Buy Now Pay Later for Public Services

The number of times Gordon Brown has invented funding schemes which would make goodies available now to be paid for by our poor cash-strapped children has made me wonder whether he shares my view of the inevitability of collapse of this riotous financial system we are struggling with - and that was before the near-collapse of Northern Rock.

First there was PFI, in order support which you would have to believe that corporations would cheerfully pay for us to have hospitals and schools now, on the cheap, out of the goodness of their hearts. Then there was the International Finance Facility, which funded 'development' in poorer countries along similar lines. The latest is the vaccination scam, that not only leaves debts for future generations but also lines the pockets of the big pharma corporations.

Unison Scotland have produced a report (http://www.unison.org.uk/acrobat/atwhatcostoct07.pdf) detailing the costs of some of these projects and making it clear how horrendously we have been ripped off by a policy that never amounted to more than jam today at the cost of horrendous debts tomorrow.

According to the report, Scottish PFI/PPP contracts could be costing around £2.1 billion more than conventional funding. The NHS in Scotland is now having to pay rent to the companies that built the hospitals of some £2.4bn. ‘UNISON Scotland’s analysis of official figures from 35 schemes found that estimated public sector comparators (PSCs) were 6.4% (median) cheaper than the contractors’ bids. For just these 35 schemes, that means almost £720m is being wasted - nearly enough to pay the whole of the PFI bill for Wishaw General Hospital.’


In 2006 a report by the Centre for International Public Health Policy at Edinburgh Unversity, found that the debt for the NHS will be far greater than the investment provided by PFI schemes: £2.4bn. compared with £602m. No prized for guessing where the difference has gone.

What is the cost of this to the private sector? They usually argue that the vast sums we pay are to underwrite their risks (there’s that word again), although the risk involved in building a hospital for an ageing population for which you have no shortage of demand and a single captive customer can never have been that great can it?

But in fact we are paying for the risk involved in these contracts – to the tune of £3.5bn. for an insurance policy in case anything goes wrong. And of course if anything does go wrong, as in the case of the tube and the nukes, we know who will really end up carrying the can.

The dubious scheme is being expanded countrywide. Mark Hellowell and Alyson Pollock, authors of the report, estimate that the annual cost to the NHS will rise from £107.1 million in 2005/06 to almost £500 million within the next five years. The mystery about how so much extra spending on health has achieved so little appears a mystery no more. Tweet

Flu, what a scorcher!

If the theme of the 21st century economy is 'Where there's risk there's brass' then health scares offer a fine opportunity for profiteering. Forgive my scepticism in failing to react with delight to the recent announcement from Alan Johnson that the government will be buying sufficient stocks of anti-viral Tamiflu to treat 50% of the population, in spite of the fact that last time we faced a similar crisis only 25% of the population were infected.

[really nice cartoon removed due to copyright conflict: hope to resolve this soon!]

What is the cost of such ardent prophylaxis? The 14.6m doses already purchased on our behalf have cost us £200m., so we will soon be sending another sum of the same size to Roche. Doubts have been raised about whether the drug is effective and the proposed solution is--to also buy another similar drug, Relenza, just in case. Back in 1999 then Health Secretary Frank Dobson respected the opinion of Nice that this drug was so ineffective as to be a waste of money. Threats of legal action from Glaxo soon reversed this decision.

I can't help wondering how much of Johnson's enthusiasm is related to his support for big pharma rather than a realistic assessment of how much Tamiflu we are likely to need. His scientific back-up is not of the most credible variety, coming from chief medical officer Liam Donaldson, he who told us all we were risking blindness by daring to watch the eclipse.

According to its manufacturer, Tamiflu lasts only four years, so this could represent a fairly constant stream of cash for Roche so long as our fears are kept topped up by stories of dead swans, a new marker that winter is finally here. There are big profits in our fears. Perhaps we should all get more of a grip on ourselves. This may be a more likely way to reduce our taxes than another round of civil service job cuts. Tweet

The Fat of the Land

More horrifying and frankly bewildering statistics about the increasing number of fat people in our society were fed to us with our cornflakes this morning. My main confusion arises from the fact that 'by 2050 most of us will be "obese"' which my mind automatically substitutes with 'by 2050 most of us will be dead'. Perhaps it's just the time of year?

You may have noticed that I refuse to use the word 'obese' outside protective quotation marks. This is because being fat is something we all understand: it is a normal human condition resulting from a combination of eating too much and not using up enough calories through exercise or thought (yes, I know, but indulge me!). Obesity, on the other hand, is a medical condition for which, down on the pharm, they are busy developing pills they can sell to us at vastly inflated prices creating fat profits to match their fat customers.

While fat may indeed be a feminist issue it is also decidedly a class issue, but not in the direct way we are led to believe. The relationship between over-eating and health has been found to be related to the structure of society under capitalism, rather than a class-related propensity for eating too many chips. In Britain on the Couch Oliver James argued that the competitiveness inherent in a capitalist economy and the hierarchy it generates leads to low serotonin amongst the ‘losers’ in society.

Later research has shown that the levels of serotonin in the brain are, indeed, lower in middle-aged men and women in lower social classes. A relationship has also been identified between lower serotonin and over-eating, as well as smoking and drinking alcohol to excess. In other words it is the unequal distribution of power, and the chemically based depression this creates, that is a central cause of the increase in obesity.

Food is the most basic of all human needs. Capitalism is failing to meet our need for food adequately. The food that is available is often so adulterated and so lacking in basic nutrition that it creates ill-health and cravings for other, more satisfying foods. The connection between food and the locality, the identity that is built through seasonal foods or local cuisines is being destroyed by a global fast-food culture.

More fundamentally still, the distribution of food between the West and the South is so poor that, we sit unhealthily on our sofas, obediently over-eating, while watching our brothers and sisters starve in Africa or North Korea. This is a fundmenteal indictment of capitalism as an economic system: it is failing in the central role of an economy, the efficient distribution of our most basic commodity, food.

Tweet