The real cost of PPP’s revealed

40 comments on “The real cost of PPP’s revealed ”

• Comments are now closed

1. TightyRighty 1

   9 August 2011 at 5:25 pm

   So your PFI Lawyer or Consultants having jobs created for them by government spending, bad thing or good thing?

   If it’s a bad thing, how about tax lawyers helping their clients through our tiered tax system? and the lost tax receipts for the government as a result of that, and the compliance costs associated with the tiered tax system?

   same problem if you apply the same model and criticisms
   • mickysavage 1.1

     9 August 2011 at 5:30 pm

     Um I thought that any RWNJ teabagger sort would be demanding that lawyers and consultants rorting the system in such an egregious manner had their heads put on spikes.
      
     How can this possibly be a good thing.  Paying way more money in interest to private enterprise when the good old state could do the job much more cheaply.
      
      
   • Lanthanide 1.2

     9 August 2011 at 6:02 pm

     Or, how about the government doesn’t bother with the PPP and uses that extra money to build hospitals or schools instead of pays lawyers?

     The whole point of this is that money being given to the lawyers is a less productive use than spending the money somewhere else. If this were not the case, the government budget would have a line item saying “give money to lawyers” that was deliberately bigger than the education and health system budgets…

     You’ve presented a false dichotomy: It’s not a case of “is it a bad thing for the government to hire lawyers or a good thing”. It’s a case of “is it better to spend money on lawyers or to spend that money on the [xxx] system”.
   • MrSmith 1.3

     9 August 2011 at 7:55 pm

     Not really TightyRighty. Because we don’t have one and already have the other. What your basically saying Tighty is you have crabs already but if you had syphilis as well you would be better off.
   • mik e 1.4

     10 August 2011 at 7:01 pm

     Tighty almighty then you shouldn’t have any thing to complain about if you aren’t paying the full amount .you think you would be happy with your lot.We as a family pay very high taxes probably more than you do by the sound of it, if i need more money i just go out and earn more, i’m quiet happy to pay tax it helps my country, if every body took your attitude we would be like Greece on a slippery slope to the bottom,The country would have to be bailed out!
2. vto 2

   9 August 2011 at 5:25 pm

   The problem is interest, or usury. The sooner the way that money is created is changed the better. The current system is simply a rort. Tell your bank manager (whether you are a government or an individual person).

   End.
   • insider 2.1

     10 August 2011 at 10:07 am

     Just don’t do it while applying for a home loan…
3. queenstfarmer 3

   9 August 2011 at 5:37 pm

   What’s your point? It’s horses for courses on whether a PPP is sensible in the circumstances. The UK is well known for a number of disastrous infrastructure projects, their mega-IT system debacle being a prime example.

   As one D. Cunliffe said: “The project scale must be right and the PPP benefits must outweigh any increase in cost of capital.”

   Sounds about right to me.
   • Lanthanide 3.1

     9 August 2011 at 6:04 pm

     “As one D. Cunliffe said: “The project scale must be right and the PPP benefits must outweigh any increase in cost of capital.”

     Sounds about right to me.”

     Cunliffe is correct. However National don’t care if the benefits don’t outweigh the increased cost of capital, they’ll do it anyway.
     • queenstfarmer 3.1.1

       9 August 2011 at 6:25 pm

       National don’t care if the benefits don’t outweigh the increased cost of capital, they’ll do it anyway.

       What nonsense Lanth. E.g. is every new road project a PPP? No. Some are, e.g. the Waterview Connection, and that was after a lengthy review & report, which Labour supported. Most others aren’t.
       • MrSmith 3.1.1.1

         9 August 2011 at 8:21 pm

         Queenst, your defending privatizing things that are natural monopolies and should be government owned. Next you will be arguing we let private companies build their own roads with state backing, ‘Oh you already are’ and before we know it you will be suggesting we could then sell half the roads back to Mum&Dad investors. 
         • queenstfarmer 3.1.1.1.1

           9 August 2011 at 11:09 pm

           Hmm, no I was talking about PPPs, not privatising natural monopolies, or selling roads. People do like to jump to conclusions around here.
           • Colonial Viper 3.1.1.1.1.1

             10 August 2011 at 9:19 am

             Not every new road is a PPP because some of Joyce’s new roads are so shitty and uneconomic that the private sector is happy to let the tax payer foot the entire bill.

