#Tony has npd deal with it

[thousandyearphantombunker]

"we want more mentally ill/disabled characters with ugly symptoms!"

You guys can't handle lapis lazuli tony stark or hank pym! You guys can barely contain your ableism toward the hulk! You guys hate the good doctor for all the wrong reasons! You made fun of his speech patterns and his meltdowns wtf like I'm sorry the only autistic person you've supported have been the perfect non annoying type- but too many of especially as children are like shawn- they talk weird and don't understand what's so offensive about what they said

You guys keep saying Lapis should just be rewritten into a villain! I don't like how the show handled her but like your really gonna make the girl who shows ugly bad symptoms of ptsd into villain? You guys keep trying to make hank into a villain or rewrite his past- god forbid a character have really sevre ugly symptoms that causes them to make decisions that permanently effect the story but have them still be heroes! God forbid Ironman have npd and be a hero! Let's shame MCU Bruce for his mental illness for being unable to do things because of it! God as soon as a character with a mental illness or developmental disorder or low IQ shows actual symptoms and behaviors (ei: acts like how someone with the disorder in question acts- you know the main part of having a fucking disorder) you get pissy and pile on the shame- yeah jen you do control your anger better than bruce- you can also stand better than Charles fucking Xavier! Yeah your smarter than a guy with a low IQ want a cookie?

I'm never gonna be one of those people who tell others to stop writing disabled villains or that writing a character that deals with internalized ableism (disabled people like any group of people can be total prices of shit, and I'm sorry not everyone is content and accepting of their disabilities and some of us take comfort in characters that struggle with being angry because of their problems) but Jesus Christ when a heroic character with ugly symptoms who makes cruel decisions or has 'bratty' or 'immature' moments can we let them stay heroes? Can we let them have a disorder without piling on the shame that we are inferior because we can't do something everyone else can- because that's literally what a disability is! Can they still be heroes?

Do we have to use intellectual/developmental disability as a shorthand for anti intellectualism and being a gross annoying psycho

Do we have to make every heroic character with aspd or npd into a villain or change their disability to autism because it's 'more sympathetic' as if lack of empathy isn't a goddamned symptom of many disabilities like PTSD and autism- You can headcanon tony as having autism- that's cool by me but it's clear some of y'all do it to make him a 'woobie'- which is infantalizing btw but also it's because some of y'all are ableist toward people with npd

I hate that the only acceptable 'ugly symptoms' are things like forgetting to shower or brush your teeth every once in a while or being a bit irritable and not stuff like burning bridges or having explosive outburts

Also it's not a mental illness unless it effects your behavior?

Im not saying that we should just accept and allow mentally ill/intellectually disabled people/characters to get away with bad behaviors unpunished but can they stay heroes? Can they still be respectable?

"we want more characters with ugly symptoms"

Yet

You people get offended by low functioning autistic people existing! You get mad at them for being incontinent or nonverbal/making strange noises or having scary anger issues or IQs low enough that they will never be independent you get mad at them for not showing the 'appropriate' reactions to things they may or may not fully understand- you hate people with sensory issues -

You don't want mentally ill/disabled characters- you want characters with the labels of mental disabilities without any of the ugly strange or off putting behaviors mental/intellectual deficiencies/issues cause- you want a romantic tragedy!

You shame people with Alzheimer's for FORGETTING stuff and LOSING SKILLS 'yeah yeah you are superior to your uncle because you can remember stuff but can you remember it's a fucking disease! you people are cruel

Yes you are technically superior to disabled people because you are capable of things we aren't and you have better character and you can control yourself but guess what? Those people you hate for being incapable of that shit have disabilities it's not our faults! It's the fucking definition of a disability! Like yeah it is a skill issue and we're just 'worse' than nondisabled with us lacking self control and having lower IQs and bad mental processing- yeah it is because we're lacking in some capacity that's like the definition disability you can't say you support disabled people and then turn around and say shit about how your better than these people because you can talk or take care of yourself

Hank Pym and Lapis Lazuli should get called out for acting like assholes and pieces of shit but I am firmly against turning one of few heroic characters who actively struggle with psychosis and delusions into another 'psycho' villain and I'm firmly against saying Lapis is just as bad as Jasper and using symptoms of her PTSD as signs she should be rewritten into a villain- I want them to be held accountable not turned into straight up evil guys or dear god washing out their problematic qualities until they're palatable/relatable to a neurotypical audience to make them good guys when they are already good guys!

Can people who do bad things because of their disabilities still be heroes? Can they be allowed to get better or do they have to accept that having ugly symptoms means being the bad guy? Fucking hell this is why I side eye anyone who acts like mental illness/developmental/cognitive or mental etc disabilities are more destigmatized than physical disabilities (trust me they aren't)

Tldr let characters with ugly symptoms be heroes let your characters with mental disorders act like they have a disorder and let said characters be heroes inspite of it!

[thousandyearphantombunker]

https://dailycollegian.com/2023/12/there-is-no-bad-person-disease/#:~:text=There's%20no%20health%20condition%20that,do%20with%20your%20overall%20morality (not sure the links I've given are functional but y'all can copy them into your search bar anyway)

People with NPD are capable of apologizing for past behavior, admitting to weakness, sacrificing themselves, showing others respect and decency, they can have morals and some of them (not all) are capable of empathy which btw is not required in order to do something heroic- also it's possible to act heroic for selfish reasons. they have fragile egos and often can have complexes (like ya know a guilt complex that makes them an overly self sacrificing martyrs) I'm sorry tony being a good person/attempting to be better doesn't negate him from having the 'evil' cluster B personality disorder. Tony's self importance doesn't manifest as being cruel or outwardly selfish it manifests in his guilt complex and playing hero. His belief that he is special fuels his guilt further. He's a perfectionist.

"I expect more of myself than everyone else. I have to be perfect or I'm useless." - a diagnosed narcissist

He is cold and dismissive and he can brag a lot. He's a functional narcissist so he's not gonna freak out when criticized. It's almost like narcissistic people are people and are complex and aren't so solely just a bunch of negative symptoms and traits of their disorder. He's also got several disorders that are comorbid with NPD such as substance abuse disorder and he has an avoidant attachment style- perhaps to protect his own ego and cope with childhood trauma. He used to exploit others heavily and is kind of a toxic boss. He was rejected, and neglected by his father and praised for intelligence so much as a child and had to deal with a lot trauma before getting kidnapped by terrorists. All of the traumas he faced are common in people with npd

tony displays: arrogance, haughty behaviors, and attitudes. a grandiose sense of self-importance. a lack of empathy or an unwillingness to identify with the needs of others and behavior that is exploitative and takes advantage of others to achieve their own ends. It doesn't manifest as outright cruelty like I said his grandiose sense of importance actually motivates him as a hero and makes his ego weaker though he's functioning so he can still take a blow

I am mainly going based off the comics and I'm aware that the MCU tones him down quite a bit but he still displays some of these traits.

I remember back then when autism was also just a lost of negative traits/symptoms a school counselor would point to 'an autistic person have no empathy and are completely rigid and black and white in their worldview, they will break down over dumb things are violent etc' being autistic when I was kid didn't mean you were a kid with a disability it meant you were a brat and a burnout. It meant you were unhygienic and aggressive and RIGID- which according to way too many people meant robot control freak rather than seeking comfort in things like routine and lacking the skills/intellectual capacity needed to function outside of them or they have panic attacks when taken out their routine and ya know aren't being manipulative and are having involuntary emotional responses- and I would hear autism parents complain about their kids and i would hear adults raised by autistic people talk about the scars they had been left with and they deserved to vent because yeah it can be traumatic and stressful and they are victims but it became something ugly toward me. People with cluster B personality disorders have it way worse than I ever did (dear god they get criminalized) but I relate for a reason. I like characters like Tony because they have traits associated with stigmatized disorders and shows those traits in action vs how we envision them when hear about the disorder- when you hear self important you automatically assume it means selfish and don't realize how complex and different that trait can look across the board and we get to see that they are complex and capable and even good people. I know not everyone has to agree with the headcanon and I understand why many of Tony's fans get mad at this headcanon but you don't have the best knowledge of NPD I'm guessing. People hear traits like entitled and interested in success and power and automatically think of the worst case scenario- megalomania and taking whatever they want no matter the cost and don't see how those traits can manifest in a variety of ways and not all them are destructive. Your statement apply to some not all narcissists. I don't know if you have trauma and if you do I'm sorry if this reads as cold or mean but I really hate when people talk about personality disorders like this. Npd can manifest in a variety of ways

"everyone is different" yeah including freaking narcissists that wasn't a gotcha. Your statement was legitimately ableist

everyone who says that tony is a narcissist has probably never met a narcissist but as someone who lived with one for Fifteen Fucking Years I can tell u that he isn't even close to one

[uncloseted]

do you think tony was written to have npd ?

