Now here\’s an interesting @richardjmurphy question

But the new that ratings agencies – the discredited Standard & Poors, Moody’s and Fitch – are to rate the success of hospitals in future really says all that needs to be known about The Tories’ objectives: the plan is very clearly to prepare businesses for sale.

Ignore clinical quality, care or any other factor that impacts health outcomes; just look to the financial bottom line.

The proposal actually seems to be asking someone to make sure that the finances of these newly independent hospitals are sound.

But that\’s not the interesting question.

We know that Ritchie insists that it would be much much better if everyone invested their pension money in bonds which are used to build things for local authorities, the NHS, social housing providers and the like.

So, err, who is going to rate those bonds?

18 thoughts on “Now here\’s an interesting @richardjmurphy question”

  1. Of course five years after we invest in these bonds, we will be accused of being “rip-off profiteers” who are “draining” money from the NHS that could be used to treat patients, and the bond terms will be changed.

  2. the trouble is that ratings were used by box-tickers in Local Government to absolve them of any responsibility for shovelling so much money into Icelandic Banks.

    If the WGCE were made personally liable for investment advice in these “green infrastructure quantitative easing bonds”, then the world would be sorted

  3. Hmm, so the ‘logic’ goes:
    Euro-leaders criticise the ratings agencies, and Tories don’t. Therefore ratings agencies are capitalist swine. Capitalist swine + healthcare = NHS privatisation.

  4. diogenes, the govt is also to blame for guaranteeing deposits of British savers. Normally if a bank is offering 8% interest, you’d think they were either very risky or running a Ponzi and you’d be mad to invest. But if the govt guarantees your deposit, then you’d be mad not to.

  5. Yup, as a taxpayer, why should I know whether the NHS is giving value for money. I only pay the fucking bills.

    And not content with having a percentage of my hard earned, he wants a percentage of my pension invested in something that is ‘rated’ his way as well, for which I’ll no doubt suffer his opprobrium if it by some accident turns a profit in the future.


  6. After a lot of Ritchie watching, I have come to the conclusion that he just doesn’t do details. Irrespective of the topic, it’s just emotionally charged broad brush strokes that please his paymasters.

  7. It’s no wonder that two-thirds of the €500 notes are stuffed under beds all over Euro-land. RM has the same skills and predilection for enforcement that is found throughout Europe as it suffers under the jackboot of socialist economic ignorance.

  8. So the discredited Richard Murphy refers to
    the discredited Standard & Poors, Moody’s and Fitch.

    They must be pretty good then.

    Alan Douglas

  9. So Much For Subtlety

    G Orwell – “I think Richie Murphy would rate them.
    (They will all be AAA btw).”

    I have been suggesting this idea for a while now. If the Left does not like the job that S&Ps et al do, they ought to open their own ratings agency. Ritchie and that Rumpy-pumpy EU guy can be partners. If they think these bonds are valuable they can say so. We shall have to wait to see if anyone takes their opinions seriously.

    After all, a ratings agency has nothing to offer but the value of its ratings – its ability to make a guess on future values. So if S&P is doing such a poor job Ritchie and Rumpy ought to be able to clean up.

    Needless to say, I am sure they would agree to be bound voluntarily by the conditions they insist should apply to S&Ps – jail terms for getting it wrong for instance.

  10. Surely the rating will be done by the duopoly of Standard & Poors, Moody’s and Fitch.

    This must be a really subtle joke that I’m abysmally failing to miss?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *