State of the parties as 2015 General Election looms.

[teamsaint]

You borrow the money directly (as was done before PFI was dreamed up) instead of paying someone else enormous sums to borrow it on your behalf.

All PFI achieves is to make it look as though you haven't borrowed at all.

I can never forgive Gordon Brown for the disaster that is PFI.

some day, when it is needed, the powers that be will decide the time is ripe for real inter generational economic warfare, as part of the endless divide and rule policy.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/men/thinking-man/11231796/If-youre-under-30-bad-luck.-Youre-screwed.html

is just a taster.

People who see the world that way might very well see PFI as one part of that problem

[teamsaint]

PFIs have done so much damage, most people don't even realise. Many DGHs have found it impossible to get out of deficit, no matter what turnaround plans and cost improvement plans they implement, due to structural debt caused by some outrageously irresponsible PFI programmes.

do you have any good examples , Beefy? I'm sure there are plenty.

[Beef Oven!]

do you have any good examples , Beefy? I'm sure there are plenty.

Plenty. South London NHS trust is a good example. In special measures largely due to a disastrous PFI. Many hospitals would deliver an end of year surplus, if it wasn't for the PFI that they are saddled with. If it was the commercial sector, the the debt would be written off and the shareholders would take the hit (you win some, you lose some). I'm not advocating wholesale private NHS, btw!!!!

A list from 2011:

The 22 NHS trusts that the government believes are at risk because of PFI are:

St Helens and Knowsley; South London Healthcare; University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire; Wye Valley; Barking, Havering and Redbridge; Worcester; Oxford Radcliffe/Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre; Barts and the London; University Hospitals of North Staffordshire; Dartford and Gravesham; North Cumbria; Portsmouth; Buckinghamshire; West Middlesex; Mid Yorkshire; Walsall; North Middlesex; North Bristol; Mid Essex; Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells; Sandwell and West Birmingham; and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital.

[jean]

Google Allyson Pollock - I haven't time to do it now.

[teamsaint]

Plenty. South London NHS trust is a good example. In special measures largely due to a disastrous PFI. Many hospitals would deliver an end of year surplus, if it wasn't for the PFI that they are saddled with. If it was the commercial sector, the the debt would be written off and the shareholders would take the hit (you win some, you lose some). I'm not advocating wholesale private NHS, btw!!!!

A list from 2011:

The 22 NHS trusts that the government believes are at risk because of PFI are:

St Helens and Knowsley; South London Healthcare; University Hospitals Coventry and Warwickshire; Wye Valley; Barking, Havering and Redbridge; Worcester; Oxford Radcliffe/Nuffield Orthopaedic Centre; Barts and the London; University Hospitals of North Staffordshire; Dartford and Gravesham; North Cumbria; Portsmouth; Buckinghamshire; West Middlesex; Mid Yorkshire; Walsall; North Middlesex; North Bristol; Mid Essex; Maidstone and Tunbridge Wells; Sandwell and West Birmingham; and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital.

Thanks for that.

[Beef Oven!]

Google Allyson Pollock - I haven't time to do it now.

Yes, indeed.

[Flosshilde]

I can never forgive Gordon Brown for the disaster that is PFI.

It was a scheme originally devised by the Tories; New Labour took it over & re-named it instead of abandoning it (which is what they should have done)

[ahinton]

I think the SNP is the only party than can be described as in a 'good state' for the 2015 election as it is well run, attracting new members and remains relatively united. UKIP has lot to do to reach a similar standard, imo., and won't attract the centre ground which is essential for long-term success.

I think that you're right here, although it doesn't escape my notice that the prospect that what's now the third party in UK is one for which less than 10% of the electorate is entitled to vote, by reason of is location; indeed, that seems to say it all (or at lest most of it) in terms of the generally pralous state of party politics in UK today.

I also think that, irrespective of the extent to which Margaret Thatcher may be thought personally to have been responsible for achieving the goal that she once advocated when asked if she wanted to pull the Conservative party to the right - namely "I want to pull all parties to the right" - the fact that this has happened at all seems to me to be one reason why UK party politics is in the state that it's in now. I am not a socialist, but one fundamental strand of UK politics today (at least in party terms) is the significant lack of a socialist party; scant Parliamentary representation of the left has inevitably thrown party politics off balance and created an unwelcome and unhealthy scenario in which no small proportion of professional politicans appear to want to prioritise and be seen to prioritise the competition with one another for the same or or broadly similar territory and it's therefore perhaps hardly surprising that the politics of personality has become one consequence of these overall shortcomings of variety of thought and approach.

