mark Britnell, who is employed in the Healthcare division of accountancy firm KPMG. He has told private healthcare firms that “GPs will have to aggregate purchasing power and there will be a big opportunity for those companies that can facilitate this process” and that “The NHS will be shown no mercy”. (3) – (4)

Britnell also wrote in the Health Service Journal that the NHS’ ‘funding mechanism is no longer resilient’ and that in future patients will be charged for treatment. (5)

The GP who headed the government’s review of it’s ‘healthcare reform’ policy- Professor Steve Field – has said that introducing internal competition into the NHS would be ‘destroy key services’. He’s also said that allowing private sector patients to be treated in NHS hospitals would open up the NHS to EU competition law, potentially allowing private firms the legal right to be allowed to bid for contracts for all NHS activity. (6) – (7)

Cameron also claimed in the speech that “A study published by the London School of Economics found hospitals in areas with more choice had lower death rates.”

This is true – the study was made by Zack Cooper, an LSE researcher, but it is far from undisputed. Professor Allyson Pollock, an expert on NHS funding, found serious problems with the methodology and the data it used . Pollock concluded that based on Cooper’s study ‘the only safe conclusion is that if you live near an NHS hospital or have many NHS hospitals in your area, you may get care quicker and be less likely to die from an acute heart attack. This is hardly a ringing endorsement for competition, or the Department of Health policy of centralisation and hospital closures under the expensive private finance initiative.’ (8) – (9)

Pollock, on the proposed healthcare ‘reforms’ in general writes that ‘The bill, as designed, will allow commissioners (purchasers of healthcare or insurers) to pick and choose patients and services. It abolishes the duty to secure or provide comprehensive care, and permits GP consortiums to recruit members, and introduce charges and private health insurance, as well as enter into joint ventures with private companies. In a market, insurers and commercial providers must be able to limit their risks by carefully selecting members on the basis of ability to pay and predictable costs.’ (10)

In other words it would mean the end of guaranteed free public healthcare and instead returns to a system where people can only get what healthcare they can pay for. Even worse, the private healthcare firms and privatised or ‘mutualised’ GP consortia would be getting huge taxpayer subsidies without any limit on how much they can charge or any requirement for them to treat people who can’t pay what they demand. (This would repeat the disaster of privatised but publicly subsidised railways).

This would not be greater efficiency or greater choice, but the worst kind of privatisation, including a public subsidy for private firms. It’s not reform, but PFI on steroids.

It will also lead to chaos, with many people lacking vital services in their areas due to the government letting hospitals and schools go under if they fail to compete in internal markets. In fact government ministers have been encouraged by their advisers to allow public sector hospitals to fail in order to hasten “reform” and the entry of the private sector (expect budget cuts to public services like the NHS with claims of lack of the money to fund them, followed by greater levels of public funding appearing for private healthcare firms) (11)

If all this goes ahead we’ll see cases like the one of the American man who had no way to get the healthcare he needed, so in desperation staged a bank robbery of one dollar in order to get sent to jail so he could get treatment (12).

Devolution in Scotland could prevent this happening North of the border, assuming the government don’t try to impose it here by cutting funding or making future funding conditional on such ‘reforms'. That might boost support for independence and Cameron and the Conservatives might want to encourage that to remove a lot of Labour MPs from the British parliament. However while many voters in Scotland would like to avoid involvement in more Iraq and Afghanistan wars by independence, just as many may be nervous of independence after the financial crisis brought down RBS, fearing ending up like Iceland. So with independence no certainty the British government's policies on public services may still affect Scotland's.

Cameron also claimed that New Orleans since Hurricane Katrina provides a model for British public services.

What’s actually happened in New Orleans since Katrina is that people have been forced out of much public housing which was never flooded by armed private mercenary companies like Blackwater and the properties sold off to private developers to build luxury flats to rent. This resulted in mass protests against the enforced evictions and homelessness. To stop this and to stop them trying to return to homes many of them had lived in for decades, many have been sent to trailer parks, surrounded by razor wire fences and guards, effectively imprisoned and not allowed to leave (13) – (16).