No. I think he's written to be a totally normal guy who has too much privilege and has never really been told "no" or had to deal with other people's boundaries. Plus, I think pathologizing Tony is so much less interesting than viewing him as a completely normal human being who feels compelled to do what he does.

[sophiehunteroctopussyblog]

"Gatorfisch, You are wrong about Cumberbatch, but in a different way than you would expect. Here is what I know about him from personal experience. For one thing, he is not a weakling who is allowing other people to run his life. He is a very strong-willed, shrewd, and CALCULATING man. Everything in his life, almost every decision he has made, has been part of a plan that he put into place a few days after Sherlock debuted in 2010 and he realized that he would finally get what he always wanted, to be a BIG STAR! I think he had a plan in place before that, but nothing stuck until Sherlock. Once the first three episodes had aired and his phone started ringing at all hours of the day, he never looked back. He was not going to be a semi-broke actor like his parents, begging for work and scrimping between jobs, he wanted to call the shots and be the guy in demand. He loved being called the internet’s boyfriend, and he loved trying on different personas to stay popular. Silly and goofy worked very well with the fans, but studious and intellectual worked with the media that he needed to win over for good publicity. He was coached in both. Remember, this is the guy who didn’t do well on his exams and all of sudden he’s talking about literature and works of art? Sure, Benny. He put his giant foot in his giant mouth in an interview and someone coached him on yet another persona, the humble guy offering a sincere apology for his faux pas. It is all an act for the public eye, everything is viewed as another opportunity to add to the bank account. He is ambitious, and he is working very hard not to look like it. England’s finest actor, indeed!

You think he was used and damaged by HW, but no, that was a willing partnership and HW taught him a lot. I won’t get into his breakup from OP because I don’t know the details, but I can tell you without a doubt that he chose Ms. Hunter and she is doing okay in the job she was hired for. Yes, hired. She and others audtioned, and she was chosen because she ticked all the boxes. Brunette, because blonde is threatening to female fans; an English woman with English blood and just a little bit of pedigree; enough work in the industry to understand his career, but not good enough to get in his way, conflict with his plans, or take any spotlight away from him, and it didn’t hurt that she is a little lazy and lacks any motivation or ambition for real work. She’s happy to do her silly little projects once a year because she’s a complete nobody without him. Most of all, she was ready and willing to have children. Yes, those kids are all real, I’ve seen Kit with my own eyes. I know you will have a hard time believing that, but they are real. Their combined genetic material which she carried. Possibly by insemination, which you can do easily when both are fertile. Maybe they both closed their eyes and did the deed for queen and country!

Those pregnancies and the timing of the announcements are all decided by Cumberbatch, to the best of his ability, for maximum exposure. He is in complete control of that marriage, and she has no choice but to follow his instructions and do what he says because that is what she signed on the dotted line for. Both of them got the kids they wanted, she gets to live in a nice big house in a tony part of London, and when they decide to end it all, she will be set for life, like a proper English society lady having tea with her friends every afternoon. But the end won’t come soon, that would be bad for his career. He has to be “caught” taking the kids to school and then act upset about it. Don’t be surprised if it’s a ten year deal, like Cruise-Kidman.

I don’t know who your sources are. I suspect they know similar things about Cumberbatch and they have decided to undermine him in some way for it. There was no drug addiction or rehab, but its a nice dirty story. Too bad it didn’t stick. There is no child trafficking, Russian Mafia, mystery illnesses, NPD, or manipulation by HW, Disney, UTA, Marvel or anyone else. It is all just Cumberbatch and his very intense desire for fame, wealth, and a proper genteel amount power. He has a tight circle willing to help him in his quest. Look at all the yes-men, they aren’t hurting him, they are all along for the ride.

Maybe it’s because he doesn’t want to be in his parents’ shadow, because his father once said that he was a great actor and he felt pressure to live up to it, but I think its mainly just his own big ego and what he wants in his own selfish little world. More and more people are starting to see this side of him. It’s Hollywood, everyone is ambitious, and he is successful so people will work with him, but don’t be surprised if he never wins any major awards. They will give him some nominations, to keep the public interested because he has a large, loyal fanbase, but never the trophy, because he thinks he is too good to pay his dues to the voting networks. I know you aren’t really one of his fangirls, so this won’t be upsetting to you, but I know some of your followers are really crazy about him. You can be more objective, so watch everything Cumberbatch does for the rest of the year and ask yourself how does this benefit him? Ignore Ms Hunter and everyone else in the picture, just ask yourself why HE would do it. You’ll begin to see what I mean. I know this is very long, but you can post the whole thing. It will be very eye opening for all those fangirls that secretly read your blog. PA in LA"

I think there is some kind of truth in this ...

[saltygardenerlove]

Johnson's hospital building, “seed money”, and how PFI never went away

This week’s Queens Speech formally outlined the planned construction of “40 new NHS hospitals”. Boris Johnson, in his introduction to the speech, told us he was “proud to be the midwife to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation”. It’s naked electioneering, of course. But there are other reasons to be concerned about what Johnson is actually delivering.

The death of PFI has been greatly exaggerated The last time we heard such grandiose promises for the NHS was in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to victory promising new hospitals and reduced waiting times – and to do so without increasing the UK public debt. It sounded too good to be true, and Pretty F*cking Inevitably, it was.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up in 1991 under John Major & Norman Lamont - with a young David Cameron as his adviser. From transport and prisons, New Labour quickly expanded it into schools, NHS hospitals, housing, defence, and other key parts of the public sector, aided by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)’s ‘Building Better Partnerships’ Commission and backed by the City of London, already warmed to Blair’s New Labour project via the infamous ‘prawn cocktail offensive’. What we got as a result was an enormously expensive ‘buy now, pay later’ credit card for building public infrastructure.

Writing in the Guardian, Antony Barnett observed the “high-profile project on the future of Public Private Partnerships was funded by KPMG, Serco, Norwich Union, Nomura & British Telecom (BT)".

So, given the ongoing costly disaster of PFI – highlighted in the recent “Under the Knife” film – not to mention recent high profile PFI failures including Carillion & Interserve – the obvious question is how the next generation of new hospitals promised by Johnson and Hancock should be funded.

Boris Johnson previously compared PFI to “looting” and Sajid Javid’s predecessor - Philip Hammond promised to scrap “PFI”.

But in fact, Hammond said he remained committed to Public Private Partnerships (for all intents and purposes, PPP is the same thing as PFI). And according to NHS campaigners, local NHS “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” on which current moves are based, were filled with holes in capital budgets and vague mentions of “third party finance”.

After some fact-checking of Johnson’s new hospital claims by Jon Ashworth on the Labour front bench, the Prime Minister later clarified: initially £2.7bn would be made available for six trusts to start building work, and "seed funding" for a further 34 hospitals would be "forthcoming".

Essentially, to deliver on their promises, the Tories have four options:

Come up with a genuinely new financial model for financing public infrastructure, or Hike public borrowing to fund capital works and/or increase taxation to pay for it Continue the subterfuge of George Osborne (and indeed, the SNP) in coming up for a new acronym for PFI (think PF2, NPD, PPP) - smearing lipstick on the PFI pig. Allow hedge funds & private equity firms to finance NHS hospitals. It seems likely Johnson and Javid will plump for (3) and (4).

The role of ‘hedge funds’ Back in 2017, Health campaigners labelled a plan to borrow up to £10bn from hedge funds “desperate” while Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said it was “shocking” NHS leaders were in negotiations with hedge fund bosses.

As the head of NHS Providers Chris Hopson told the FT, questions remain about how the government was going to fund its largesse, and the extent to which there is genuinely new money on the table. “We would want the government to be really clear about where the money for a capital injection is coming from,” Hopson commented.

Despite public declarations of the end of austerity, the era of Tory penny pinching still rumbles on in the NHS. Austerity cuts have meant that NHS hospitals have for several years been forced to transfer their capital budgets (meant for long term investment) into revenue spending on day to day staff costs & delivering services in order to stay afloat.

