On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:

On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders

True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order
to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you
mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies
by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown
saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets,
which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption.

tom

--
But in the week its like Urbino under the wise rule of Count Federico,
only with a better football team and the nations most pleb-infested
Waitrose. And shops selling size 12 stilettos. -- Jelb, on Holloway

On Mar 3, 8:32*pm, Tom Anderson wrote:

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 1:24pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45�pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing
was to facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

^^^
Advanced-trolling, even!


When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

Plenty of time to be temperate when you're dead. Right now, you're on usenet.

Fairs.

On 3 Mar, 20:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:
On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders

True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order
to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you
mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies
by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown
saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets,
which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption.

They have found ways of making backhanders legal.

It's not just hiding the borrowing, it's also borrowing much more and
giving much more of it away to companies (from which individuals get
rich) for less work getting done.

On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:00:38AM -0800, MIG wrote:

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders, although not to managers particularly, who are just
employees of the dodgy companies.

While they may facilitate them, the *reason* for doing them is to keep
the costs off the books so they can fulfill their pledge to spend vast
amounts on $popular_thing without having to raise taxes to pay for them,
and without appearing to be on a debt-funded spending spree.

--
David Cantrell | Bourgeois reactionary pig

"Cynical" is a word used by the naive to describe the experienced.
George Hills, in uknot

On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:

On 3 Mar, 20:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:
On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders

True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order
to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you
mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies
by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown
saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets,
which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption.

They have found ways of making backhanders legal.

It's not just hiding the borrowing, it's also borrowing much more and
giving much more of it away to companies (from which individuals get
rich) for less work getting done.

So you *do* think that one of Labour's goals was to channel more money to
the contracting companies? Again, do think their goal was specifically to
enrich individuals, or that whole industry?

And can i ask what makes you think that was the case?

tom

--
.... to build a space elevator, that's got to be hundreds of thousands
of pounds ... -- Mike Froggatt

On 4 Mar, 12:44, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:
On 3 Mar, 20:49, Tom Anderson wrote:
On Wed, 3 Mar 2010, MIG wrote:
On 3 Mar, 13:37, Mizter T wrote:
On Mar 3, 1:24*pm, Mizter T wrote:

On Mar 3, 12:45*pm, "Basil Jet"
wrote:
[snip]
I have a suspicion that the major motive behind minicab licensing was to
facilitate corruption by public service managers. [...]

That's simply nuts, so much so that I have to assume you're simply
trying to provoke, because I can't think that any sane person would
believe that. Advance-trolling, as it were!

When Labour brags about how much they have spent on the NHS, they
know that much of that money is going straight into manager's pockets,
tax-free, all of whom will vote Labour.

The whole affair was a disgrace (though I'm not expertly acquainted on
all the details). But the above comment - that the Labour government/
party approves of NHS funds ending up as backhanders to corrupt
managers - is simply ****ing mental.

And then I always feels a bit harsh after posting something like the
above... problem being is that it's basically what I thought. Perhaps
it could have been expressed in more temperate tones.

I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders

True. Did you mean to suggest that they have been keen to do it *in order
to* facilitate the giving of backhanders? And by 'backhanders', do you
mean money illegally diverted to individuals, rather than, say, subsidies
by another name to the contracting industry? My impression was that Brown
saw PFI as a way to borrow money without it going on the balance sheets,
which made him look better. It's fraud, rather than corruption.

They have found ways of making backhanders legal.

It's not just hiding the borrowing, it's also borrowing much more and
giving much more of it away to companies (from which individuals get
rich) for less work getting done.

So you *do* think that one of Labour's goals was to channel more money to
the contracting companies? Again, do think their goal was specifically to
enrich individuals, or that whole industry?

And can i ask what makes you think that was the case?

I don't think it was me who made any original comments that you are
referring back to.

I should imagine that their main goal at any time is to remain both
funded and elected. They act in ways consistent with keeping happy
all the people who need to be kept happy in order to achieve that. It
doesn't require an explicit conspiracy.

I think that it would be a Good Thing if any company (whether
contracted at the time or not), that was in the business of providing
any kind of service that COULD be contracted in a PFI/PPP type deal,
was prohibited from donating to any political party, and if elected
representatives were prohibited from being employed by any such
company.

On 4 Mar, 11:52, David Cantrell wrote:
On Wed, Mar 03, 2010 at 06:00:38AM -0800, MIG wrote:
I think it's fair to say that New Labour has been particularly keen on
setting up PFI/PPP type systems that will facilitate the giving of
backhanders, although not to managers particularly, who are just
employees of the dodgy companies.

While they may facilitate them, the *reason* for doing them is to keep
the costs off the books so they can fulfill their pledge to spend vast
amounts on $popular_thing without having to raise taxes to pay for them,
and without appearing to be on a debt-funded spending spree.

The only reason why political parties do anything is in order to get
funded and elected. All sorts of little things contribute to a
situation where that's more likely to be achieved.

Plus they may get it wrong anyway, with money not going where they
expect it to and/or not having the desired effect.