That is not a good model to follow. It certainly provides profits for some, but as with Cameron’s plans, at the expense of the majority and especially the poorest. The same goes for government plans for ‘mutualised’ and ‘for profit’ ambulance and fire fighting services (17)

Cameron and the Coalition have no electoral mandate whatsoever for their plan for a privatised, publicly subsidised healthcare system. The plan did not appear in his election campaign or his party’s manifesto – in fact he made election pledges to end the endless and disruptive reorganisation of the NHS (18). A YouGov poll in January showed only 34% support the ‘reforms’ and only 5% ‘strongly’, while 37% oppose them (16% strongly opposing them). The other 30% didn’t know (19)

The more people hear of the details of the ‘reforms’ the more people who supported them are becoming "don't knows" and the more ‘don’t knows’ are becoming opposed. A Comres poll in June found 49% of people thought the NHS reforms should be scrapped, with only 19% supporting them and 32% unsure (20). Only 27% of British voters support allowing private companies to provide NHS services (21). If Cameron goes ahead and attempts privatisation he is virtually certain to be a single term Prime Minister – if he even survives that long.

Finally, Cameron repeatedly made bizarre comparisons to buying mundane services or goods from private firms – for instance ‘You wouldn’t pay for a gym membership and then get told you’re only allowed to use the running machine or only allowed to come in on a Tuesday’ and ‘Imagine you’re buying a mobile phone. You go to the shop – only one shop – and there they’re selling one model of phone. You can guarantee the service wouldn’t be what you’d expect, the quality wouldn’t be great.’

He also claimed that ‘choice’ and ‘competition’ in healthcare will ‘get real value for money’

Cameron ignores the incompatibility of motives between maximising profit by treating only those patients who can pay and those illnesses that are profitable to treat (the primary and often sole aim of private firms) and providing good healthcare, education or social care based on providing it to everyone equally according to need.

Heart operations or cancer treatment or fire-fighting or ambulances are not mobile phones or gym memberships, nor are they comparable to them. Mobile phones are incredibly cheap compared to healthcare and no-one selling mobile phones needs to have had many years of training and experience to sell a mobile phone to someone without endangering their health or life by recommending the wrong phone. A gym membership can affect your health over the longer term, but you won’t die if you can’t afford the gym membership you want. You will die if you can’t afford health care and have a serious illness. Choosing whether to use a running machine does not require years of training, education and experience to avoid someone dying. Healthcare does. As a result private health care will always be more expensive than public sector healthcare as private firms have to make a profit. It also follows that the more share of the healthcare provision market is given to private healthcare firms, the more costs will rise, especially as public services will end up short of fully qualified and trained doctors and nurses.

(1) = 10 Downing Street Press Office 11 Jul 2011 ‘Speech on Open Public Services’,http://www.number10.gov.uk/news/speech-on-open-public-services/

(2) = Bureau of Investigative Journalism 15 Jun 2011 ‘Conflict of interest fears in NHS shakeup plans’ by Emma Slater and Sophie Clayton-Payne , http://thebureauinvestigates.com/2011/06/15/half-on-some-consortia-have-links-to-virgin-group/  ; ‘At least half the board members of some GP consortia, the new bodies that will take over commissioning, have links with a single private healthcare company, an investigation by Bureau of Investigative Journalism, published in the Independent and Pulse Magazine can reveal.

Assura Medical, majority controlled by Sir Richard Branson’s Virgin Group, has links with 50 per cent or more of the board members at three of the 52 first-wave GP pathfinders… More than 60% of those with private links were associated with Assura Medical. Most were GP members of Assura, meaning their practice had formed a joint company with it…. with profits split 50:50 between Assura Medical and member practices….At the Sutton Consortium in Surrey, 19 out of 25 board members are linked to Assura Medical. In the South Reading Consortium, three out of five board members are GP members of Assura, and two are employees of an Assura member practice. At the Calleva Consortium in Basingstoke, Hampshire, six out of 11 voting members on the consortium board have links with Assura, as does the non-voting board secretary..’

(3) = Health Service Journal 11 Jan 2009 ‘Mark Britnell quits NHS for private sector’,http://www.hsj.co.uk/news/policy/mark-britnell-quits-nhs-for-private-sector/5002713.article

(4) = guardian.co.uk 14 May 2011 ‘David Cameron's adviser says health reform is a chance to make big profits’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/may/14/david-cameron-adviser-health-reform

(5) = Health Service Journal 11 May 2011 ‘Mark Britnell: the NHS funding model is no longer 'resilient'’,http://www.hsj.co.uk/comment/opinion/mark-britnell-the-nhs-funding-model-is-no-longer-resilient/5029675.article

(6) = guardian.co.uk 13 May 2011 ‘Andrew Lansley's NHS reforms are unworkable, says review chief’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/may/13/andrew-lansley-nhs-reforms-unworkable ; ‘Prof Steve Field, chairman of the NHS Future Forum – set up last month to undertake the coalition's "listening exercise" – flatly rejects the health secretary's plan to compel hospitals to compete for patients and income, which he says could "destroy key services". The proposal, contained in Andrew Lansley's health and social care bill, has led key medical organisations to warn that it will lead to the breakup of the NHS and betray the service's founding principles.’

