Today Programme Yesterday

Can't be that rare. I run one.

 

Are we noit the buyers and the consumers

 

I think you are quite right. Thats why a bit of solidarity would go a long
way amongst fellow workers. Followed by a walk out and complete shut down
until the shareholders replace the Board of Directors.

 

Less disasterous than public service projects that go wrong however

 

If you want me to spell it out...

I think you like PFI because it allows you to grow fat on the public
purse. You then add some latin which says let the buyer beware so I
just question exactly who it is that has to beware wanting to suggest it
was the tax payer...

 

I said I was amazed by double standards, I didn't question what
motivated them.

 

Given that you have just described something that is pretty much endemic
in the human condition, you must have had something of a sheltered
upbringing.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

My upbringing was long enough ago not be of any relevance to the above.
But thanks for taking the time to patronise me anyway.

 

Always a pleasure.

--
Catman MIB#14 SKoGA#6 TEAR#4 BOTAFOF#38 Apostle#21 COSOC#3
Tyger, Tyger Burning Bright (Remove rust to reply)
116 Giulietta 3.0l Sprint 1.7 GTV TS GT 3.2 V6
Triumph Sprint ST 1050: It's blue, see.
www.cuore-sportivo.co.uk

 

I *hate* it when you come out with reasonable stuff. Fair wobbles my
cuntometer.

 

The problem is that most of them won't strike even if they're allowed
to because if they ever pissed on the gravy train they wouldn't get a
job out there in the real World.

 

I like PFI because a properly constructed contractual regime delivers
efficient long term delivery of service at an agreed level free of future
political interference and the incompetence of local administration at a
known price. For many things I don't believe there is a decent alternative
(in the UK). I'm not involved in one because I have to be or because it
offers anything special in return on investment, but because I do think it
is the right way to run things and it's a particularly worthwhile area to be
involved in. Well that and because it's Contract law, Physics, IT,
Instrumentation and Radiation Biology rolled into one job, which could
almost prove the existence of Ged (for moi).

Some things *are* just too complex for PFI because all the facets need to be
properly described and administered in a contract of finite length. I
suggest the UK railways fall into said bucket. Indeed the complexity of said
subject boggles my mind. And some things are too simple and can be managed
even by UK local authorities etc.

 

I'm only ever interested in stuff that actually works in practice. In terms
of company administration.

In both BA and the Royal Mail I observe service and shareholder value being
destroyed by woeful management. There is a lot in common in the two cases.
And both are well within the bounds of being sorted by competent management.

You will feel better after I say I'd scrap large sections of public service
working and turn them over to the private sector under P F I agreements ;o)

 

And a week later find them in Private Eye as another almighty screw-up
costs the taxpayer millions.

 

I'll repeat myself.
Contracts need to be competently created.

And the general impression that PFI has ended up costing more is itself a
misconception. What PFI does is calculate the *true* cost of delivering a
stated level of service over a fixed term at the outset of a project. Think
deeply about what I just said for a while and put it in the context of
political processes before sticking you foot in the mud again.

 

Hmmmm, right. While just cleaning spilt tea from my desk I'd like to
suggest that you're typing an almost pile of poo or stinky bait. Having
been involved both sides of PFI implementations of one sort or another,
I feel fairly comfortable that the "true" cost is as much as the
supplier can get away with before an auditor gets twitchy.

 

And this is always going to happen, is it?

I'd suggest that the true costs are often going to be too expensive,
at which point people with an interest in the PFI working will descope
things until they actually reach a half arsed solution that probably
doesn't do the job any better than the position they started from.

Just like happens everywhere else in the commercial world.

 

I don't know what sort of PFI you have been involved in but the public
service in question should have a fair idea of the costs involved before the
contract formulation begins and the game starts from that point.

 

You are I expect talking about IT projects and we all know how badly the
public sector has done in formulating such contracts. And we both know a
large part of the problem is the constant shifting of functional
specification and political interference. PFI is the wrong toolset for such
tasks. Where it can excel is infrastructure and managed service.
Hospitals, schools, roads, bridges and so on. Which have clearly defined
content, goals, term and function understood in detail by both sides.

 

OK, let's use the new Derby City Royal Hospital as an example of PFI
cock ups.

They've got a shiny new hopsital, with all the new fangled medical
toys, but they've not sorted the road infrastructure.. at all. They
have 1200 beds but not even enough parking for the staff. The options
for public transport across the city are a joke, and improving this
was never in scope.

The nursing school accomodation was completely overlooked.. oops!

During shift changes the access roads pretty much block the entrance
and ambulance access to A&E... oops!

They should have budgeted for road infrastructure improvements, multi
storey parking, and some form of shuttle bus service, for starters.

Sure it's a decent hospital by all accounts, but you first have to get
inside the place to make use of it. I'd not like to be the person
needing to make that last 500 yards A&E during rush hour when all the
access roads are blocked.

So, they're now not knocking down the old hospital it was supposed to
replace, because that still can fill a huge gap that the new one
can't.