Skip to main content

Lib Dem Conference backed PFI - and was sponsored by Tesco

I have been asked to give more evidence of the LibDem lurch to the Right.
Well, here is a powerful piece of such evidence:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/sep/14/libdemconference.pfi
Isn't PFI by definition "cooking the books"?...
This is a LibDem sop to the interests of big finance. Isn't this an
incredibly ironic moment to choose, to trust the very people who have at the
present time brought the world's economy to its knees?!!
p.s. And how about this:
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/news/articles/2005-8935.html
And check Scott Redding's apposite _comment_, here:
http://www.newstatesman.com/uk-politics/2008/09/labour-party-gordon-change
Hard to see a Party happy to have Conference sponsorship from Tesco as
anything other than sold out.

Comments

Joe Otten said…
Don't let facts get in the way of a good rant will you.

The old policy was not to oppose PFI, and the new one is much tighter. So that's a lurch to the left, if anything.

But point is not to be dogmatic, but to do whatever brings the best value, without all the off-books borrowing and dodgy public sector comparators. If that happens to mean no more PFI, then fine, but if a contractor can deliver good value, then even better.
Rupert said…
Joe; your new policy asks the Government to make it easier for MORE Councils to use PFI MORE.
Those are the facts.
I wonder if you feel similarly 'undogmatic' about the privatisation of healthcare? If it 'works better', shall we let people pay for 'Business Class' rather than 'Economy Class' hip replacements, e.g.?

p.s. Tesco, anyone?
Joe Otten said…
Er, no it doesn't.

I quote:

1. Only use private finance when it is shown that this can provide better value for money to the
taxpayer than public finance.
2. Make public financing options more practical...

The full text is here (pdf) pages 21-22.


Private contracts for surgery etc should be rejected because they offer an inferior service at a higher price, compared to the public sector. Do you have a better reason?

Popular posts from this blog

Post-Growth: A new vision for a fairer and more sustainable Britain

More on why 20's plenty -- without need for any further 'trials'...

There are a number of reasons for setting a default speed of 20mph throughout the 'unclassified' road network in residential parts of a city such as Norwich. Most important perhaps is that of driver recognition as to what the speed limit is. If you have 20 mph as the default then you not only establish this limit clearly, but you also adjust the driver's recognition as to what is the "normal" speed in such residential areas. The most important aspect is that drivers set 20 mph as the norm with those 30 mph areas or roads being seen as 50% faster, rather than seeing 30 mph as the norm with 20 mph as 33% slower. The psychological adjustment of normal speeds in residential areas is key to the success of reducing speeds and therefore danger to pedestrians and cyclists. Therefore any trial, pilot or whatever, that only implements 20 mph in a tiny proportion of the city is not modelling 20's Plenty in any realistic manner.   When considering the val...