             You really are a moron.
       • mik e 3.1.1.2

         10 August 2011 at 7:05 pm

         Qstf.Yeah right was that Nationals inquiry into building new schools using ppp that cost $6 million over five years to save a very doubtful $800,000
   • dave brown 3.2

     9 August 2011 at 6:06 pm

     About Right is right, another merchant bankster living in Herne Bay bringing a friendly PPP to project near you.
   • mickysavage 3.3

     9 August 2011 at 8:10 pm

     As one D. Cunliffe said: “The project scale must be right and the PPP benefits must outweigh any increase in cost of capital.”

     Perfectly appropriate.  This comment has the benefit of stopping RWNJs saying “Labour is being doctrinaire about this issue” while at the same time ruling out any but the most spectacular project where there are real benefits.

     Do you disagree QSF? 
     • queenstfarmer 3.3.1

       9 August 2011 at 11:07 pm

       I don’t know how you’d define “spectacular”, but I agree that Labour isn’t being doctrinaire on this (that’s why I quoted Cunliffe’s comment). In fact. with the Waterview Connection I think it was Michael Cullen who first put the possibility of a PPP on the table.

       Which is why my original question on this post remains: What’s the author’s point? He’s bizarrely attacking the whole concept as a “dumb idea”. Now that’s doctrinaire.
       • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.1

         9 August 2011 at 11:15 pm

         It loses money for the nation. How much dumber does an idea have to get?
         • queenstfarmer 3.3.1.1.1

           10 August 2011 at 8:58 am

           Perfect example of your blind ideology. You’re attacking a concept, not a specific proposal. It’s like saying “loans lose money”. What type of loan, what purpose, what terms, etc?

           Fortunately, we have smart people on all sides of the political spectrum who actually consider facts instead of ideology.
           • Colonial Viper 3.3.1.1.1.1

             10 August 2011 at 9:11 am

             Yeah, my political economics is ideological. You must be used to ideology though, because the political Right Wing is the most ideological by far.

             And its telling that you think that some ‘specific proposals’ for slavery, some specific proposals for biological warfare, some specific proposals for genocide would be acceptable. You’re an amoral loser.
             • queenstfarmer …

               10 August 2011 at 9:45 am

               It’s telling that your ideology is that only white, blue-eyed babies should be allowed to live.*

               (*You said that right next to where I talked about slavery, biological warfare and genocide)
               • Colonial Viper …

                 10 August 2011 at 9:57 am

                 You heard the ideological concept about “not killing”?

                 Apparently you would like to see the specific proposals around “not killing” before endorsing it.

                 Like I said you are an amoral loser.
                 • queenstfarmer …

                   10 August 2011 at 10:08 am

                   Yes that’s right CV. I support David Cunliffe and Michael Cullen’s views on weighing PPP benefits on roading projects. According to CV logic, we therefore support genocide, slavery and biological warfare.
                   • Jum …

                     10 August 2011 at 3:22 pm

                     Queenstfarmer,

                     Since you support a coalition government that lies, misleads and favours those who don’t need it by giving poorer people’s money to richer people so rich people can buy poor people’s assets and then financially flog poor people further, if they protest, by removing or seriously degrading all socially responsible support systems I cannot believe or trust in anything you say.
       • ghostwhowalksnz 3.3.1.2

         10 August 2011 at 7:20 am

         That proposal , which came out of Transit NZ, was for separate lanes in some areas for paying drivers, didnt make any sense then or now for practical reasons and is no longer in the mix.
       • MrSmith 3.3.1.3

         10 August 2011 at 10:37 am

         I think the author is trying to point out that PPP’s are the thin end of the wedge, a rip off pure and simple, they are great examples of people living beyond their means, buy now pay three time as much later.
          
         PPP’s are the wolf in sheep’s clothing. Now some will argue the private sector can do things cheaper, fine put the building of these things out for contract and employ the private sector to build our roads/prisions, this already happens, but never go into partnership, keep ownership and control always and once finished the state can then oversea the running and maintenance. If the government decides it must build something but can’t afford it, then it should borrow the money, as know-one can borrow money as cheaply as the government, so going into partnership with someone that will most likely have to borrow there own money at a higher rate is a no brainer.
          
         PPP’s are also a way driving wages down and keeping them down, as has happened in private prisons in the UK they pay there staff less, around 20% less than in the public sector prisons, there’s your profit! coming out of the peoples pockets again, also here in NZ we will be seeing these profits from private prisons going off shore.
          
         The right are always trying to sell us something we don’t need, that ends up costing us more in the long run, luckily for us others have tried it and it has mostly been a failure, so why would we even go their.
          
