Private pensions popular in UK but not in France, Germany, Spain

nigelbb

jimi_man wrote: »

I think you may need to revisit your history books. PFI contracts were something that New Labour grabbed hold of and promoted from almost as soon as they took office.

This continued all the way through their tenure and towards the last few years of office they were absolutely throwing money at it. Schools, prisons, hospitals, virtually all sectors had PFI initiatives - running into hundreds of billions of pounds.

I appreciate your anti-Tory slant, however history tells a different story. It would be nice to leave the politics out completely on threads like these.

I know my history very well especially regarding NHS funding so please show me where I blamed the Tories for PFI? They have in fact run down the numbers of PFI contracts so there haven't been any new ones for a number of years. It would make sense with historically low interest rates to borrow the money to buy them out. It was always a crazy scheme to cook the government accounts book.

[Deleted User]

UK still carries a large debt and the budget is in deficit. The thing about “historically low” interest rates is that they tend to go up as a result of irresponsible borrowing as governments from Greece to Argentina and Venezuela have discovered (and many more before them).

Thrugelmir

nigelbb wrote: »

They have in fact run down the numbers of PFI contracts so there haven't been any new ones for a number of years. It would make sense with historically low interest rates to borrow the money to buy them out.

Buy them out? The legally binding contracts will have toxic termination clauses. If it were an option then Labour would have undoubtably proposed to nationalise the service providers in their manifesto. Interestingly though steering clear of the PFI topic. For obvious good reason as would undermine their own line of attack.

Terron

nigelbb wrote: »

NHS spending has declined as a percentage of GDP over the last 9 years when it actually needs to increase just to deliver the same provisions because of increasing demand of a growing & more elderly population.
https://www.health.org.uk/news-and-comment/charts-and-infographics/health-spending-as-a-share-of-gdp-remains-at-lowest-level-in

The first point in that report contradicts you and agrees with me that it has stayed roughly the same.

As a share of GDP, spending on health in the UK in 2018/19 was roughly the same as it was in 2011/12, and is only marginally above where it was in 2008/09.

Terron

nigelbb wrote: »

In 20-30 years time.

No, it starts immediately as people get the higher of what they would have got under the old system or under the new system.

Terron

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Buy them out? The legally binding contracts will have toxic termination clauses. If it were an option then Labour would have undoubtably proposed to nationalise the service providers in their manifesto. Interestingly though steering clear of the PFI topic. For obvious good reason as would undermine their own line of attack.

I know of 2 that have been bought out. The second was due to poor performance.


The point of the PFIs was to keep the borrowing off the national accounts, Nationalizing them would negate that.

Malthusian

Terron wrote: »

The first point in that report contradicts you and agrees with me that it has stayed roughly the same.

When someone posts a link in an Internet debate you're not supposed to actually read it. A link to a study serves the same function as a stick with a squirrel skull on the end does for a shaman, you wave it about because it proves you're the Voice of Truth. Five points deducted from Gryffindor.

Thrugelmir

Terron wrote: »

I know of 2 that have been bought out. The second was due to poor performance.

There will of course be termination clauses. However that's 2 of how many?

As with the proposed nationalisation of the energy companies. Expect the matter to end up in the courts.

jimi_man

Terron wrote: »

The first point in that report contradicts you and agrees with me that it has stayed roughly the same.

As a share of GDP, spending on health in the UK in 2018/19 was roughly the same as it was in 2011/12, and is only marginally above where it was in 2008/09.

Oops. That's a little inconvenient!

nigelbb

Terron wrote: »

The first point in that report contradicts you and agrees with me that it has stayed roughly the same.

As a share of GDP, spending on health in the UK in 2018/19 was roughly the same as it was in 2011/12, and is only marginally above where it was in 2008/09.

That's not what the graph shows which is the blue line for percentage of GDP which in 2009/10 is nearer 8% & in 2018/19 only just over 7%. The growth in monetary terms has been barely 1.6% which is below the historic average of 3.6% which is also the amounted needed just maintain the same level of provision because the growing & more elderly population.