But the signals are worrying. Jim Mackey, head of the NHS regulator “NHS Improvement” has said: “interest rates are currently at a record low, making it a good time for the NHS to use private cash to help boost funding for infrastructure projects” – despite the fact public finance is always a cheaper and safer alternative.

And the latest variant, hedge funds bankrolling a new generation of NHS hospitals, is perhaps even more worrying than the old version of PFI.

If we think about the cost of borrowing, we should bear in mind that hedge funds are typically much smaller organisations than banks which funded PFI schemes, with lower credit ratings, demanding even higher interest rates and fees for investment.

As New York Times Dealbook explain: “Hedge funds are sophisticated entities prone to using creative lending structures, and they are not afraid of taking risk. Hedge funds are willing to lend when other aren’t — a valuable service, to be sure. But hedge funds expect higher returns. The desire to take risk and earn higher returns has led to complaints that hedge funds take advantage of companies and charge exorbitant interest rates”.

The Mirror reported on the fact 12 of the 21 largest Tory political donors are from UK hedge funds, raising serious questions as to why high cost, high risk hedge fund finance is being promoted in the NHS?

Byline Times revealed that between 10 May and 23 July 2019, Boris Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of this, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

So could it be that ‘hedgies’ are having an oversized role in influencing views and shaping policy at the very top of the Tory party? And that some of the effects of this are already visible?

Hedge funds have already begun moving into providing care homes, Gill Plimmer reported for the FT last month. US hedge fund H2 Capital took over Four Seasons (the UK’s 2nd largest care home provider), in a £400m deal, after fears local authorities would need to step in. The justification – as also made explicit in NHS investments by Cheyne Capital, a £15bn hedge fund – has been to tackle so-called "bed-blocking”, in other words, bed shortages.

And even as questions swirl about how future hospital provision will be funded, let’s not lose sight of the related question – which I will cover in a forthcoming article – of how the existing PFI mess should be addressed.

[bertrhert]

Johnson's hospital building, “seed money”, and how PFI never went away

This week’s Queens Speech formally outlined the planned construction of “40 new NHS hospitals”. Boris Johnson, in his introduction to the speech, told us he was “proud to be the midwife to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation”. It’s naked electioneering, of course. But there are other reasons to be concerned about what Johnson is actually delivering.

The death of PFI has been greatly exaggerated The last time we heard such grandiose promises for the NHS was in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to victory promising new hospitals and reduced waiting times – and to do so without increasing the UK public debt. It sounded too good to be true, and Pretty F*cking Inevitably, it was.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up in 1991 under John Major & Norman Lamont - with a young David Cameron as his adviser. From transport and prisons, New Labour quickly expanded it into schools, NHS hospitals, housing, defence, and other key parts of the public sector, aided by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)’s ‘Building Better Partnerships’ Commission and backed by the City of London, already warmed to Blair’s New Labour project via the infamous ‘prawn cocktail offensive’. What we got as a result was an enormously expensive ‘buy now, pay later’ credit card for building public infrastructure.

Writing in the Guardian, Antony Barnett observed the “high-profile project on the future of Public Private Partnerships was funded by KPMG, Serco, Norwich Union, Nomura & British Telecom (BT)".

So, given the ongoing costly disaster of PFI – highlighted in the recent “Under the Knife” film – not to mention recent high profile PFI failures including Carillion & Interserve – the obvious question is how the next generation of new hospitals promised by Johnson and Hancock should be funded.

Boris Johnson previously compared PFI to “looting” and Sajid Javid’s predecessor - Philip Hammond promised to scrap “PFI”.

But in fact, Hammond said he remained committed to Public Private Partnerships (for all intents and purposes, PPP is the same thing as PFI). And according to NHS campaigners, local NHS “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” on which current moves are based, were filled with holes in capital budgets and vague mentions of “third party finance”.

After some fact-checking of Johnson’s new hospital claims by Jon Ashworth on the Labour front bench, the Prime Minister later clarified: initially £2.7bn would be made available for six trusts to start building work, and "seed funding" for a further 34 hospitals would be "forthcoming".

Essentially, to deliver on their promises, the Tories have four options:

Come up with a genuinely new financial model for financing public infrastructure, or Hike public borrowing to fund capital works and/or increase taxation to pay for it Continue the subterfuge of George Osborne (and indeed, the SNP) in coming up for a new acronym for PFI (think PF2, NPD, PPP) - smearing lipstick on the PFI pig. Allow hedge funds & private equity firms to finance NHS hospitals. It seems likely Johnson and Javid will plump for (3) and (4).

The role of ‘hedge funds’ Back in 2017, Health campaigners labelled a plan to borrow up to £10bn from hedge funds “desperate” while Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said it was “shocking” NHS leaders were in negotiations with hedge fund bosses.

As the head of NHS Providers Chris Hopson told the FT, questions remain about how the government was going to fund its largesse, and the extent to which there is genuinely new money on the table. “We would want the government to be really clear about where the money for a capital injection is coming from,” Hopson commented.

Despite public declarations of the end of austerity, the era of Tory penny pinching still rumbles on in the NHS. Austerity cuts have meant that NHS hospitals have for several years been forced to transfer their capital budgets (meant for long term investment) into revenue spending on day to day staff costs & delivering services in order to stay afloat.

But the signals are worrying. Jim Mackey, head of the NHS regulator “NHS Improvement” has said: “interest rates are currently at a record low, making it a good time for the NHS to use private cash to help boost funding for infrastructure projects” – despite the fact public finance is always a cheaper and safer alternative.

And the latest variant, hedge funds bankrolling a new generation of NHS hospitals, is perhaps even more worrying than the old version of PFI.

If we think about the cost of borrowing, we should bear in mind that hedge funds are typically much smaller organisations than banks which funded PFI schemes, with lower credit ratings, demanding even higher interest rates and fees for investment.

As New York Times Dealbook explain: “Hedge funds are sophisticated entities prone to using creative lending structures, and they are not afraid of taking risk. Hedge funds are willing to lend when other aren’t — a valuable service, to be sure. But hedge funds expect higher returns. The desire to take risk and earn higher returns has led to complaints that hedge funds take advantage of companies and charge exorbitant interest rates”.

The Mirror reported on the fact 12 of the 21 largest Tory political donors are from UK hedge funds, raising serious questions as to why high cost, high risk hedge fund finance is being promoted in the NHS?

Byline Times revealed that between 10 May and 23 July 2019, Boris Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of this, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

So could it be that ‘hedgies’ are having an oversized role in influencing views and shaping policy at the very top of the Tory party? And that some of the effects of this are already visible?

Hedge funds have already begun moving into providing care homes, Gill Plimmer reported for the FT last month. US hedge fund H2 Capital took over Four Seasons (the UK’s 2nd largest care home provider), in a £400m deal, after fears local authorities would need to step in. The justification – as also made explicit in NHS investments by Cheyne Capital, a £15bn hedge fund – has been to tackle so-called "bed-blocking”, in other words, bed shortages.

And even as questions swirl about how future hospital provision will be funded, let’s not lose sight of the related question – which I will cover in a forthcoming article – of how the existing PFI mess should be addressed.

[craigmyersfinance]

Johnson's hospital building, “seed money”, and how PFI never went away

This week’s Queens Speech formally outlined the planned construction of “40 new NHS hospitals”. Boris Johnson, in his introduction to the speech, told us he was “proud to be the midwife to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation”. It’s naked electioneering, of course. But there are other reasons to be concerned about what Johnson is actually delivering.

The death of PFI has been greatly exaggerated The last time we heard such grandiose promises for the NHS was in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to victory promising new hospitals and reduced waiting times – and to do so without increasing the UK public debt. It sounded too good to be true, and Pretty F*cking Inevitably, it was.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up in 1991 under John Major & Norman Lamont - with a young David Cameron as his adviser. From transport and prisons, New Labour quickly expanded it into schools, NHS hospitals, housing, defence, and other key parts of the public sector, aided by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)’s ‘Building Better Partnerships’ Commission and backed by the City of London, already warmed to Blair’s New Labour project via the infamous ‘prawn cocktail offensive’. What we got as a result was an enormously expensive ‘buy now, pay later’ credit card for building public infrastructure.

Writing in the Guardian, Antony Barnett observed the “high-profile project on the future of Public Private Partnerships was funded by KPMG, Serco, Norwich Union, Nomura & British Telecom (BT)".

So, given the ongoing costly disaster of PFI – highlighted in the recent “Under the Knife” film – not to mention recent high profile PFI failures including Carillion & Interserve – the obvious question is how the next generation of new hospitals promised by Johnson and Hancock should be funded.

Boris Johnson previously compared PFI to “looting” and Sajid Javid’s predecessor - Philip Hammond promised to scrap “PFI”.

But in fact, Hammond said he remained committed to Public Private Partnerships (for all intents and purposes, PPP is the same thing as PFI). And according to NHS campaigners, local NHS “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” on which current moves are based, were filled with holes in capital budgets and vague mentions of “third party finance”.

After some fact-checking of Johnson’s new hospital claims by Jon Ashworth on the Labour front bench, the Prime Minister later clarified: initially £2.7bn would be made available for six trusts to start building work, and "seed funding" for a further 34 hospitals would be "forthcoming".

Essentially, to deliver on their promises, the Tories have four options:

Come up with a genuinely new financial model for financing public infrastructure, or Hike public borrowing to fund capital works and/or increase taxation to pay for it Continue the subterfuge of George Osborne (and indeed, the SNP) in coming up for a new acronym for PFI (think PF2, NPD, PPP) - smearing lipstick on the PFI pig. Allow hedge funds & private equity firms to finance NHS hospitals. It seems likely Johnson and Javid will plump for (3) and (4).

The role of ‘hedge funds’ Back in 2017, Health campaigners labelled a plan to borrow up to £10bn from hedge funds “desperate” while Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said it was “shocking” NHS leaders were in negotiations with hedge fund bosses.

As the head of NHS Providers Chris Hopson told the FT, questions remain about how the government was going to fund its largesse, and the extent to which there is genuinely new money on the table. “We would want the government to be really clear about where the money for a capital injection is coming from,” Hopson commented.

Despite public declarations of the end of austerity, the era of Tory penny pinching still rumbles on in the NHS. Austerity cuts have meant that NHS hospitals have for several years been forced to transfer their capital budgets (meant for long term investment) into revenue spending on day to day staff costs & delivering services in order to stay afloat.

But the signals are worrying. Jim Mackey, head of the NHS regulator “NHS Improvement” has said: “interest rates are currently at a record low, making it a good time for the NHS to use private cash to help boost funding for infrastructure projects” – despite the fact public finance is always a cheaper and safer alternative.

And the latest variant, hedge funds bankrolling a new generation of NHS hospitals, is perhaps even more worrying than the old version of PFI.

If we think about the cost of borrowing, we should bear in mind that hedge funds are typically much smaller organisations than banks which funded PFI schemes, with lower credit ratings, demanding even higher interest rates and fees for investment.

As New York Times Dealbook explain: “Hedge funds are sophisticated entities prone to using creative lending structures, and they are not afraid of taking risk. Hedge funds are willing to lend when other aren’t — a valuable service, to be sure. But hedge funds expect higher returns. The desire to take risk and earn higher returns has led to complaints that hedge funds take advantage of companies and charge exorbitant interest rates”.

The Mirror reported on the fact 12 of the 21 largest Tory political donors are from UK hedge funds, raising serious questions as to why high cost, high risk hedge fund finance is being promoted in the NHS?

Byline Times revealed that between 10 May and 23 July 2019, Boris Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of this, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

So could it be that ‘hedgies’ are having an oversized role in influencing views and shaping policy at the very top of the Tory party? And that some of the effects of this are already visible?

Hedge funds have already begun moving into providing care homes, Gill Plimmer reported for the FT last month. US hedge fund H2 Capital took over Four Seasons (the UK’s 2nd largest care home provider), in a £400m deal, after fears local authorities would need to step in. The justification – as also made explicit in NHS investments by Cheyne Capital, a £15bn hedge fund – has been to tackle so-called "bed-blocking”, in other words, bed shortages.

And even as questions swirl about how future hospital provision will be funded, let’s not lose sight of the related question – which I will cover in a forthcoming article – of how the existing PFI mess should be addressed.

[dreamilykawaiibasement]

Johnson's hospital building, “seed money”, and how PFI never went away

This week’s Queens Speech formally outlined the planned construction of “40 new NHS hospitals”. Boris Johnson, in his introduction to the speech, told us he was “proud to be the midwife to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation”. It’s naked electioneering, of course. But there are other reasons to be concerned about what Johnson is actually delivering.

The death of PFI has been greatly exaggerated The last time we heard such grandiose promises for the NHS was in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to victory promising new hospitals and reduced waiting times – and to do so without increasing the UK public debt. It sounded too good to be true, and Pretty F*cking Inevitably, it was.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up in 1991 under John Major & Norman Lamont - with a young David Cameron as his adviser. From transport and prisons, New Labour quickly expanded it into schools, NHS hospitals, housing, defence, and other key parts of the public sector, aided by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)’s ‘Building Better Partnerships’ Commission and backed by the City of London, already warmed to Blair’s New Labour project via the infamous ‘prawn cocktail offensive’. What we got as a result was an enormously expensive ‘buy now, pay later’ credit card for building public infrastructure.

Writing in the Guardian, Antony Barnett observed the “high-profile project on the future of Public Private Partnerships was funded by KPMG, Serco, Norwich Union, Nomura & British Telecom (BT)".

So, given the ongoing costly disaster of PFI – highlighted in the recent “Under the Knife” film – not to mention recent high profile PFI failures including Carillion & Interserve – the obvious question is how the next generation of new hospitals promised by Johnson and Hancock should be funded.

Boris Johnson previously compared PFI to “looting” and Sajid Javid’s predecessor - Philip Hammond promised to scrap “PFI”.

But in fact, Hammond said he remained committed to Public Private Partnerships (for all intents and purposes, PPP is the same thing as PFI). And according to NHS campaigners, local NHS “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” on which current moves are based, were filled with holes in capital budgets and vague mentions of “third party finance”.

After some fact-checking of Johnson’s new hospital claims by Jon Ashworth on the Labour front bench, the Prime Minister later clarified: initially £2.7bn would be made available for six trusts to start building work, and "seed funding" for a further 34 hospitals would be "forthcoming".

Essentially, to deliver on their promises, the Tories have four options:

Come up with a genuinely new financial model for financing public infrastructure, or Hike public borrowing to fund capital works and/or increase taxation to pay for it Continue the subterfuge of George Osborne (and indeed, the SNP) in coming up for a new acronym for PFI (think PF2, NPD, PPP) - smearing lipstick on the PFI pig. Allow hedge funds & private equity firms to finance NHS hospitals. It seems likely Johnson and Javid will plump for (3) and (4).

The role of ‘hedge funds’ Back in 2017, Health campaigners labelled a plan to borrow up to £10bn from hedge funds “desperate” while Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said it was “shocking” NHS leaders were in negotiations with hedge fund bosses.

As the head of NHS Providers Chris Hopson told the FT, questions remain about how the government was going to fund its largesse, and the extent to which there is genuinely new money on the table. “We would want the government to be really clear about where the money for a capital injection is coming from,” Hopson commented.

Despite public declarations of the end of austerity, the era of Tory penny pinching still rumbles on in the NHS. Austerity cuts have meant that NHS hospitals have for several years been forced to transfer their capital budgets (meant for long term investment) into revenue spending on day to day staff costs & delivering services in order to stay afloat.

But the signals are worrying. Jim Mackey, head of the NHS regulator “NHS Improvement” has said: “interest rates are currently at a record low, making it a good time for the NHS to use private cash to help boost funding for infrastructure projects” – despite the fact public finance is always a cheaper and safer alternative.

And the latest variant, hedge funds bankrolling a new generation of NHS hospitals, is perhaps even more worrying than the old version of PFI.

If we think about the cost of borrowing, we should bear in mind that hedge funds are typically much smaller organisations than banks which funded PFI schemes, with lower credit ratings, demanding even higher interest rates and fees for investment.

As New York Times Dealbook explain: “Hedge funds are sophisticated entities prone to using creative lending structures, and they are not afraid of taking risk. Hedge funds are willing to lend when other aren’t — a valuable service, to be sure. But hedge funds expect higher returns. The desire to take risk and earn higher returns has led to complaints that hedge funds take advantage of companies and charge exorbitant interest rates”.

The Mirror reported on the fact 12 of the 21 largest Tory political donors are from UK hedge funds, raising serious questions as to why high cost, high risk hedge fund finance is being promoted in the NHS?

Byline Times revealed that between 10 May and 23 July 2019, Boris Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of this, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

So could it be that ‘hedgies’ are having an oversized role in influencing views and shaping policy at the very top of the Tory party? And that some of the effects of this are already visible?

Hedge funds have already begun moving into providing care homes, Gill Plimmer reported for the FT last month. US hedge fund H2 Capital took over Four Seasons (the UK’s 2nd largest care home provider), in a £400m deal, after fears local authorities would need to step in. The justification – as also made explicit in NHS investments by Cheyne Capital, a £15bn hedge fund – has been to tackle so-called "bed-blocking”, in other words, bed shortages.

And even as questions swirl about how future hospital provision will be funded, let’s not lose sight of the related question – which I will cover in a forthcoming article – of how the existing PFI mess should be addressed.

[brianway23]

Johnson's hospital building, “seed money”, and how PFI never went away

This week’s Queens Speech formally outlined the planned construction of “40 new NHS hospitals”. Boris Johnson, in his introduction to the speech, told us he was “proud to be the midwife to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation”. It’s naked electioneering, of course. But there are other reasons to be concerned about what Johnson is actually delivering.

The death of PFI has been greatly exaggerated The last time we heard such grandiose promises for the NHS was in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to victory promising new hospitals and reduced waiting times – and to do so without increasing the UK public debt. It sounded too good to be true, and Pretty F*cking Inevitably, it was.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up in 1991 under John Major & Norman Lamont - with a young David Cameron as his adviser. From transport and prisons, New Labour quickly expanded it into schools, NHS hospitals, housing, defence, and other key parts of the public sector, aided by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)’s ‘Building Better Partnerships’ Commission and backed by the City of London, already warmed to Blair’s New Labour project via the infamous ‘prawn cocktail offensive’. What we got as a result was an enormously expensive ‘buy now, pay later’ credit card for building public infrastructure.

Writing in the Guardian, Antony Barnett observed the “high-profile project on the future of Public Private Partnerships was funded by KPMG, Serco, Norwich Union, Nomura & British Telecom (BT)".

So, given the ongoing costly disaster of PFI – highlighted in the recent “Under the Knife” film – not to mention recent high profile PFI failures including Carillion & Interserve – the obvious question is how the next generation of new hospitals promised by Johnson and Hancock should be funded.

Boris Johnson previously compared PFI to “looting” and Sajid Javid’s predecessor - Philip Hammond promised to scrap “PFI”.

But in fact, Hammond said he remained committed to Public Private Partnerships (for all intents and purposes, PPP is the same thing as PFI). And according to NHS campaigners, local NHS “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” on which current moves are based, were filled with holes in capital budgets and vague mentions of “third party finance”.

After some fact-checking of Johnson’s new hospital claims by Jon Ashworth on the Labour front bench, the Prime Minister later clarified: initially £2.7bn would be made available for six trusts to start building work, and "seed funding" for a further 34 hospitals would be "forthcoming".

Essentially, to deliver on their promises, the Tories have four options:

Come up with a genuinely new financial model for financing public infrastructure, or Hike public borrowing to fund capital works and/or increase taxation to pay for it Continue the subterfuge of George Osborne (and indeed, the SNP) in coming up for a new acronym for PFI (think PF2, NPD, PPP) - smearing lipstick on the PFI pig. Allow hedge funds & private equity firms to finance NHS hospitals. It seems likely Johnson and Javid will plump for (3) and (4).

The role of ‘hedge funds’ Back in 2017, Health campaigners labelled a plan to borrow up to £10bn from hedge funds “desperate” while Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said it was “shocking” NHS leaders were in negotiations with hedge fund bosses.

As the head of NHS Providers Chris Hopson told the FT, questions remain about how the government was going to fund its largesse, and the extent to which there is genuinely new money on the table. “We would want the government to be really clear about where the money for a capital injection is coming from,” Hopson commented.

Despite public declarations of the end of austerity, the era of Tory penny pinching still rumbles on in the NHS. Austerity cuts have meant that NHS hospitals have for several years been forced to transfer their capital budgets (meant for long term investment) into revenue spending on day to day staff costs & delivering services in order to stay afloat.

But the signals are worrying. Jim Mackey, head of the NHS regulator “NHS Improvement” has said: “interest rates are currently at a record low, making it a good time for the NHS to use private cash to help boost funding for infrastructure projects” – despite the fact public finance is always a cheaper and safer alternative.

And the latest variant, hedge funds bankrolling a new generation of NHS hospitals, is perhaps even more worrying than the old version of PFI.

If we think about the cost of borrowing, we should bear in mind that hedge funds are typically much smaller organisations than banks which funded PFI schemes, with lower credit ratings, demanding even higher interest rates and fees for investment.

As New York Times Dealbook explain: “Hedge funds are sophisticated entities prone to using creative lending structures, and they are not afraid of taking risk. Hedge funds are willing to lend when other aren’t — a valuable service, to be sure. But hedge funds expect higher returns. The desire to take risk and earn higher returns has led to complaints that hedge funds take advantage of companies and charge exorbitant interest rates”.

The Mirror reported on the fact 12 of the 21 largest Tory political donors are from UK hedge funds, raising serious questions as to why high cost, high risk hedge fund finance is being promoted in the NHS?

Byline Times revealed that between 10 May and 23 July 2019, Boris Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of this, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

So could it be that ‘hedgies’ are having an oversized role in influencing views and shaping policy at the very top of the Tory party? And that some of the effects of this are already visible?

Hedge funds have already begun moving into providing care homes, Gill Plimmer reported for the FT last month. US hedge fund H2 Capital took over Four Seasons (the UK’s 2nd largest care home provider), in a £400m deal, after fears local authorities would need to step in. The justification – as also made explicit in NHS investments by Cheyne Capital, a £15bn hedge fund – has been to tackle so-called "bed-blocking”, in other words, bed shortages.

And even as questions swirl about how future hospital provision will be funded, let’s not lose sight of the related question – which I will cover in a forthcoming article – of how the existing PFI mess should be addressed.

[movieblogreview]

Johnson's hospital building, “seed money”, and how PFI never went away

This week’s Queens Speech formally outlined the planned construction of “40 new NHS hospitals”. Boris Johnson, in his introduction to the speech, told us he was “proud to be the midwife to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation”. It’s naked electioneering, of course. But there are other reasons to be concerned about what Johnson is actually delivering.

The death of PFI has been greatly exaggerated The last time we heard such grandiose promises for the NHS was in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to victory promising new hospitals and reduced waiting times – and to do so without increasing the UK public debt. It sounded too good to be true, and Pretty F*cking Inevitably, it was.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up in 1991 under John Major & Norman Lamont - with a young David Cameron as his adviser. From transport and prisons, New Labour quickly expanded it into schools, NHS hospitals, housing, defence, and other key parts of the public sector, aided by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)’s ‘Building Better Partnerships’ Commission and backed by the City of London, already warmed to Blair’s New Labour project via the infamous ‘prawn cocktail offensive’. What we got as a result was an enormously expensive ‘buy now, pay later’ credit card for building public infrastructure.

Writing in the Guardian, Antony Barnett observed the “high-profile project on the future of Public Private Partnerships was funded by KPMG, Serco, Norwich Union, Nomura & British Telecom (BT)".

So, given the ongoing costly disaster of PFI – highlighted in the recent “Under the Knife” film – not to mention recent high profile PFI failures including Carillion & Interserve – the obvious question is how the next generation of new hospitals promised by Johnson and Hancock should be funded.

Boris Johnson previously compared PFI to “looting” and Sajid Javid’s predecessor - Philip Hammond promised to scrap “PFI”.

But in fact, Hammond said he remained committed to Public Private Partnerships (for all intents and purposes, PPP is the same thing as PFI). And according to NHS campaigners, local NHS “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” on which current moves are based, were filled with holes in capital budgets and vague mentions of “third party finance”.

After some fact-checking of Johnson’s new hospital claims by Jon Ashworth on the Labour front bench, the Prime Minister later clarified: initially £2.7bn would be made available for six trusts to start building work, and "seed funding" for a further 34 hospitals would be "forthcoming".

Essentially, to deliver on their promises, the Tories have four options:

Come up with a genuinely new financial model for financing public infrastructure, or Hike public borrowing to fund capital works and/or increase taxation to pay for it Continue the subterfuge of George Osborne (and indeed, the SNP) in coming up for a new acronym for PFI (think PF2, NPD, PPP) - smearing lipstick on the PFI pig. Allow hedge funds & private equity firms to finance NHS hospitals. It seems likely Johnson and Javid will plump for (3) and (4).

The role of ‘hedge funds’ Back in 2017, Health campaigners labelled a plan to borrow up to £10bn from hedge funds “desperate” while Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said it was “shocking” NHS leaders were in negotiations with hedge fund bosses.

