Liberal Democrats for me, although Green Party got the same percentage.

Quite like and agree with that although neither will be getting my vote.

A friend and I at Uni did one of these a few weeks ago and there was essentially one question that swayed it for you. For my friend, it was a question on the EU and because he chose 'leave the EU', his result was UKIP, whereas mine was Green, presumably based on the answer regarding disarming nuclear weapons.

Conservatives.

Let me just say categorically, that that is not going to happen. I have never voted Tory, and don't intend to while David Cameron is in charge.

or maybe you have been indoctrinated from such a young age to vote Labour as the majority of the North West have, that even though they are a party that hold your values true you can't bring yourself to be a free thinking being and instead follow what your parents/peers say

Labour 68%
Lib Dem 55%
UKIP 53%
Sound about right to me. Difficult to choose the 3 most important issues and I suppose that could be the difference between the results but interesting nevertheless.

Read it again then. It wasn't actually to do with PFI.

Like you, I'm no expert. The point about the post was the lack of joined up thinking from Labour when there was a massive opportunity to train up youngsters with a trade while we were investing in new schools and hospitals.

Just to clarify something about PFI and this misconception that it is always better value than public investment. When the figures between the private and public investment are compared, a "notional" amount is added to the public investment figures so that, in nearly all cases, private investment appears cheaper. Time and time again, it has been shown that the original private figures are way too low, and costs overrun requiring more subsidy from the taxpayer.
You only have to look at the subsidies being provided to rail operators which, in real terms, are way over and above anything provided to British Rail. Value for money? Poppycock!

How big is Cameron's forehead?

Shouldn't you have started your post off with "Just to make this up about PFI ...."?

You refer to "time after time" so I challenge you to name two PFI contracts where cost over-runs are given subsidy from tax-payers - in fact I'll settle for one. The basis of PFI contracts is that the private sector carries the risk of cost increases. What your reference to rail operators has to do with PFI is confusing also as they are not PFI contracts.

I guess you just confused people into thinking your rant was to do with PFI by mentioning PFI time and time and time again.

As for your bit about apprenticeships etc then tying into the Hull thread elsewhere what are your thoughts on this? rlhttp://www.thisishullandeastriding.co.uk/education/Building-Schools-Future-create-hundreds-jobs/article-1483077-detail/article.htmlrl

The government are insisting that such commitments are contractual obligations that have to be complied with. Failure to do so can lead to termination of the contract.

Talking of Cameron....What was that manifesto launch today about??....'Power to the People'??...

I never ever thought I'd see an election where the Tories scraped the barrel as much as they are, when it comes to putting forward such laughable populist tripe as actual policy.....We all can see that they are just replaying the Labour '97 campaign, using Cameron as their golden boy, just as Blair was then, but even Blair & co bothered with actual realistic policies and not unworkable rubbish like these clowns have put forward.

'Sack your MP'??....What bo!!ocks!!.......Realistically, how is that one going to work Dave, you numpty??

I really despair that this is the best alternative that this country can come up with in response to a flailing government...Its little wonder the BNP hold such appeal for some....Extreme poicies they may have, but at least its a policy....

Paul, richeastender is referring to all the pre-contract work and negotiations. You are correct that no cost over-runs are suffered by the taxpayer, it is the PFI consortium that is responsible for creating a facility that is available on the date agreed so it can be occupied for use but where rich is correct is that in the pre-contract works the Govt applies a public sector comparator to the Govts own cost for building the facility if they were to do it themselves because a direct build Gov't sponsored building would always be cheaper to create than one by a consortium as the Govt can borrow money at interest rates much lower then any private company and are not required to make a profit - hence they inflate their own price with the PSC to ensure that the consortium bid can be considered better value. The other thing that became apparent to the private sector is that if you bundled a number of PFi schemes together you could go to the banks and renegotiate the repayment terms of these re-bundled assets (some have renegotiated and received as much as £270mill from the banks - money which could have been used to build more hospitals) as the rental payments are effectively guaranteed by the govt should any LEA or PCT default on their repayments despite the fact that this guarantee does not exist as all PFi's are "at risk" to the building provider but this is actually not the case. It's off-balance sheet by being in the private sector which means the £60bill so far committed to PFI repayments is not considered relevant when they raise more money in the markets but it actually it is.

Had a look. It's brilliant - but why wasn't this being done 10 years ago?