In an interview with the Guardian, Field says Lansley's plan to make the NHS regulator Monitor's primary duty to enforce competition between healthcare providers should be scrapped. Instead it should be obliged to do the opposite, by promoting co-operation and collaboration and the integration of health services.

(7) = guardian.co.uk 28 Jun 2011 ‘NHS forum GP admits private patient doubts’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jun/28/nhs-private-patients-doubts ; ‘The government is facing renewed pressure over its health bill after the GP who led its "listening exercise"…Steve Field acknowledged that the government would leave hospitals vulnerable to European Union competition law due to the presence of private patients in NHS hospitals.’

(8) = London School of Economics working health paper No.16  Does Hospital Competition Save Lives? Evidence from the English NHS Patient Choice Reforms’,  by Zack Cooper http://www2.lse.ac.uk/LSEHealthAndSocialCare/LSEHealth/pdf/Workingpapers/WP16.pdf

(9) = guardian.co.uk 16 Jun 2011 ‘A return to pre-NHS fear’, by Professor Allyson Pollock,http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/jun/16/nhs-fear-tory-reforms-competition

(10) = See (9) above

(11) = Guardian 11 Jul 2011 ‘Ministers urged to let schools and hospitals fail to hasten reforms’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/11/nhs-health

(12) = guardian.co.uk 21 Jun 2011 ‘US man stages $1 bank robbery to get state healthcare’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/jun/21/verone-one-dollar-robbery-healthcare

(13) = Klein, Naomi (2007), 'The Shock Doctrine' , Penguin , London, 2007, Chapter 20

(14) = Greg Palast 29 Aug 2007 ‘“They wanted them poor niggers out of there.” – New Orleans Two years after’, http://www.gregpalast.com/%E2%80%9Cthey-wanted-them-poor-niggers-out-of-there%E2%80%9D/

(15) = Mail & Guardian (South Africa) 21 Dec 2007, 'Housing protests grip New Orleans', http://mg.co.za/article/2007-12-21-housing-protests-grip-new-orleans

(16) = Greg Palast 24 Aug 2010 ‘Five Years and Still Drowning - The New Orleans CNN Would Never Show You’,http://www.gregpalast.com/five-years-and-still-drowning-the-new-orleans-cnn-would-never-show-you/

(17) = guardian.co.uk 09 Nov 2010 ‘Ambulance drivers and firefighters could break away from national service under new plans’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/nov/09/ambulance-firefighters-mutualise-plans ; ‘Ambulance drivers, paramedics and firefighters could be given the right to breakaway from the national rescue service to form for-profit groups and run their services themselves, the Cabinet Office minister Francis Maude has said.

The government is to unveil a white paper that will give nearly all public sector workers a right to "mutualise" services, along the lines of a John Lewis model whereby employees own the service they work for, and can profit if it makes money.

Maude said that almost all public services – bar the police and the armed forces – could be mutualised. One ambulance service had already expressed an interest and he would also look at options for the fire service, he said.’

(18) = New Statesman blog 14 Apr 2011 ‘Video: Cameron slams “pointless reorganisation” of the NHS - The Prime Minister – then in opposition – addresses the Royal College of Nursing conference in 2009’, http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/the-staggers/2011/04/royal-college-opposition

(19) = YouGov 20 Jan 2011 – Politics – The National Health,http://today.yougov.co.uk/politics/national-health

(20) = Comres 13 Jun 2011,http://www.comres.co.uk/systems/file_download.aspx?pg=796&ver=2

(21) = guardian.co.uk 21 Jan 2011 ‘Poll reveals widespread suspicion of NHS reforms’, http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2011/jan/29/nhs-private-companies-yougov-poll

The outcry against super-injunctions on reporting private lives is about selling papers to make money

The newspapers’ outcry over the super-injunction against reporting which footballer had an affair has nothing to do with the public interest and everything to do with trying to sell papers and make money. Bank executives and footballers are over-paid and under-regulated, but knowing who they had sex with does nothing to sort that.

As I said in my last post (on the injunction taken out by banker Fred Goodwin) the appeals to the public interest are just playing with words. The public interest refers to things that affect the public’s interests – i.e which might harm them if they didn’t know them, or which they have a right to know (e.g because taxpayers’ money is involved). It does not mean whatever gossip some of the public might be interested in.

If newspapers win their battle to keep reporting sex gossip then the public interest will be seriously harmed as media coverage which should be about serious issues that do affect us all will go to who shagged who instead.

I’m pretty sure the original tweets on Giggs will have been sent by Sun or New of the World journalists who were looking to get round the injunction so they could keep publishing their grubby “investigations” of celebrities private lives to make money from them. The twitter users who then responded to the supposed threat to "online freedom" when Giggs tried to sue the original culprits were unwittingly helping out Murdoch and Kelvin Mackenzie and their kind. That's apart from the fact that there's no more moral right for anyone to make other peoples' private lives public online than there is anywhere else.

The press should be pushing for the lifting of some Ministry of Defence D-notices which have been used to cover up issues relating to torture and failure to equip troops properly and ‘commercial confidentiality’ clauses in PFI and PPP contracts which are used to prevent the public knowing how much of their money is going to PPP consortia.

No amount of sex gossip will prevent another financial crisis or reduce the unfairness that sees bankers and footballers paid millions while the average person in the UK earns around £20,000 per year, with many much, much worse off – unemployed, in poverty, or homeless.

Only re-regulation of the banks will prevent another financial crisis. This would have to include a legal ban on high street savings banks being involved in high risk investment banking, a ban on financial derivatives such as the CDOs which package good debt with bad – and a delay of say 10 years for receiving bonuses to force bank executives to look to the long term. The deregulation from the 80s on has forced them to prioritise high profits and high share dividends this quarter or else be replaced by someone who will.

To deal with inequality and unfair pay the minimum wage needs to keep rising above the rate of inflation; and there could be a 90% tax on individual income above £250,000 a year.

For either to work we need to close down the tax havens which allow the wealthiest and the biggest firms to both avoid tax and keep their financial dealings secret so that they can’t be effectively regulated by anyone.

Why cuts to the PFI 'Schools for the Future' programme should be welcomed

The BSF School building programme involves PFIs that lead to tax rises and cuts in the number of fully trained teachers, for the benefit of big companies - it's welfare fraud for the richest

A PPP built school - new and shiny, but over-priced by annual payments so high that it results in less teachers and less books being available

The cuts to the to the “Building Schools for the Future” programme are one public spending cut we should welcome.

The row over cuts to the programme has ignored the fact that every school and hospital built in the UK since the mid-90s has been funded by ‘Private Finance Initiatives’, invented by Conservative Chancellor Kenneth Clarke in the mid-90s and re-branded as ‘Public Private Partnerships’ by Blair and Brown (1). The costs are many times more than funding construction from taxation or loans, as Professor Allyson Pollock and others have shown. Only 30% of teachers surveyed by the EIS in 2007 said PPP provided value for money(2).

PFI means cuts in the number of fully trained teaching staff in the new schools and shortages of money for other government spending and so increased public debt, taxes or service cuts. It also usually involves maintenance contracts in which private contractors get to massively overcharge for so much as replacing a light –bulb (which cannot be replaced by staff under the PFI contracts) – and to take forever to do it as the various contractors and sub-contractors have to haggle over who has the right to do it.

Every school planned under the BSF programme is funded by PFI or PPP contracts (3) – (6). We should be welcoming the scrapping of this gravy train for the big firms who are the primary contractors in PFIs and PPPs and demanding that where the new government funds the building of new schools they from taxation or loans, either of which is much better value for money.

The question now is whether the Conservatives really cut the programme because it was bad value for money, or whether they’re planning to negotiate new ‘public private partnerships’ in which big firms’ donations go to Conservative party rather than Labour party funds in return for them getting to fleece taxpayers, including teachers and nurses.

If they’re really serious about saving on wasteful spending they could invest a bit in hiring lawyers and inspectors to look for breaches of contract in the short term in order to get us out of over-priced and under-performing PFI and PPP deals and save us a fortune in increased taxes and cut services in future.

