Being well aware of the havoc that social engineering has wrought to our society - and that is not to disregard the cost either - courtesy of The Albion Alliance Presents it seems that we now have another 'engineering' project that will no doubt cause us similar grief, namely the Financial Engineering which is being proposed by TEN-T.
By availing oneself of the offer to discover more about Financial Engineering we find, for example, that:
- The private sector must be encouraged to play a greater role.......
- The adoption of common standards of assessment and project preparation across the EU (Emphasis mine)
This can only mean yet more central control from Brussels; more red tape; more bureaucracy; and hence yet more costs to be borne, eventually, by the taxpayer.
Bearing in mind the mess in which the last government managed to enmesh themselves by getting involved in public-private investment schemes, the outlook is not good.........
6 comments:
From Wikipedia:
"The American Engineers' Council for Professional Development (ECPD, the predecessor of ABET)[1] has defined "engineering" as:
[T]he creative application of scientific principles to design or develop structures, machines, apparatus, or manufacturing processes, or works utilizing them singly or in combination; or to construct or operate the same with full cognizance of their design; or to forecast their behavior under specific operating conditions; all as respects an intended function, economics of operation and safety to life and property."
Applying genuinely well understood principles to produce something which performs to a defined standard for a defined cost. It assumes someone taking responsibility if it goes wrong.
I can't see the term 'engineering' is applicable here. It's more meddling to achieve a political objective with the architects of the scheme not having much clue what they are doing and unlikely to face any consequences. They use the term 'engineering' as it sounds better than 'tampering' and helps kid the unwary that they know what they are doing.
c: Last para most definitely agreed - as in 'social'......!
It was the previous conservative government that started the PFI scheme, labour just carried the scheme on....same terms as started.
A: That as may be, but if two people are in a queue and the first does something stupid, how stupid is nummber two if he repeats a mistake he sees made......
This government is having the same problems.
Contracts have been signed. Breaching those contracts costs money. The amount would depend upon the terms in the contract.
The case of the Nimrod is a classic, where the contract was cancelled and the amount paid was greater than the amount needed to complete the contract.....and the aircraft, nearly completed, were destroyed.
The hands of newly elected government tied by the previous government....
J: And no one parliament can bind the hands of another........
Post a Comment