Hi all
Read some reports that a tory government wouldn't be backing the bsf scheme if elected as its a waste of money. Does anyone have any thoughts on this subject?
As someone who would be moving to a new school next year and be outsourced by an IT company i'd like to find out if a change it party would effectively make my future better or worse.
Thanks
Jason
TBH, no party will really show it's cards until after the election, but I would suggest a review of BSF would certainly be on the cards should they get in.
BSF is a good idea I think, but as is typical with governemnts it was badly thought out and implemented with too much emphesis of the lack of control (or care) that govt would have to pay to a school once it was 'handed over' to private enterprise.
Wasn't it the Tories who began the academies scheme when they were last in power? Cameron talks about schools becoming more idependent and being run by 'the people' which may result in more academy 'style' schools; could this logically lead to possible cost-savings by eliminating the need for LEAs as wasteful government quangos?
Thay are talking about the parents having more control in the running of the schools. With academies the 'charity' (private company who 'brought' the school for a bung), controls pretty much everything including who gets to sit on the board of governors.Originally Posted by pauljonze
Aren't academies and BSF different things?
I believe the tories are in support for academies but not in support of BSF. I've read on many occassions they have labelled BSF as a waste of money.
BSF provides a steady flow of income to the banks that lend money to the building companies & suppliers that are involved in building schools through PFI. All of these companies stand to profit from BSF continuing so I would be surprised if a Tory Government would wish to cut off the flow of cash to their supporters.
They may however try to streamline the procurement process which is proving to be very costly & drawn out. Expect to see some pain at the LA level as 'productivity' cuts bite......
Some LAs have responded to Govt pressure to combine both into the same bid; I am aware of a couple of LAs where the BSF funding was conditional upon academies being built.....
@all:
Image: Top 30 BSF contractors - Building
The old school tie brigade looking after one another.....................................
"too far down the line now, contracts signed"
"we are giving the power to local government, its upto them to decide the best for schools in their area"
YouTube - David Camerons eye for the media on Time Trumpet
What I suspect you'll see happening is that the "building" bit of BSF will go on hold but the outsourcing bit will be speeded up - that's what can save money ("remove inefficiency" as we keep being told!)
BSF funded through PFI won't show up as such a big number paid back each year..... think of it as a series of mortgages signed by LAs for 25 years spread over a number of years...... so in total they spend £55billion on doing up secondary schools but only have to pay back <£3billion per year (plus interest & profits for the builders & suppliers).....
It's less per year than the odd war or two!
looks like they might be keeping BSF
EducationInvestor - Article: Cameron: BSF "will continue"
but then again promises before an election and not exactly reliable
yep. that's pretty much how they build new hospitals also. The cost over the full term ends up costing three or four times more than the actual build costBSF funded through PFI won't show up as such a big number paid back each year..... think of it as a series of mortgages signed by LAs for 25 years spread over a number of years...... so in total they spend £55billion on doing up secondary schools but only have to pay back <£3billion per year (plus interest & profits for the builders & suppliers).....
It's less per year than the odd war or two!....that includes maintenance but they'd have to continually adjust the overall costs for inflation over time, once the 'repayments' actually progress. Doesn't exactly represent value for money for the 'taxpayer', but it is a perpetual income stream for the private secotr and allows them to realise some big profits, so hey-ho.
the construction industry, the banks require these PFI deals....there's no way it doesn't happen in some shape or form. But....it begs the question of where cuts will be made if not in BSf capital investment, and the future of capital investment in the public sector as the public finaces come under pressure.
Labour or any future govt. might say as regards capital costs, once these things built they are built....you don't have to commit the capital costs again. better get it right then... hadn't they.
Last edited by torledo; 30th April 2010 at 12:34 PM.
Assuming that the PFI deals for hospitals and schools are the same here is an example. The new Queen Elizabeth hospital in Birmingham "will cost taxpayers £1.75 billion under a private finance initiative scheme, being repaid like a mortgage of at least £48 million a year plus inflation until 2046, with developer Balfour Beatty owning 40 per cent of the hospital." I found an article elsewhere that said the cost was £547 million.
Quote from our local paper:
"Earlier in the day, Conservative leader David Cameron visited Southampton University where he was shown innovative wind and water-based electricity production.
He reassured people in Portsmouth who are concerned his party might reverse labour's Building Schools for the Future programme.
He said: 'The people of Portsmouth should know that we believe building schools for the future is a good policy.
'The money is there for it to continue. We want to build new schools."
And I was hoping the Conservatives would scrap the idea
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