(1) = Guardian 08 Jul 2010 ‘Public anger grows over scrapped school-building programme’http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2010/jul/08/schools-building-michael-gove-public-anger

(2) = Herald (Glasgow) 08 July 2007 ‘School PPP scheme a 'catastrophe' for pupils’,http://www.heraldscotland.com/school-ppp-scheme-a-catastrophe-for-pupils-1.827201

(3) = The PPP Journal, Issue 58, September 2007, http://www.publicservice.co.uk/pub_contents.asp?id=277&publication=The%20PPP%20Journal&content=2931&content_name=Education/Building%20Schools%20for%20the%20Future

(4) = Guardian 27 Jan 2009 ‘Government may have to take on risk of PFI deals’,http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/jan/27/pfi-deals-bsf-government-underwriting (covers BSF programme involving PFIs)

(5) = Balfour Beatty Press Release 21 Jun 2010 ‘Balfour Beatty appointed preferred bidder for £231 million Derby Building Schools for the Future project’, http://www.balfourbeatty.co.uk/bby/media/press/2010/2010-06-21/

(6) = European Services Strategy Unit,  ‘Building Schools for the Future’, http://www.european-services-strategy.org.uk/outsourcing-library/building-schools-for-the-future/

The future business, the big society and efficiency savings – political euphemisms and what they actually mean

Morlocks - Is Gordon Brown's policy of only travelling forwards through time ignoring the seriousness of the Morlock menace?

Listening to the party leaders’ election campaign speeches reminds me of great euphemisms from the near and distant past, like “strategic interrogation” and “tactical questioning” (both used as euphemisms for torture by Coalition forces’ press officers in briefings to journalists in Iraq).

“The Future Business”

Good to hear that Gordon Brown is “in the future business”. That’s lucky because as yet no means of travelling backwards in time has been discovered, though it may risk losing him the Dr. Who vote.

I also have a policy of travelling linearly through time - and solely in a forwards direction.

It’s hard to imagine that any candidate or party leader is likely to say “No – i disagree – we should go backwards into the past as fast and as far as possible and damn the inconvenience, the dangers, the costs and the sheer impossibility of doing so –it’s the only way to counter the Morlock menace, which the other parties and candidates are dangerously complacent about”.

What Gordon is really saying is “don’t judge us on our record in government, judge us on what we promise we’ll do in future.”

“The Big Society”

David Cameron’s Big Society policy of encouraging volunteer work would be great if he was suggesting it as an addition to well funded public services rather than as a replacement for them. (Volunteers do some amazing work and are often as good as professionals at it – sometimes better).

The reality of the Conservative ‘encourage volunteering’ policy though is that the wealthy and well educated will be allowed to set up their own schools and run their own local services. Having done so are they likely to be willing to pay enough tax to fund public services for others which they won’t use themselves, but are for people who aren’t so fortunate? I doubt it. The usual conservative ideology is to ask why those struggling in poverty or on low incomes don’t do everything for themselves.

As a result state schools and hospitals will become hugely over-stretched and under-funded – like those in America, while those who can afford it get private care or run their own schools – a two tier health service and a two tier education system.

‘Big society’ in this case is just a euphemism for ‘small, underfunded public services, which most of the well-off but selfish people i represent don’t want to pay for so unwashed oiks can use them’.

To be fair Alastair Darling has also said that if Labour are re-elected there will be a 25% cut in public spending, cuts, in his own words, bigger than those under Thatcher. So neither main party can be trusted not to cut vital public services.

“Efficiency Savings”

While talking a great deal about necessary cuts and efficiency savings none of the leaders of the three biggest parties – Labour , Conservatives or Liberal Democrats – have said a word about scrapping Private Finance Initiatives or Public Private Partnerships, which are the equivalent of hugely over-priced hire purchase schemes, resulting in increased costs along with service cuts.

None of them have suggested renationalising the railways, nor even ending massive public subsidies to the privatised rail companies.

Nor has there been any suggestion of cracking down on huge cost over-runs on British Aerospace contracts for the Ministry of Defence, nor of ending the ‘Export Credit Guarantees’ which ensure that if BAE sells arms to a foreign dictatorship which then doesn’t pay for them taxpayers foot the bill.

No “efficiency savings” in the world could save taxpayers as much money as scrapping these three main areas of waste. Every government and opposition in history has claimed it could save huge amounts of money but running public services more efficiently – what happens in practice is some cuts and un-necessary reorganisation which merely causes temporary chaos.