As the head of NHS Providers Chris Hopson told the FT, questions remain about how the government was going to fund its largesse, and the extent to which there is genuinely new money on the table. “We would want the government to be really clear about where the money for a capital injection is coming from,” Hopson commented.

Despite public declarations of the end of austerity, the era of Tory penny pinching still rumbles on in the NHS. Austerity cuts have meant that NHS hospitals have for several years been forced to transfer their capital budgets (meant for long term investment) into revenue spending on day to day staff costs & delivering services in order to stay afloat.

But the signals are worrying. Jim Mackey, head of the NHS regulator “NHS Improvement” has said: “interest rates are currently at a record low, making it a good time for the NHS to use private cash to help boost funding for infrastructure projects” – despite the fact public finance is always a cheaper and safer alternative.

And the latest variant, hedge funds bankrolling a new generation of NHS hospitals, is perhaps even more worrying than the old version of PFI.

If we think about the cost of borrowing, we should bear in mind that hedge funds are typically much smaller organisations than banks which funded PFI schemes, with lower credit ratings, demanding even higher interest rates and fees for investment.

As New York Times Dealbook explain: “Hedge funds are sophisticated entities prone to using creative lending structures, and they are not afraid of taking risk. Hedge funds are willing to lend when other aren’t — a valuable service, to be sure. But hedge funds expect higher returns. The desire to take risk and earn higher returns has led to complaints that hedge funds take advantage of companies and charge exorbitant interest rates”.

The Mirror reported on the fact 12 of the 21 largest Tory political donors are from UK hedge funds, raising serious questions as to why high cost, high risk hedge fund finance is being promoted in the NHS?

Byline Times revealed that between 10 May and 23 July 2019, Boris Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of this, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

So could it be that ‘hedgies’ are having an oversized role in influencing views and shaping policy at the very top of the Tory party? And that some of the effects of this are already visible?

Hedge funds have already begun moving into providing care homes, Gill Plimmer reported for the FT last month. US hedge fund H2 Capital took over Four Seasons (the UK’s 2nd largest care home provider), in a £400m deal, after fears local authorities would need to step in. The justification – as also made explicit in NHS investments by Cheyne Capital, a £15bn hedge fund – has been to tackle so-called "bed-blocking”, in other words, bed shortages.

And even as questions swirl about how future hospital provision will be funded, let’s not lose sight of the related question – which I will cover in a forthcoming article – of how the existing PFI mess should be addressed.

[yourfinancestu]

Johnson's hospital building, “seed money”, and how PFI never went away

This week’s Queens Speech formally outlined the planned construction of “40 new NHS hospitals”. Boris Johnson, in his introduction to the speech, told us he was “proud to be the midwife to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation”. It’s naked electioneering, of course. But there are other reasons to be concerned about what Johnson is actually delivering.

The death of PFI has been greatly exaggerated The last time we heard such grandiose promises for the NHS was in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to victory promising new hospitals and reduced waiting times – and to do so without increasing the UK public debt. It sounded too good to be true, and Pretty F*cking Inevitably, it was.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up in 1991 under John Major & Norman Lamont - with a young David Cameron as his adviser. From transport and prisons, New Labour quickly expanded it into schools, NHS hospitals, housing, defence, and other key parts of the public sector, aided by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)’s ‘Building Better Partnerships’ Commission and backed by the City of London, already warmed to Blair’s New Labour project via the infamous ‘prawn cocktail offensive’. What we got as a result was an enormously expensive ‘buy now, pay later’ credit card for building public infrastructure.

Writing in the Guardian, Antony Barnett observed the “high-profile project on the future of Public Private Partnerships was funded by KPMG, Serco, Norwich Union, Nomura & British Telecom (BT)".

So, given the ongoing costly disaster of PFI – highlighted in the recent “Under the Knife” film – not to mention recent high profile PFI failures including Carillion & Interserve – the obvious question is how the next generation of new hospitals promised by Johnson and Hancock should be funded.

Boris Johnson previously compared PFI to “looting” and Sajid Javid’s predecessor - Philip Hammond promised to scrap “PFI”.

But in fact, Hammond said he remained committed to Public Private Partnerships (for all intents and purposes, PPP is the same thing as PFI). And according to NHS campaigners, local NHS “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” on which current moves are based, were filled with holes in capital budgets and vague mentions of “third party finance”.

After some fact-checking of Johnson’s new hospital claims by Jon Ashworth on the Labour front bench, the Prime Minister later clarified: initially £2.7bn would be made available for six trusts to start building work, and "seed funding" for a further 34 hospitals would be "forthcoming".

Essentially, to deliver on their promises, the Tories have four options:

Come up with a genuinely new financial model for financing public infrastructure, or Hike public borrowing to fund capital works and/or increase taxation to pay for it Continue the subterfuge of George Osborne (and indeed, the SNP) in coming up for a new acronym for PFI (think PF2, NPD, PPP) - smearing lipstick on the PFI pig. Allow hedge funds & private equity firms to finance NHS hospitals. It seems likely Johnson and Javid will plump for (3) and (4).

The role of ‘hedge funds’ Back in 2017, Health campaigners labelled a plan to borrow up to £10bn from hedge funds “desperate” while Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said it was “shocking” NHS leaders were in negotiations with hedge fund bosses.

As the head of NHS Providers Chris Hopson told the FT, questions remain about how the government was going to fund its largesse, and the extent to which there is genuinely new money on the table. “We would want the government to be really clear about where the money for a capital injection is coming from,” Hopson commented.

Despite public declarations of the end of austerity, the era of Tory penny pinching still rumbles on in the NHS. Austerity cuts have meant that NHS hospitals have for several years been forced to transfer their capital budgets (meant for long term investment) into revenue spending on day to day staff costs & delivering services in order to stay afloat.

But the signals are worrying. Jim Mackey, head of the NHS regulator “NHS Improvement” has said: “interest rates are currently at a record low, making it a good time for the NHS to use private cash to help boost funding for infrastructure projects” – despite the fact public finance is always a cheaper and safer alternative.

And the latest variant, hedge funds bankrolling a new generation of NHS hospitals, is perhaps even more worrying than the old version of PFI.

If we think about the cost of borrowing, we should bear in mind that hedge funds are typically much smaller organisations than banks which funded PFI schemes, with lower credit ratings, demanding even higher interest rates and fees for investment.

As New York Times Dealbook explain: “Hedge funds are sophisticated entities prone to using creative lending structures, and they are not afraid of taking risk. Hedge funds are willing to lend when other aren’t — a valuable service, to be sure. But hedge funds expect higher returns. The desire to take risk and earn higher returns has led to complaints that hedge funds take advantage of companies and charge exorbitant interest rates”.

The Mirror reported on the fact 12 of the 21 largest Tory political donors are from UK hedge funds, raising serious questions as to why high cost, high risk hedge fund finance is being promoted in the NHS?

Byline Times revealed that between 10 May and 23 July 2019, Boris Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of this, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

So could it be that ‘hedgies’ are having an oversized role in influencing views and shaping policy at the very top of the Tory party? And that some of the effects of this are already visible?

Hedge funds have already begun moving into providing care homes, Gill Plimmer reported for the FT last month. US hedge fund H2 Capital took over Four Seasons (the UK’s 2nd largest care home provider), in a £400m deal, after fears local authorities would need to step in. The justification – as also made explicit in NHS investments by Cheyne Capital, a £15bn hedge fund – has been to tackle so-called "bed-blocking”, in other words, bed shortages.

And even as questions swirl about how future hospital provision will be funded, let’s not lose sight of the related question – which I will cover in a forthcoming article – of how the existing PFI mess should be addressed.

[edwardredwould]

Johnson's hospital building, “seed money”, and how PFI never went away

This week’s Queens Speech formally outlined the planned construction of “40 new NHS hospitals”. Boris Johnson, in his introduction to the speech, told us he was “proud to be the midwife to the biggest hospital building programme in a generation”. It’s naked electioneering, of course. But there are other reasons to be concerned about what Johnson is actually delivering.

The death of PFI has been greatly exaggerated The last time we heard such grandiose promises for the NHS was in 1997, when Tony Blair’s New Labour swept to victory promising new hospitals and reduced waiting times – and to do so without increasing the UK public debt. It sounded too good to be true, and Pretty F*cking Inevitably, it was.