         Also on the prisons: these people are our people and we are responsible for there well-being and we are also responsible for them being in prison, it’s time we owned up to the fact we are failing these people, they are our societies responsibility, so should be in the governments care, not some company from who knows where.
         • Jum 3.3.1.3.1

           10 August 2011 at 3:17 pm

           Mr Smith,

           Totally agree, and the silliest result out of this PPP nonsense is that the government partner either spends more money overseeing every step of the private part of the process or they don’t which means excesses by private business highly probable and rorting of the public purse.
   • mik e 3.4

     10 August 2011 at 8:30 pm

     Funny its the Tories that are dumping them because they are to expensive
4. Jenny Michie 4

   9 August 2011 at 7:20 pm

   Conservative Mayor of London Boris Johnson – after being thoroughly screwed by PPPs said, and I’m paraphrasing slightly; “other countries call them PPPs, here we call it looting”‘
   • mickysavage 4.1

     9 August 2011 at 8:17 pm

     Very, very relevant comment Jenny.
   • Jum 4.2

     9 August 2011 at 9:48 pm

     Jenny, Given what is happening in London at present, with actual looters being arrested for selling items worth a few dollars to a few thousand and the PPP looters stealing millions and being knighted, like they do in New Zealand, makes you wonder about The Wizard of Oz and who is behind the curtain pulling the strings.
5. Jenny Michie 5

   9 August 2011 at 7:29 pm

   Also the basic premise of PPPs is flawed because private consortiams can never borrow money more cheaply than governemnt. The people who benefit most are the lawyers who get to negotiate 30 year contacts.

   The reason PPPs came into favour in the first place was pure accounting smole and mirrors. Formerly PPPs were not counted as a debt on the government’s books. Our very own Len Cook changed all that when he was working in the UK under Blair.

   People also liked PPPs because the contrustruction came in on time but any government contract can achieve the same effect – they just used turn key contracts with a 25% penalty clause for lateness – but it adds to the overall cost of course.
   • RedLogix 5.1

     9 August 2011 at 8:05 pm

     The other flawed form of privatisation are DBO’s (Design, Build, Operate) contracts, usually where some private consortium builds some public infrastructure (eg a sewerage plant) and then makes it’s profit operating the plant for 15-30 years, after which the asset is restored to public ownership.

     The usual downside of course is that the private owner usually finds all sorts of creative ways to minimise maintenance and upgrades, carefully timed to ensure the plant is handed over to the public authority in the most run-down state possible.
6. dave brown 6

   9 August 2011 at 7:44 pm

   I wonder how many Plasma TVs you would get for the average PPP looting.
7. Jum 7

   9 August 2011 at 9:44 pm

   http://canterbury.cyberplace.org.nz/community/CAFCA/publications/Roger/International%20Pressures.pdf

   ( International pressures to privatise
   For Privatisation by Stealth conference 16 March 2008
   Bill Rosenberg )
8. Jum 8

   10 August 2011 at 10:21 am

   http://www.stuff.co.nz/the-press/news/5418866/Council-breaches-law-withholds-draft-city-plan

   3 possibilities for this illegal behaviour by this government:

   1. Gerry Brownlee playing king because he has no one to stop him, and/or
   2. The council intention to sell off Local Government assets which belong to the people of Christchurch, and/or
   3. Allow foreign and/or ex-pat/profit-driven business interests to take control of the city in a public/private partnership which means public cost/private profit as it always has and always will. Fletchers will be fully involved.

   No 3 would certainly require a lot of spin.
9. Afewknowthetruth 9

   10 August 2011 at 10:53 am

   I see that queenstreetfarmer demonstrates his ignorance of fiat money and the role of loans in the creation of money out of thin air.

   Loans [with interest] are simply a component in a complex system of transferring wealth from those do not have it to those who do. And by and large loans are used facilitate the looting and polluting of the planet we live on.

   The propping up of ‘the markets’ that we have recently witnessed permits the looting and polluting by those who already have far too much to continue a little longer, and adds to the environmental debt (overshoot) the next generation will have to contend with.
10. Tom Gould 10

    10 August 2011 at 10:54 am

    This will get no coverage in the local media, even the local financial media. Mind, these are the same kids who told us the world was watching the NZ markets open on Monday morning, and that we are the first markets in the world to open. And the same kids who ‘look through’ the mega-rorts in Christchurch. Gotta be positive, right? Anything less would be unpatriotic, right?
11. randal 11

    10 August 2011 at 11:09 am

    of course PPP’s are going to cost more. How the hell can the capitalists make any moeny if they dont?
12. Jum 12

    10 August 2011 at 7:32 pm

    http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/AK1108/S00272/police-and-air-force-training-exercise-in-auckland.htm

    yeah – John Key needs an escape route when his asset selloff dreams turn to custard for New Zealanders.

• Comments are now closed

• Log in
• Donate
• Contribute post

• Articles RSS