Turkey Twizzlers on the school menu for the next 25 years

Just when you thought it was safe for your kids to eat in the school canteen the Guardian reveals how PFI contracts prevent schools from adopting healthier meal options. It appears the profits of big business come before 'parental choice' on this matter. Another insight into how Britain is being turned from into a corporatist state where the views of the electorate mean nothing. Expect all major parties to maintain the conspiracy of silence on this issue.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,3604,1469502,00.html

I think the turkey was described as "30% turkey, 70% 'other'".

for whom the bottom line is everything (sure, they'll feed the children better - but they'll want to invoke the contract rules, to increase their profit).

This is the start of the PFI problems - the infrastructure is owned by the private sector, and they've got the public and government over a barrel. You're right - all 3 big British parties are happy with PFI. Are the Scottish and Welsh nationalists any better, anyone?

At heart all the major parties accept the Thatcherite economic and social model set out in the 1980's. It is the reason why the current election, outside of the question of Iraq, is really a 'faux' campaign. There is no ideological divide. It is purely a question of which party is best qualified to parcel up and sell off public assets. The problem with PFI is that the politicians lack the hard nosed business skills to make it work. Otherwise they would have realised the folly of allowing 25 year contracts with no get out clause. When public need and private profit are combined in this manner you nearly always end up with pork barrel politics. The private corporations who hold the contracts become more and more dependent on the money from the public purse. As a consequence they have an increasing interest in manipulating the political process to maintain the flow of cash. Before long corruption is endemic. The main loser in the taxpayer who winds up paying more for an inferior service. Of course, when the administration of government is in private hands this will present a bit of a problem to parties like the Tories with a tax cutting agenda. They would then only be able to meet their promises by hitting some of their biggest backers. It could make life quite interesting.

explains many of the problems we're having in the states.

by using PFI contracts for capital expenditure the govt. can turn large capital costs into relatively small recurrent costs. Thus instead of borrowing at govt rates, the business borrows at bank rates, does the work, & the govt. pays for the job. It's more expensive in the long run, but it means that the govt. can turn & say look we have kept borrowing to blah, even though it's effectively blah^10 or whatever.

My last organisation (govt. of course) hired a ship for 15 years (winter only), costing £17m over the course of the contract. It's too small to do its job properly & for that money we could have bought a brand new, custom designed, one outright - had it all year round & sold it off for a few million at the end. But it looks better to pay £1.5m a year for rental than £1m a year paying off a debt.

and many of its adherents are just as ideologically motivated as any Marxist.

The government can borrow money on the international money markets at a far lower rate than any company. You only have to look at the differentials in the yields between gilts and corporate bonds to see that HMG is far more credit worthy than most of its PFI contractors. The problem is that these government borrowings are reflected in the PSBR whilst most of the PFI deals are not. The Treasury compounds the problem by its insistence on treating capital investment in the same way as current expenditure. It is a bit like saying that money spent putting a new roof on your house is no better invested that that used buying rounds of drinks for your mates down the pub.

Anyone who has been anywhere near any of these market testing exercises will confirm that the exercise is always rigged. The incumbent public sector management are either forbidden to bid or are placed at a severe handicap by the terms of the tenders. The result has been a host of horrendous contacts the worst of which probably involved the sale of the whole of the Inland Revenue estate to Mapeley , a company that appears dedicated to avoiding all UK taxes. It is impossible to determine the true cost of many of these deals as they are nearly all bounded by commercial confidentiality clauses. As a result the private sector gets its hands on the taxpayers money without any chance for democratic accountability. In truth no one really know the full long term cost of these off balance sheet contracts but some analysts estimate that could escalate alarmingly. Unlike conventional government expenditure the opportunities for cancelling projects or reducing liabilties is severely restricted by the terms of the contracts. Therefore, any deals signed now by Blairs administration will be binding on future governments for decades to come. It is going to make radical reform of public administration and the rectification of abuses very difficult.

http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/articles/standard/june17,04.shtml

http://www.zyen.com/Knowledge/Articles/pfi_&_ppp.htm

Thing is, what do we do about it?

The Skin

One can only dream. :eyes:

PFI is bad, but it's also very complex and as such it's not easy to explain to people. The best advice I can give to people is to read "Captive State" by George Monbiot.

Jamie Oliver had a good month as a crusader and the housewives and mothers favourite..... now as quickly as the papers have built him up it looks like they're getting ready to knock him down.

Apparently people are sick of his preaching..... sigh

I actually know what a "turkey twizzler" is - his school diners program has just hit the airwaves here - I couldn't beleive the sort of crap being dished out. I remember my school diners being bloody horrible but atleast they had recognisable FOOD in them.