theguardian.com/environment/ … e-blockage
YEEEUUUURRRRKK!!! UUURRGGHHHH!!!
Isn’t fat self-lubricating? I’m sure if they’d just let a little more water pressure build up, it would flush itself out. But no, they’re going to go in and muck with the natural order as always. Talk about wasteful government spending. 8)
Ok.
With their release of the new PF2 proposals, the UK government is making a dramatic attempt to reduce some of the perceived inefficiencies in the older PFI regime, but in a way that ignores the commercial reality of free market economies and practically guarantees a higher total cost to the tax payer.
I say “perceived” inefficiencies as the previous regime, when it worked, was actually a very effective model which resulted in world-class infrastructure, dramatically improved service levels, and reduced costs over traditional procurement. This is why the same model has been copied the world over. In my experience, the bad press that PFI received was due almost entirely to bad journalism. The few cases of genuinely bad schemes are, sadly, the result of poor implementation by the public sector; something which has not been addressed or safeguarded against in the new regime.
The new model, instead, looks to address simply the political (ie headline grabbing) areas of PPPs, and cost the taxpayer a tidy sum in the process. For example, the introduction of shared efficiency gains (but not pains) with the public sector not only reduces the incentive on the private sector to make those efficiencies, but also results in an attempt by the government to pass operational risk to private companies without giving them full control over the mitigations. The result will of course be increased prices as the contractors apply risk premiums (essentially charging extra to cover the worst case position) to cover this lack of control.
Another example is the forced equity involvement by the government in new schemes, requiring the contractors to share some of their profits with the public sector. This, again, merely serves to increase the cost to the taxpayer, whilst providing no benefits…
DAVE: Lend me $10 till payday.
JOHN: Here’s a tenner. Gimme $12 back on payday.
DAVE: I feel like I need to share in the profit you are making off me.
JOHN: Ok.
DAVE: How about you give me a buck back when I pay you.
JOHN: Sure. So you give me $13.50 on payday, and I’ll give you your share of the profits, $1.
DAVE: $13.50?
JOHN: 50 cent transaction fee.
Or is that not what you meant?
Well, you’re near to the subject in spirit, but what I really want to know is how you will fail to address government spending on waste. Also, what is your policy on failed word-play?
Through a carefully cultivated cocktail of apathy and inactivity.
Pigfender Publishing does not have an official policy on failed word-play, although it does feature heavily in the corporate values and mission statement.
Jeeeezzz!!There’re some sick feckers aboard this ship 
tch!tch!
Seagal fans will know that there is, of course, a film called “Marked For Death”. But that didn’t help with the whole alphabetical thing I was going for.
You know Kevin put a screenwriting mode in scrivener don’t you?
Or maybe it needs to be put into klingon for you to recognize it?
I refuse to use any application which doesn’t include a Sci Fi translation(*).
*- Except Word, Excel, Powerpoint, Internet Explorer, Qt Creator, Mozilla Thunderbird, and iTunes.
Also GIMP2, Skype, Notepad, and Snipping Tool. But that really is it.