With the established history of such rorts, it should be required thatMost PPPs work well here and overseas, because they are inherently efficient.
a contingency reserve be established in the government books for the
clean-up costs after every PPP.
The reason for using them is also clear - they deliver a return onA lie.
investment to some political donors, and 'corporate friends' . . .
It was no surprise to many that the most successful large projectNonsense.
undertaken by the Key Government was the restoration of SH1 and rail
from Kaikoura north following an earthquake - the need to get it fixed >urgently led to management similar to a Ministry of Works project - >professionals working for the government as the major contractor using >private sector experts and workers as necessary with contract
revisions worked out as the work progressed, and with detailed
solutions being worked out as work progressed, taking into account
actual conditions as they were discovered.
PPPs are known by subcontractors to be less trustworthy than local >contractors, so costs tend to be higher at all levels.Prove it, baseless nonsense.
It would be disappointing if Labour were to continue suchPPPs are efficient, fair and smart for economies like ours.
inefficiencies - generally Labour have better control on borrowing
than National - it must have been galling to National when Bill
English had to acknowledge how well the previous Labour government had >managed our capital position when he was trying to borrow more money
when the Global financial crisis hit shortly after the election when
Key was elected.
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/02/ppps-are-still-rort.html
Left wing bias at its worst. Just rhetoric, no substance.
Most PPPs work well here and overseas, because they are inherently efficient.
With the established history of such rorts, it should be required that
a contingency reserve be established in the government books for the >>clean-up costs after every PPP.
So where is your evidence?A lie.
The reason for using them is also clear - they deliver a return on >>investment to some political donors, and 'corporate friends' . . .
So where is your evidence?Nonsense.
It was no surprise to many that the most successful large project >>undertaken by the Key Government was the restoration of SH1 and rail
from Kaikoura north following an earthquake - the need to get it fixed >>urgently led to management similar to a Ministry of Works project - >>professionals working for the government as the major contractor using >>private sector experts and workers as necessary with contract
revisions worked out as the work progressed, and with detailed
solutions being worked out as work progressed, taking into account
actual conditions as they were discovered.
A number of local contractors did not tender for Transmission GullyProve it, baseless nonsense.
PPPs are known by subcontractors to be less trustworthy than local >>contractors, so costs tend to be higher at all levels.
They are efficient at delivering higher profits to contractingPPPs are efficient, fair and smart for economies like ours.
It would be disappointing if Labour were to continue such
inefficiencies - generally Labour have better control on borrowing
than National - it must have been galling to National when Bill
English had to acknowledge how well the previous Labour government had >>managed our capital position when he was trying to borrow more money
when the Global financial crisis hit shortly after the election when
Key was elected.
On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 23:27:24 -0000 (UTC), Tony
<lizandtony@orcon.net.nz> wrote:
Rich80105 <Rich80105@hotmail.com> wrote: >>>https://norightturn.blogspot.com/2025/02/ppps-are-still-rort.html
Left wing bias at its worst. Just rhetoric, no substance.
Most PPPs work well here and overseas, because they are inherently efficient.
With the established history of such rorts, it should be required that
a contingency reserve be established in the government books for the >>>clean-up costs after every PPP.
From the article above: >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/536920/nzta-settles-high-court-battle-with-transmission-gully-builder
and >https://schoolsweek.co.uk/pfi-disputes-erupt-as-contracts-near-expiry-dates/ >and >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/national/517725/2-billion-bill-to-rescue-courthouses-leaves-officials-considering-ppps
and >https://www.rnz.co.nz/news/political/521556/government-may-consider-using-ppps-to-build-defence-force-infrastructure
No it doesn't work like that. You provide evidence of your statement, otherwise it is a lie.So where is your evidence?A lie.
The reason for using them is also clear - they deliver a return on >>>investment to some political donors, and 'corporate friends' . . .
As above, you show how you are correct.So where is your evidence?Nonsense.
It was no surprise to many that the most successful large project >>>undertaken by the Key Government was the restoration of SH1 and rail
from Kaikoura north following an earthquake - the need to get it fixed >>>urgently led to management similar to a Ministry of Works project - >>>professionals working for the government as the major contractor using >>>private sector experts and workers as necessary with contract
revisions worked out as the work progressed, and with detailed
solutions being worked out as work progressed, taking into account
actual conditions as they were discovered.
Evidence?A number of local contractors did not tender for Transmission GullyProve it, baseless nonsense.
PPPs are known by subcontractors to be less trustworthy than local >>>contractors, so costs tend to be higher at all levels.
work - they were concerned that the structure was likely to end in
court proceedings, with the possibility of losing a contract part way >through. The actual consortium was a shallow structure that had
little behind it; it borrowed at higher rates than the government
could have borrowed - New Zealand paid higher costs so the government
could pretend that they would not have had to step in if anything
major went wrong - the consortium would have walked away.
Nonsense.They are efficient at delivering higher profits to contractingPPPs are efficient, fair and smart for economies like ours.
It would be disappointing if Labour were to continue such
inefficiencies - generally Labour have better control on borrowing
than National - it must have been galling to National when Bill
English had to acknowledge how well the previous Labour government had >>>managed our capital position when he was trying to borrow more money
when the Global financial crisis hit shortly after the election when
Key was elected.
companies, at a higher overall expense to government. They are not
smart for our government.
So where is your evidence for the assertions you have made, Tony?When you provide some evidenc I will consider but not until you do. Your entire post is unsupported innuendo, and political rhetoric.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 546 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 03:39:08 |
| Calls: | 10,387 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 14,061 |
| Messages: | 6,416,777 |