Article on the BBC about BSF and the Credit Crunch:
BBC NEWS | Education | Credit crunch warning for schools
Yet at the same time the government is bringing forward some BSF projects and still insisting on spending 45billion + on the programme despite the current climate - it's utter madness. Yes it will bring more jobs - but what happens to those jobs when the program is finished?
Also it won't create anywhere near enough jobs or soon enough.....bringing forward capital projects is a nice bit of media spin to give the impression of being seen to be doing something. Very different from it having any effect.Originally Posted by Oops_my_bad
Yet at the same time the government is bringing forward some BSF projects and still insisting on spending 45billion + on the programme despite the current climate - it's utter madness. Yes it will bring more jobs - but what happens to those jobs when the program is finished?
It's getting difficult to keep up with the number of private sector companies going into administration or the number of job cuts that have been announced. Meanwhile the govt. are committing themselves to borrowing over 100bn next year and have lost 12.5bn in revenue from a VAT cut that has had no effect and over 50bn in bank recapitlizations that have had no effect [flash gordon didn't save the world].....so your correct, what they are advocating IS utter madness - it's the economics of the lunatic asylum.... after all who's to say that the govt. won't have to bail out some of these construction companies or consortium companies at some point down the line.
The taxpayer would be left holding the liabilities as usual.
The govt. don't have the money to pay for any of this except through increased borrowing from abroad and increased taxes [both are bad news]. PFI is the route they've found to off-balance sheet and 'pay' for their plans......but if you scrap expensive PFI schemes then how do you get that 'upward trajectory' in education spend ? Increase taxes to 40% ??
Perhaps someone should point this very obvious issue out to the mass media?Also it won't create anywhere near enough jobs or soon enough.....bringing forward capital projects is a nice bit of media spin to give the impression of being seen to be doing something. Very different from it having any effect.
It's getting difficult to keep up with the number of private sector companies going into administration or the number of job cuts that have been announced. Meanwhile the govt. are committing themselves to borrowing over 100bn next year and have lost 12.5bn in revenue from a VAT cut that has had no effect and over 50bn in bank recapitlizations that have had no effect [flash gordon didn't save the world].....so your correct, what they are advocating IS utter madness - it's the economics of the lunatic asylum.... after all who's to say that the govt. won't have to bail out some of these construction companies or consortium companies at some point down the line.
The taxpayer would be left holding the liabilities as usual.
The govt. don't have the money to pay for any of this except through increased borrowing from abroad and increased taxes [both are bad news]. PFI is the route they've found to off-balance sheet and 'pay' for their plans......but if you scrap expensive PFI schemes then how do you get that 'upward trajectory' in education spend ? Increase taxes to 40% ??
Haven't the tories already said that BSF will be cut by 10% if they get in power? If so, that's £4.5 billion gone straight away.
What you have to remember is that politics is about spin and coverage. Whatever the government do about BSF they aren't going to say they were going to spend £45 billion but now will only spend £10 billion (or whatever figure) as the opposition would then jump on their backs and say they got their maths wrong. Of course, if the opposition get in power they could cut funding by saying that the previous administration got it wrong.
In reality we'll probably see a cut or maybe even a stop to the programme altogether but it would never be called that. I suspect a "later stage of the programme has been put on hold" statement to happen in the next two or three years. Then, of course, we have the private companies who have to invest a fair bit in BSF before seeing any outlay. I've already spoken to a rep from one company who said they aren't even pursuing any BSF contracts because of the money they would have to spend. It's this part that will probably be the bigger hit to BSF than anything.
As for the media... when, in a few years, the managed services have affected the education of the children of journalists and MPs then we can expect something to appear slagging the system off. That said, I know some MPs are already questioning why schools are being forced to sign up for a service without knowing exactly what that service is.
I predict that in a few years this will be a massive story and lots and lots of people will have very red faces. Until then we just have to hold on as best as we can.
By which time of course we will all have been promoted to chief Shelf Stacker and will therefore laugh at their desperate attempts to re-employ us and sort out the mess?
Totally agree. This level of spending was never sustainable. The plan has been scaled back progressively ever since it was brought in. Headteachers now understand the lack of control and find it unacceptable. Phases have been put back, some companies are pulling out of contracts, and others are not willing to take the financial risk.
I suspect the whole thing will quietly be shelved, having already cost hundreds of millions. Typical public sector waste.
Just hang in there...
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote