Tory government not backing BSF?

[jason2234]

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

[Dos_Box]

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.

[pauljonze]

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?

[Dos_Box]

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.

[jason2234]

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.

[broc]

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......

[broc]

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.

 

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.....

[bossman]

@all:

 

Image: Top 30 BSF contractors - Building

 

The old school tie brigade looking after one another.....................................

[Theblacksheep]

"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"

 

 

 

[srochford]

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!)

[broc]

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!

[Face-Man]

looks like they might be keeping BSF

 

EducationInvestor - Article: Cameron: BSF "will continue"

 

but then again promises before an election and not exactly reliable

[torledo]

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!

 

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 cost ....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.

Edited April 30, 2010 by torledo

[36Degrees]

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.

[daz191]

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:mad:

[broc]

Labour will be hedging their bets on the need for really deep cuts to public services..... if they can keep the economy stable & even growing a bit more they can slowly reduce the deficit using increased tax receipts with things like NI increases, which by the way are paid by both private sector and public sector employers & employees alike... and more importantly clever corporate accountants cannot duck the NI 'tax' like they can most other taxes.....

 

When the politicians talk about the need for public sector 'efficiency' savings they really mean cutting public sector jobs.

 

But keeping public sector workers in jobs & spending money is surely better than making them redundant & having them claim benefits?

[torledo]

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.

 

good example. although i couldn't tell you whether it was comparable to the financing of school builds.....but i remember reading somewehere that 48 million a year repayment figure had to actually be revised upwards from £40 million purely because of inflation.

[torledo]

Labour will be hedging their bets on the need for really deep cuts to public services..... ?

 

sounds more like they plan on protecting education, nhs and police......and have other department find the cuts required. The IFS have produced a report detailing the types of cuts/savings that need to be found, and what that means as far as real terms increases in spending.

 

yes, and they do plan to use some tax increases to reduce the deficit.....but they are saying no 'new' tax increases beyond those already announced so there will surely be significant cuts outside of the sacred cows if they are to keep to that promise.

 

on a personal level i object to being hit with another NI stealth tax rise. the fairness angle is nonsensical, because it only affects directly those who earn over 20k and i think up to 40k...so it's targetting those earners who won't get any working tax credit and are unlikely to get much, if any, child tax credits......it's just a hit to the marginal tax burden of this group....whether they work in the private or public sector.

[broc]

on a personal level i object to being hit with another NI stealth tax rise. the fairness angle is nonsensical, because it only affects directly those who earn over 20k and i think up to 40k...so it's targetting those earners who won't get any working tax credit and are unlikely to get much, if any, child tax credits......it's just a hit to the marginal tax burden of this group....whether they work in the private or public sector.

I don't like stealth taxes either, Gordon Brown made it a black art..... did you notice how often we got taxes today, tax reductions tomorrow or next year in his budgets as chancellor?

 

Having said that; you could argue that most taxes are unfair, there will always be someone who loses out while others don't. VAT is a particularly unfair tax as it is the same rate regardless of your financial circumstances.... someone on job seekers allowance pays the same VAT rate as a multi-millionaire.

 

Income tax is unfair, as people on PAYE cannot avoid paying it but self-employed & very wealthy people can employ accountants to avoid it....

 

Fuel duty & VAT on fuel is unfair on people who live in rural areas, or the frozen wastes of the north and have to heat their homes for longer during the year...

Edited April 30, 2010 by broc

[torledo]

I don't like stealth taxes either, Gordon Brown made it a black art..... did you notice how often we got taxes today, tax reductions tomorrow or next year in his budgets as chancellor?

 

Having said that; you could argue that most taxes are unfair, there will always be someone who loses out while others don't. VAT is a particularly unfair tax as it is the same rate regardless of your financial circumstances.... someone on job seekers allowance pays the same VAT rate as a multi-millionaire.

 

Income tax is unfair, as people on PAYE cannot avoid paying it but self-employed & very wealthy people can employ accountants to avoid it....

 

Fuel duty & VAT on fuel is unfair on people who live in rural areas, or the frozen wastes of the north and have to heat their homes for longer during the year...

 

but all those other taxes are a form of tax on behaviour.....VAT is a tax on certain types of consumption for instance. taxes exist primarily to influence behaviour and to affect spending power.

 

A NI increase isn't a tax on any particular behaviour, it's an additional tax on earned income that isn't discriminatory on the types of employment or the location of employment undertaken.....merely the income. which is fine if we're talking about middle or high earners and it being redistributive....but it isn't. It's affecting people who earn as little as 20k a year. and it means less spending power albeit fractionally.

 

cameron had a point last night when he said something like......labour think your rich if you earn 20k and they'll hit you with a tax increase next year rather than do anything about idiotically wasteful spending, that we all know cannot continue to be justified..

[teejay]

Quote from Cameron today about the return of Blair:

Asked about Mr Blair’s involvement in Labour’s campaign, he said: “It’s great to have him back in the country. He’s one of the few people who could actually afford another Labour government.”

[timzim]

Getting back to the OP - the Tories have said they'll keep BSF but channel some of the money into "New Academies" (whatever they are). In other words, we'll all get BSF Lite (Shareware Edn with restricted functioning). They were talking about this last year although I don't know whether they kept it in their manifesto (and don't have the inclination to read it to find out zzzzzz).

[teejay]

Yeah, sorry, back on topic.

What they have said though, which is quite promissing is that they will be severly limiting large government contracts, especially in IT and breaking them down into much smaller contracts if required for specific purposes, not such broad stroke contracts. Hopefully this will mean the end of the managed service centralised IT part of BSF.

[torledo]

Yeah, sorry, back on topic.

What they have said though, which is quite promissing is that they will be severly limiting large government contracts, especially in IT and breaking them down into much smaller contracts if required for specific purposes, not such broad stroke contracts. Hopefully this will mean the end of the managed service centralised IT part of BSF.

 

but doesn't money get to smaller firms via subcontracting by the larger 'winners' of govt. contracts to deliver services. i don't know if it's anywhere near as much as it should be.....but i'm sure it happens to a degree.

[Face-Man]

but doesn't money get to smaller firms via subcontracting by the larger 'winners' of govt. contracts to deliver services. i don't know if it's anywhere near as much as it should be.....but i'm sure it happens to a degree.

 

It does get to smaller firms and I even have two friends who have done some training as subcontractors of a BSF firm but the big companies can always squash the smaller ones and demand lower prices. This is only good for schools if as part of the bid process the large bidder has been made to deliver value in the first place