DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 Looks like Labours PFI schools are falling down. Edinburgh schools closed on Monday. Glasgow may follow I hope it gets the same media scrutiny than the bridge did. This will be the same type of PFI that the SNP council in Dundee has embraced with open arms? PFI has been the route of choice for councils of all political colours purely because it reduced the year-to -year capital expenditure and current maintenance expenditure. In the long run it was always going to be the more expensive option but given that councils don't have the money to spend on large building projects then was probably the best option. The issue here might have happened irrespective of how they were financed - even if they had been entirely publicly funded I suspect there would have still been these problems - the number of government building projects that are not-fit-for-purpose is ridiculous. Private sector businesses would not put up with this crap from other private businesses so why does the public sector put up with it? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 9, 2016 Author Share Posted April 9, 2016 This will be the same type of PFI that the SNP council in Dundee has embraced with open arms? PFI has been the route of choice for councils of all political colours purely because it reduced the year-to -year capital expenditure and current maintenance expenditure. In the long run it was always going to be the more expensive option but given that councils don't have the money to spend on large building projects then was probably the best option. The issue here might have happened irrespective of how they were financed - even if they had been entirely publicly funded I suspect there would have still been these problems - the number of government building projects that are not-fit-for-purpose is ridiculous. Private sector businesses would not put up with this crap from other private businesses so why does the public sector put up with it? PFI was never a good option. It was politically expediant and a way to help the private sector rip off the public sector. However I agree with your point about willingness of the public sector to accept shoddy work; don't know how much scope they had over this under PFI all the same. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 (edited) PFI was never a good option. It was politically expediant and a way to help the private sector rip off the public sector. However I agree with your point about willingness of the public sector to accept shoddy work; don't know how much scope they had over this under PFI all the same. I didn't say it was a good option but the best option given the lack of available finance.A lot comes down to how projects are specced - some of the major issues have been caused by there being little or no consultation with the users of facilities. Edited April 9, 2016 by DeeTillEhDeh 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ad Lib Posted April 9, 2016 Share Posted April 9, 2016 This will be the same type of PFI that the SNP council in Dundee has embraced with open arms? PFI has been the route of choice for councils of all political colours purely because it reduced the year-to -year capital expenditure and current maintenance expenditure. In the long run it was always going to be the more expensive option but given that councils don't have the money to spend on large building projects then was probably the best option. The issue here might have happened irrespective of how they were financed - even if they had been entirely publicly funded I suspect there would have still been these problems - the number of government building projects that are not-fit-for-purpose is ridiculous. Private sector businesses would not put up with this crap from other private businesses so why does the public sector put up with it? Well quite. The PFI contracts still ultimately use, give or take, the same architects, the same engineers, the same bricklayers, joiners, electricians and plumbers. It's a question of how thorough the tendering process is on quality and enforcement, and that's a problem driven by lack of finances not the method of tender. If the Scottish Government were more open to local authorities raising a lot more of what they spend, or of assigning far more readily capital budgets for these kinds of infrastructure projects to local councils, they wouldn't be under the same kind of budgetary pressure and could either make fewer sacrifices cutting corners on the terms of a PFI contract or get them built to proper spec without a PFI contract at all. Hating on PFI for its own sake is a distraction. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fide Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Well quite. The PFI contracts still ultimately use, give or take, the same architects, the same engineers, the same bricklayers, joiners, electricians and plumbers. It's a question of how thorough the tendering process is on quality and enforcement, and that's a problem driven by lack of finances not the method of tender. If the Scottish Government were more open to local authorities raising a lot more of what they spend, or of assigning far more readily capital budgets for these kinds of infrastructure projects to local councils, they wouldn't be under the same kind of budgetary pressure and could either make fewer sacrifices cutting corners on the terms of a PFI contract or get them built to proper spec without a PFI contract at all. Hating on PFI for its own sake is a distraction. What do you feel Scottish Labour would say if PFI were all down to the SNP? 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sparky88 Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Iain Dale has just said that the EU referendum is a bigger deal than the Scottish referendum. Just leaving this here for Yessers to get het up. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Connolly Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Iain Dale has just said that the EU referendum is a bigger deal than the Scottish referendum. Just leaving this here for Yessers to get het up. It is. It could end up destroying 2 Unions as opposed to 1. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P45 Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 Iain Dale has just said that the EU referendum is a bigger deal than the Scottish referendum. Just leaving this here for Yessers to get het up. Of course it is. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 (edited) Iain Dale has just said that the EU referendum is a bigger deal than the Scottish referendum. Just leaving this here for Yessers to get het up. Of course it is. One sovereign state of 60 million people leaving the world's largest trading bloc versus a minor part of a sovereign state reasserting its own statehood: pretty obvious that the UK leaving the EU would impact more people and have the potential to cause more of a ruckus than Scotland leaving the UK and repatriating sovereign power to Scotland. In the grand scheme of things, the Scottish-UK relationship is far more of a domestic matter unique to Britain than the UK-EU relationship. ETA: I'm not sure why you'd think "yessers" would get het up about this claim. It was the Scottish regionalists/British Nationalists who seemed to think that a threat to the existing British state would lead to alien invasion, Russian incursions and the global "forces of evil" rubbing their hands in glee. I'd imagine most yessers found the hysterical panic and apocalyptic prophecies of the pro-UK opponents of Scottish statehood to be fairly amusing. Edited April 10, 2016 by Antlion 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 10, 2016 Author Share Posted April 10, 2016 I didn't say it was a good option but the best option given the lack of available finance. A lot comes down to how projects are specced - some of the major issues have been caused by there being little or no consultation with the users of facilities. My point is that the finance was only not available because of the perceived impact on public borrowing. It would have made more sense to finance these projects the way that all other local authority projects are/were financed. Central Government gives funds to Local Authorities for revenue spending, but for capital spending it is simply permission to borrow other than for specific projects - Dundee Waterfront being a typical example. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capybara Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 I assume the BBC will have lots of reports on the PFI failure on GMS tomorrow. And I cannot wait for the Call Kaye programme inviting us to report the problems the school closures are causing. Just as they did with the bridge. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeeTillEhDeh Posted April 10, 2016 Share Posted April 10, 2016 My point is that the finance was only not available because of the perceived impact on public borrowing. It would have made more sense to finance these projects the way that all other local authority projects are/were financed. Central Government gives funds to Local Authorities for revenue spending, but for capital spending it is simply permission to borrow other than for specific projects - Dundee Waterfront being a typical example. I am perfectly aware that is the case but no government is prepared to allow LAs to borrow in any other way other than PFI. It is much more about using accounting to make it look like there is less borrowing than there actually is. In terms of value for money PFI is shit awful. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossbill Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Substandard school buildings are apparently the SNPs fault since they refused to inspect them (despite building inspection being a local authority matter). I think this one can be filed under SNPBad. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlion Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 Substandard school buildings are apparently the SNPs fault since they refused to inspect them (despite building inspection being a local authority matter). I think this one can be filed under SNPBad. The BritNat media is banking on enough of its readership (and viewers) being thick enough to see "failing school buildings", to know that the SNP are currently in charge at Holyrood, and to thus connect the two with absolutely no further critical thinking. Nothing that might harm a party which is needed (if us pesky Jocks are going to just stop questioning North Britain's regional status) by the BritNats can be properly and openly reported. It's not how the media works in pretendy countries whose press is firmly on the side of them remaining pretendy countries. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 11, 2016 Author Share Posted April 11, 2016 Very rarely can a disaster of this magnitude be attributed to one person, but in this case a Mr G Brown deserves a great deal of the credit. That said any building project of this is subject to Building Warrant. I know through personal experience that local authorities are cutting back on Building Control (often laughably called Building Standards) officers and that some of these people simply do not have the necessary expertise to oversee the projects they are responsible for. If these projects were not being properly regulated at the build stage then the local authorities must accept some of the blame. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 If these projects were not being properly regulated at the build stage then the local authorities must accept some of the blame. No the blame lies solely with the construction company. Poor enforcement of standards does not in any way allow companies to ignore the regulations and erect dangerous buildings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 11, 2016 Author Share Posted April 11, 2016 No the blame lies solely with the construction company. Poor enforcement of standards does not in any way allow companies to ignore the regulations and erect dangerous buildings. No the blame lies primarily with the construction companies. However the Local Authorities have a statutory duty to examine and approve the building warrant application and to ensure the building is constructed in line with the warrant. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Crossbill Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 I think it would be better to lay off apportioning blame until there has been a proper enquiry and all the facts are know, just like with the Forth road bridge closure. Oh, wait... 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
strichener Posted April 11, 2016 Share Posted April 11, 2016 No the blame lies primarily with the construction companies. However the Local Authorities have a statutory duty to examine and approve the building warrant application and to ensure the building is constructed in line with the warrant. The guidelines state Completion certificates Building Standards carry out inspections during construction and on completion of building work to determine, where reasonably practicable, that the work has been carried out in accordance with the approved warrant drawings and other documents. The inspections do not involve supervising or controlling work on site. This is a contractual matter and for the arrangements put in place between the client and builder. On completion of the work the owner or responsible person submits a completion certificate, and where appropriate an energy performance certificate, confirming that the work has been completed in accordance with the approved warrant drawings and in compliance with the building regulations. The Council must accept a completion certificate if, after reasonable enquiry, they are satisfied the work or conversion certified complies with the relevant warrant and building regulations. If it does not comply, the completion certificate must be rejected. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Granny Danger Posted April 11, 2016 Author Share Posted April 11, 2016 The guidelines state Early reports suggest that the work wasn't carried out in accordance with the approved drawings. 0 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.