This is also, I think, one reason why there seems now to be a developing sense that too many politicians - and indeed Government itself - have all become too self-serving in preference to serving the interests of the electorate that funds and votes for it; it is perhaps this factor (predicated largely uponm the disillusionment that it's generated) even more than that of the hysteria whipped up in certain areas about immigration and UK's continued EU membership that has encouraged some of the support for UKIP that we see today although, in so saying, I believe that there's a danger in assuming that this support is of sufficient significance to be capable of changing the face of British politics anything like as much as the noise generated by the party itself might be taken by some to suggest.

The likeliest outcome at present is a Labour/SNP Coalition, but you know what the man said about a week and politics!

I cannot agree. How absurd would be a scenario in which UK's government were run by such a coalition when the latter of those two parties is by name and nature representative only of a small proportion of the UK electorate?! The "likeliest outcome at present" strikes me as being an "oh dear - now what do we all do?" one in which, for the first time ever in British politics, no two parties in coalition are capable of achieving a majority.

[P. G. Tipps]

It was a scheme originally devised by the Tories; New Labour took it over & re-named it instead of abandoning it (which is what they should have done)

This is quite blatantly and deliberately reverting to tribal politics and has little to do with the subject and spirit of the OP.

Flosshilde recently singled out and roundly castigated certain members for straying off-topic.

I'm not nearly brave enough to do that but please let all discursive members on this thread heed her words!

[ahinton]

You borrow the money directly (as was done before PFI was dreamed up) instead of paying someone else enormous sums to borrow it on your behalf.

All PFI achieves is to make it look as though you haven't borrowed at all.

I can never forgive Gordon Brown for the disaster that is PFI.

My own MP has written some pretty scathing material about PFI from time to time.

[P. G. Tipps]

I cannot agree. How absurd would be a scenario in which UK's government were run by such a coalition when the latter of those two parties is by name and nature representative only of a small proportion of the UK electorate?! The "likeliest outcome at present" strikes me as being an "oh dear - now what do we all do?" one in which, for the first time ever in British politics, no two parties in coalition are capable of achieving a majority.

You may well be right. However, at present, we know the SNP will not entertain any sort of agreement with the Tories and they could well be the third party in terms of seats. Even if there is not an official coalition an agreement between Labour and the SNP will be the only show on offer after an indecisive result, short of a remarkable Liberal Democrat recovery which seems unlikely for the foreseeable future. I'm not at all convinced UKIP will win enough seats to be a serious part of any deal, I suspect they might just hold on to Clacton at best.

Like the last election, I doubt any party would want a repeat poll so the likelihood is that some sort of coalition will be formed and the SNP seems best placed to hold the balance of power given a hung parliament. The SNP already does not vote on solely 'English' issues though I well understand the 'grey areas' could cause real problems here. So, however well-meaning the party leaders involved, eventual political chaos cannot be entirely discounted.

But all mere speculation on everyone's part of course ...

[agingjb]

The power that small parties have is entirely based on the unwillingness of the larger parties to co-operate.

[Flosshilde]

You may well be right. However, at present, we know the SNP will not entertain any sort of agreement with the Tories

Do 'we'? The SNP's first government in Scotland was a minority one - they didn't enter into a coalition with anyone, but got support for individual bills/policies from whichever party they could do a deal with. On economic matters that tended to be the Tories, on social matter Labour. I think if they hold a balance of power in Westminster they will follow much the same principle - not enter into a formal coalition but support, & influence, the policies they want.

[P. G. Tipps]

The power that small parties have is entirely based on the unwillingness of the larger parties to co-operate.

But surely that is the adversarial nature of British politics? Even Parliament's seating is laid out quite deliberately to facilitate that. One occasionally hears an Opposition spokesman ... or person, if one insists ... telling us that it is his or her party's 'duty' to oppose the government on a particular issue, a political Devil's Advocate, if you like.

I admit that I'm probably in a tiny minority here, but I do tend to prefer this system to that of mainstream European parliaments where deals are constantly being made behind closed doors. And it certainly sometimes makes for great theatre in contrast to the dull, uninspiring continental alternatives.

Which brings us right back to FPTP versus PR so maybe we'd better not go there at least on this thread!

[Beef Oven!]

Do 'we'? The SNP's first government in Scotland was a minority one - they didn't enter into a coalition with anyone, but got support for individual bills/policies from whichever party they could do a deal with. On economic matters that tended to be the Tories, on social matter Labour. I think if they hold a balance of power in Westminster they will follow much the same principle - not enter into a formal coalition but support, & influence, the policies they want.

Nicola Sturgeon, at the SNP Party Conference, said that the party would never give any help to the Tories getting into government.