D
Deleted member 49
Guest
The PFI legacy of Blair and Brown.It allowed them to fudge the figures on public borrowing and keep the corporations and the billionaire press onside.But saddled public services with massive debts.
Yes, but Kier and his chums have come up with a 'new' form of PFI, if I read the latest stuff properly. New new Labour, new PFI.Private finance gives a big initial cash boost so that everything looks great for a while, rather than the gradual improvement of consistent adequate funding. Think it's around 2050 when the PFI will actually be paid off.
That adds nothing to the possibility of it happening.
Red hot...with plenty of people here on holiday.With regard to the water companies, they have “woefully inadequate” drought plans. They make record profits, pay record dividends, lose a couple of billion litres a day to leaks, dump sewage, built no new reservoirs since privatisation - because to address any of these issues would eat into profits.
Fiscal credibility drive....sometimes known as more austerity.
https://www.theguardian.com/politic...n-fiscal-credibility-drive#Echobox=1686670405
Yea because more of the same is exactly what we need ?Remember everyone, you can borrow as much as you want for what you want, without any consequences
Remember everyone, you can borrow as much as you want for what you want, without any consequences
No one said that bit. Austerity ideologues never stopped borrowing, they just persuaded people that there was no money for the things they didn't want to spend money on. If you spend money (which, again, as a national government with a fiat currency, you can simply keystroke into existence by the will to spend it) on things that have widespread social and economic benefits, the consequences are mostly positive, whereas if you bung it to your mates from the club and get some dodgy PPE that noone can use, the consequences are entirely bad.you can borrow as much as you want for what you want, without any consequences
No one said that bit. Austerity ideologues never stopped borrowing, they just persuaded people that there was no money for the things they didn't want to spend money on. If you spend money (which, again, as a national government with a fiat currency, you can simply keystroke into existence by the will to spend it) on things that have widespread social and economic benefits, the consequences are mostly positive, whereas if you bung it to your mates from the club and get some dodgy PPE that noone can use, the consequences are entirely bad.
Just for you Tool....the correct answer 😁
View: https://twitter.com/jeremycorbyn/status/1668685833816121358?t=1hxRDMcf8tvd789Hs5Zm4g&s=19