From the Netherlands here, very strong point you make there on the efficiency of PPS constructions. Especially combination between the lending rate, bonuses of management and risk appetite of commercial parties appose to public parties.
The PFI discussion is inaccurate. Contractors do not borrow from the banks to build a public asset. A Project Company; which is a shell organisation referred to as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), credits the construction of a facility and sub-contracts the works to contractors such as Carillion through fixed price contracts. By doing so, this allows financiers to transfer construction risk away from themselves and onto the contractor. Carillion debt is distinct from PFI financing. As a result, some of the key arguments in this video are actually conflated and confused.
Why wasn’t Carillion checked for Solvency before they received a single government contract, This video was made five years ago, And still nothings changed,.
If you are going to go on record, you should get your basic facts right. Carillion were not formed by Tarmac and (Robert) McAlpine. The later had nothing to do with Carillion and are a completely separate company that still trade. Carillion purchased Alfred McAlpine in Feb 2008. There are other inaccuracies within this video but this one is so obvious, one can't argue it.
Whilst I agree with Chris's position on animal rights this is a classic example of his socialist position. What next Chris, everyone wearing the same clothes? Green-eyed monster is a terrible thing. He knows nothing and only re gurgitates what he reads. Poor video.
Really ? green eyed monster showing up capitalism at its worst , what’s wrong with that ? envy has nothing to do with it ,it’s called honesty and morality which these smug individuals have neither traits.
This MP is mis representing - very misinformed. Without PFI there would very little quality infrastructure we have today. The premise of PFI was to transfer risk and allow public sector to pay for the asset over time at a fixed price with risk transfer for which the cost of borrowing is higher, granted. But that money stays in the UK as lets say Barcalys lent money to the project, it is UK people that benefit who work at Barclays who get job security. Public sector just buying for assets under a D&B contract has been proven that it ends up costing significantly more as public sector at a cost it cannot control e.g 35% more. PFI provided a turn key whole life cost for infra assets with cost certainty and risk transfer. The private sector has to perform and deliver to a fixed price, and when they don't, it falls on the private sector to pay or fail. This is what happened at Carrilion. It shows you get too big for your boots and not manage the risk you are taking on you will fail.
Sadly PFI rewarded the friends and donors of those agreeing the high cost solutions to otherwise easily resolved needs of the majority left with far less for very much more. But that's just the way power is tied to financial supporters.
Why would we not have the infrastructure? The government/taxpayer is paying for it anyway in the long run. The simple alternative is that the government borrows the money, at lower rates, and builds the infrastructure. Whether the government chooses to make this investment is a political decision. PFI is just a financial instrument and not one that stands up well to scrutiny when you look at the longer term.
@@marklawes1859 don't think I said we have none, i said we would have less quality of it. My comment is 2 years old, and still true - pfi is buy now pay later for risky assets, with whole life costing. Using public money for capital projects is fine for lower risk assets. Irrespective of which model - you want risk transfer you pay for it.
@@editingwithfaith7256 I hear what you say but building hospitals and other infrastructure that is typical of PFI projects is not a high risk strategy. Any government that thinks that way is not fit for purpose. Are you thinking of projects like HS2?
with you all the way Chris. you will soon be back in and fighting. thanks for everything Chris.
From the Netherlands here, very strong point you make there on the efficiency of PPS constructions. Especially combination between the lending rate, bonuses of management and risk appetite of commercial parties appose to public parties.
Well explained
MORE MORE MORE of these please
Solidarity Chris. ✊
Months later, still suspended, and now they want trigger selections now. What happens to Chris?
perfectly said
The PFI discussion is inaccurate. Contractors do not borrow from the banks to build a public asset. A Project Company; which is a shell organisation referred to as a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV), credits the construction of a facility and sub-contracts the works to contractors such as Carillion through fixed price contracts. By doing so, this allows financiers to transfer construction risk away from themselves and onto the contractor. Carillion debt is distinct from PFI financing. As a result, some of the key arguments in this video are actually conflated and confused.
Drew McE So which key arguments are conflated and confused ?
Thanks Diane ----not convinced by last comments
Why wasn’t Carillion checked for Solvency before they received a single government contract, This video was made five years ago, And still nothings changed,.
succint but definitely informative
Why don't we hear about this on MSM ?
Enlightening - thanks.
meaningless fines. They should be in prison.
If you are going to go on record, you should get your basic facts right. Carillion were not formed by Tarmac and (Robert) McAlpine. The later had nothing to do with Carillion and are a completely separate company that still trade. Carillion purchased Alfred McAlpine in Feb 2008. There are other inaccuracies within this video but this one is so obvious, one can't argue it.
Whilst I agree with Chris's position on animal rights this is a classic example of his socialist position. What next Chris, everyone wearing the same clothes? Green-eyed monster is a terrible thing. He knows nothing and only re gurgitates what he reads. Poor video.
Really ? green eyed monster showing up capitalism at its worst , what’s wrong with that ? envy has nothing to do with it ,it’s called honesty and morality which these smug individuals have neither traits.
This MP is mis representing - very misinformed. Without PFI there would very little quality infrastructure we have today. The premise of PFI was to transfer risk and allow public sector to pay for the asset over time at a fixed price with risk transfer for which the cost of borrowing is higher, granted. But that money stays in the UK as lets say Barcalys lent money to the project, it is UK people that benefit who work at Barclays who get job security. Public sector just buying for assets under a D&B contract has been proven that it ends up costing significantly more as public sector at a cost it cannot control e.g 35% more. PFI provided a turn key whole life cost for infra assets with cost certainty and risk transfer. The private sector has to perform and deliver to a fixed price, and when they don't, it falls on the private sector to pay or fail. This is what happened at Carrilion. It shows you get too big for your boots and not manage the risk you are taking on you will fail.
Sadly PFI rewarded the friends and donors of those agreeing the high cost solutions to otherwise easily resolved needs of the majority left with far less for very much more. But that's just the way power is tied to financial supporters.
You are completely ignoring the deception, corruption and illegality of those involved in profiteering from the neocon PFI concept.
Why would we not have the infrastructure? The government/taxpayer is paying for it anyway in the long run. The simple alternative is that the government borrows the money, at lower rates, and builds the infrastructure. Whether the government chooses to make this investment is a political decision. PFI is just a financial instrument and not one that stands up well to scrutiny when you look at the longer term.
@@marklawes1859 don't think I said we have none, i said we would have less quality of it. My comment is 2 years old, and still true - pfi is buy now pay later for risky assets, with whole life costing. Using public money for capital projects is fine for lower risk assets. Irrespective of which model - you want risk transfer you pay for it.
@@editingwithfaith7256 I hear what you say but building hospitals and other infrastructure that is typical of PFI projects is not a high risk strategy. Any government that thinks that way is not fit for purpose. Are you thinking of projects like HS2?