The Private Finance Initiative (PFI) was set up in 1991 under John Major & Norman Lamont - with a young David Cameron as his adviser. From transport and prisons, New Labour quickly expanded it into schools, NHS hospitals, housing, defence, and other key parts of the public sector, aided by the Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR)’s ‘Building Better Partnerships’ Commission and backed by the City of London, already warmed to Blair’s New Labour project via the infamous ‘prawn cocktail offensive’. What we got as a result was an enormously expensive ‘buy now, pay later’ credit card for building public infrastructure.

Writing in the Guardian, Antony Barnett observed the “high-profile project on the future of Public Private Partnerships was funded by KPMG, Serco, Norwich Union, Nomura & British Telecom (BT)".

So, given the ongoing costly disaster of PFI – highlighted in the recent “Under the Knife” film – not to mention recent high profile PFI failures including Carillion & Interserve – the obvious question is how the next generation of new hospitals promised by Johnson and Hancock should be funded.

Boris Johnson previously compared PFI to “looting” and Sajid Javid’s predecessor - Philip Hammond promised to scrap “PFI”.

But in fact, Hammond said he remained committed to Public Private Partnerships (for all intents and purposes, PPP is the same thing as PFI). And according to NHS campaigners, local NHS “Sustainability and Transformation Plans” on which current moves are based, were filled with holes in capital budgets and vague mentions of “third party finance”.

After some fact-checking of Johnson’s new hospital claims by Jon Ashworth on the Labour front bench, the Prime Minister later clarified: initially £2.7bn would be made available for six trusts to start building work, and "seed funding" for a further 34 hospitals would be "forthcoming".

Essentially, to deliver on their promises, the Tories have four options:

Come up with a genuinely new financial model for financing public infrastructure, or Hike public borrowing to fund capital works and/or increase taxation to pay for it Continue the subterfuge of George Osborne (and indeed, the SNP) in coming up for a new acronym for PFI (think PF2, NPD, PPP) - smearing lipstick on the PFI pig. Allow hedge funds & private equity firms to finance NHS hospitals. It seems likely Johnson and Javid will plump for (3) and (4).

The role of ‘hedge funds’ Back in 2017, Health campaigners labelled a plan to borrow up to £10bn from hedge funds “desperate” while Shadow Health Secretary Jon Ashworth said it was “shocking” NHS leaders were in negotiations with hedge fund bosses.

As the head of NHS Providers Chris Hopson told the FT, questions remain about how the government was going to fund its largesse, and the extent to which there is genuinely new money on the table. “We would want the government to be really clear about where the money for a capital injection is coming from,” Hopson commented.

Despite public declarations of the end of austerity, the era of Tory penny pinching still rumbles on in the NHS. Austerity cuts have meant that NHS hospitals have for several years been forced to transfer their capital budgets (meant for long term investment) into revenue spending on day to day staff costs & delivering services in order to stay afloat.

But the signals are worrying. Jim Mackey, head of the NHS regulator “NHS Improvement” has said: “interest rates are currently at a record low, making it a good time for the NHS to use private cash to help boost funding for infrastructure projects” – despite the fact public finance is always a cheaper and safer alternative.

And the latest variant, hedge funds bankrolling a new generation of NHS hospitals, is perhaps even more worrying than the old version of PFI.

If we think about the cost of borrowing, we should bear in mind that hedge funds are typically much smaller organisations than banks which funded PFI schemes, with lower credit ratings, demanding even higher interest rates and fees for investment.

As New York Times Dealbook explain: “Hedge funds are sophisticated entities prone to using creative lending structures, and they are not afraid of taking risk. Hedge funds are willing to lend when other aren’t — a valuable service, to be sure. But hedge funds expect higher returns. The desire to take risk and earn higher returns has led to complaints that hedge funds take advantage of companies and charge exorbitant interest rates”.

The Mirror reported on the fact 12 of the 21 largest Tory political donors are from UK hedge funds, raising serious questions as to why high cost, high risk hedge fund finance is being promoted in the NHS?

Byline Times revealed that between 10 May and 23 July 2019, Boris Johnson received £655,500 in donations. Of this, two thirds – £432,500 (65%) – came from hedge funds, City traders or the very wealthy.

So could it be that ‘hedgies’ are having an oversized role in influencing views and shaping policy at the very top of the Tory party? And that some of the effects of this are already visible?

Hedge funds have already begun moving into providing care homes, Gill Plimmer reported for the FT last month. US hedge fund H2 Capital took over Four Seasons (the UK’s 2nd largest care home provider), in a £400m deal, after fears local authorities would need to step in. The justification – as also made explicit in NHS investments by Cheyne Capital, a £15bn hedge fund – has been to tackle so-called "bed-blocking”, in other words, bed shortages.

And even as questions swirl about how future hospital provision will be funded, let’s not lose sight of the related question – which I will cover in a forthcoming article – of how the existing PFI mess should be addressed.

[biofunmy]

Roger Federer, Sneakerhead? – The New York Times

If you run into Roger Federer on your way to board a plane, do not be surprised if he looks you up and down, or mostly down. That’s because Mr. Federer has something of a sneaker fixation.

The Swiss tennis champion is not an “obsessive,” he said (slightly hard to believe about someone who has won 20 Grand Slam trophies), but still he is “always looking at other people’s feet in airports.”

Earlier this month, when Mr. Federer was in London to play in the ATP Finals, he said in an interview that he owns at least 250 pairs of sneakers. Then, pulling on a burnt orange pair with terra cotta laces and distinctive hollow little pods that ran the length of the soles, he acknowledged that that was probably a conservative estimate, given all the shoes he has from past matches.

So, realistically, double? Possibly, he said with a grin.

Mr. Federer, 38, would go on to lose the ATP semifinals, to the eventual winner, Stefanos Tsitsipas, a 21-year-old born the same year Mr. Federer played his first professional tennis game.

Pundits have been predicting Mr. Federer’s retirement for almost a decade. For nearly as long, he has defied their expectations. Lately, however, despite stressing that he is far from finished playing, Mr. Federer has started to talk more openly about what comes next.

That’s where a company called On comes in.

Switzerland, birthplace of both Mr. Federer and On, is often associated with fine chocolate, luxury watches and private bankers. The country “is known for money and for passion but not always for innovation,” said Caspar Coppetti, a founder of On. “It can be quite a conservative place.”

Mr. Federer has become an investor in, as well as a contributing product designer and representative for, the brand, which was started in 2010 in Zurich.

You may not recognize the name immediately (Googling it can be tricky) but you may recognize its cult range of Cloud shoes, which feature an “On” light switch logo, a little Swiss flag and an odd-looking multi-globular cushioned rubber sole. (The patented technology, called CloudTec, gives runners a soft landing but springy takeoff.)

After growing by word of mouth among endurance athletes and Olympians, and in running specialty stores, On is gaining ground as an underdog rival to giants like Nike and Adidas in the performance sports shoe category.

“Fans seem to think of us as an athletes’ insider secret,” said Olivier Bernhard, a duathlon and Ironman champion and one of On’s three founders, over salad at the company’s bustling Zurich headquarters. But in Germany, the Cloud has become the second most-sold sneaker after Nike’s Air Max 270, according to NPD, a research firm; in America, now On’s largest market, increasingly the shoes are a mainstay of gym floors on the East and West coasts.

Fashion figures like J.W. Anderson wear Clouds; so do Hollywood types like Will Smith, John Malkovich and Emma Stone (the company said it does not pay people to wear its products).

When Mr. Bernhard and his co-founders, Mr. Coppetti and David Allemann, considered next steps and bringing on a new partner, their thoughts turned to the most famous Swiss person in the world.

On + Roger = Sneaker Mogul?

“Yes we have chocolate and watches, but Roger is one of the biggest Swiss exports ever and has done wonders for the image of Switzerland abroad,” Mr. Coppetti said.

When most people think of Mr. Federer, widely considered one of the greatest sportsmen of his generation, they probably don’t think of a fashion revolutionary.

Instead, they likely think of his championships, two-decade-long career and huge global fan base.

Still, a close friendship with Anna Wintour, the editor in chief of Vogue, has honed an interest in the fashion world, and Mr. Federer has graced his fair share of Met Gala red carpets, magazine covers and runway front rows.

“I learned to embrace personal style a while ago, both on and off the court,” Mr. Federer said, noting that sneakers were increasingly a part of men’s style.

After a decades-long sponsorship agreement with Nike ended in 2018, Mr. Federer signed an apparel contract with Uniqlo reportedly worth $300 million. He has signed numerous other brand partnerships, including with Rolex, Moët & Chandon, Mercedes-Benz, Rimowa, NetJets and Credit Suisse.

Among the timepieces, luggage, bubbly and luxury conveyances, however, there was an opening in footwear. Mr. Federer had originally met the On founders over dinner two years ago, several years after he had first noticed how many people in Switzerland were wearing their shoes.

“They were impossible to ignore because everyone had them, people on the street, my friends, my wife,” he said. “At first, I thought that they were a little strange to look at, then I realized I actually really liked the design.”

Mr. Federer also has some hometown pride: “We like it when little Swiss guys make a move on the big international stage.”

Mr. Federer started to wear Ons for his sprints training, and has been building a relationship with the brand ever since. Even before anything was signed by him or his longtime agent Tony Godsick, Mr. Federer said, he had been going to the On office every time he was in Zurich to give feedback on product colors and cuts, growth ideas and marketing. (He is building his family a lakeside residence that is about a 25-minute drive away from the headquarters for when he retires from professional tennis.)

Federer-designed products are already in the pipeline for next year, and he will represent the brand publicly, though he also ticked off other responsibilities.

“Brand building and global marketing,” he said. “How to connect with fans across cultures. And I think I can motivate employees from a leadership perspective too, on how to stay humble but dream big.”

Neither Mr. Federer, who is the highest paid tennis player in the world, with a net worth estimated to be around $450 million, nor the On founders, would specify the financial terms of the deal.

“It’s a very meaningful investment both for Roger, and also for On,” Mr. Allemann said.

Sneaker Future

Mr. Federer’s arrival at On comes at an important time in the evolution of both the brand and the 50-year-old global sneaker market, where, historically, so-called performance categories (tennis, running, basketball, cross-training) have driven industry growth.

According to its founders, On has been profitable since 2014. Its sneakers are sold in 55 countries, there are almost 500 employees, and the company has also started producing all day, hiking and trail running footwear, as well as sports apparel.

For the past four years, however, the popularity of performance shoes has been dwindling. In their place are sports lifestyle shoes — sports-inspired or fashion-forward sneakers that are not intended for sports use — which are set to become the largest footwear category in the United States, according to NPD.

Matt Powell, a senior industry adviser on sports for NPD, said that, for now at least, On appears to be bucking that trend.

“Many people are no longer in need of expensive and highly technical sneakers — they just want to look good,” Mr. Powell said. “But there are still tens of millions of people out there who are runners who do want those types of shoes, and increasingly want unique brands that others don’t have.”

On, he said, is catering to that crowd. “But the signature On aesthetic — which is very design forward — has also appealed to tastemakers from the sneaker community,” he said. “It’s pretty clear it wants to be more than a niche running brand.”

It may not rank in the booming sneaker resale market, or feature in the most hyped of sneaker drops, but On’s position at the intersection of fashion, performance and outdoor lifestyles mean it is gaining traction with a casually attired, digitally connected and health-conscious professional class. Which is where Mr. Federer — and possibly much of his fan base — come in.

“Sometimes, as an athlete of a certain age, you can feel like a falling star,” Mr. Federer said. “You can almost feel your image and success fading.”

In the past, he said, he never used to want to dwell on life after tennis. “Now,” he said, “it feels good committing to what will come next.”

Sahred From Source link Fashion and Style

from WordPress http://bit.ly/33gmlhB via IFTTT

[bigyack-com]

Roger Federer, Sneakerhead? - The New York Times

If you run into Roger Federer on your way to board a plane, do not be surprised if he looks you up and down, or mostly down. That’s because Mr. Federer has something of a sneaker fixation. The Swiss tennis champion is not an “obsessive,” he said (slightly hard to believe about someone who has won 20 Grand Slam trophies), but still he is “always looking at other people’s feet in airports.” Earlier this month, when Mr. Federer was in London to play in the ATP Finals, he said in an interview that he owns at least 250 pairs of sneakers. Then, pulling on a burnt orange pair with terra cotta laces and distinctive hollow little pods that ran the length of the soles, he acknowledged that that was probably a conservative estimate, given all the shoes he has from past matches. So, realistically, double? Possibly, he said with a grin. Mr. Federer, 38, would go on to lose the ATP semifinals, to the eventual winner, Stefanos Tsitsipas, a 21-year-old born the same year Mr. Federer played his first professional tennis game. Pundits have been predicting Mr. Federer’s retirement for almost a decade. For nearly as long, he has defied their expectations. Lately, however, despite stressing that he is far from finished playing, Mr. Federer has started to talk more openly about what comes next. That’s where a company called On comes in.Switzerland, birthplace of both Mr. Federer and On, is often associated with fine chocolate, luxury watches and private bankers. The country “is known for money and for passion but not always for innovation,” said Caspar Coppetti, a founder of On. “It can be quite a conservative place.” Mr. Federer has become an investor in, as well as a contributing product designer and representative for, the brand, which was started in 2010 in Zurich. You may not recognize the name immediately (Googling it can be tricky) but you may recognize its cult range of Cloud shoes, which feature an “On” light switch logo, a little Swiss flag and an odd-looking multi-globular cushioned rubber sole. (The patented technology, called CloudTec, gives runners a soft landing but springy takeoff.) After growing by word of mouth among endurance athletes and Olympians, and in running specialty stores, On is gaining ground as an underdog rival to giants like Nike and Adidas in the performance sports shoe category.“Fans seem to think of us as an athletes’ insider secret,” said Olivier Bernhard, a duathlon and Ironman champion and one of On’s three founders, over salad at the company’s bustling Zurich headquarters. But in Germany, the Cloud has become the second most-sold sneaker after Nike’s Air Max 270, according to NPD a research firm; in America, now On’s largest market, increasingly the shoes are a mainstay of gym floors on the East and West coasts. Fashion figures like J.W. Anderson wear Clouds; so do Hollywood types like Will Smith, John Malkovich and Emma Stone (the company said it does not pay people to wear its products). When Mr. Bernhard and his co-founders, Mr. Coppetti and David Allemann, considered next steps and bringing on a new partner, their thoughts turned to the most famous Swiss person in the world.

On + Roger = Sneaker Mogul?

“Yes we have chocolate and watches, but Roger is one of the biggest Swiss exports ever and has done wonders for the image of Switzerland abroad,” Mr. Coppetti said. When most people think of Mr. Federer, widely considered one of the greatest sportsmen of his generation, they probably don’t think of a fashion revolutionary. Instead, they likely think of his championships, two-decade-long career and huge global fan base. Still, a close friendship with Anna Wintour, the editor in chief of Vogue, has honed an interest in the fashion world, and Mr. Federer has graced his fair share of Met Gala red carpets, magazine covers and runway front rows.“I learned to embrace personal style a while ago, both on and off the court,” Mr. Federer said, noting that sneakers were increasingly a part of men’s style. After a decades-long sponsorship agreement with Nike ended in 2018, Mr. Federer signed an apparel contract with Uniqlo reportedly worth $300 million. He has signed numerous other brand partnerships, including with Rolex, Moët & Chandon, Mercedes-Benz, Rimowa, NetJets and Credit Suisse. Among the timepieces, luggage, bubbly and luxury conveyances, however, there was an opening in footwear. Mr. Federer had originally met the On founders over dinner two years ago, several years after he had first noticed how many people in Switzerland were wearing their shoes.“They were impossible to ignore because everyone had them, people on the street, my friends, my wife,” he said. “At first, I thought that they were a little strange to look at, then I realized I actually really liked the design.” Mr. Federer also has some hometown pride: “We like it when little Swiss guys make a move on the big international stage.”Mr. Federer started to wear Ons for his sprints training, and has been building a relationship with the brand ever since. Even before anything was signed by him or his longtime agent Tony Godsick, Mr. Federer said, he had been going to the On office every time he was in Zurich to give feedback on product colors and cuts, growth ideas and marketing. (He is building his family a lakeside residence that is about a 25 minute-drive away from the headquarters for when he retires from professional tennis.) Federer-designed products are already in the pipeline for next year, and he will represent the brand publicly, though he also ticked off other responsibilities.“Brand building and global marketing,” he said. “How to connect with fans across cultures. And I think I can motivate employees from a leadership perspective too, on how to stay humble but dream big.” Neither Mr. Federer, who is the highest paid tennis player in the world, with a net worth estimated to be around $450 million, nor the On founders, would specify the financial terms of the deal.“It’s a very meaningful investment both for Roger, and also for On,” Mr. Allemann said.

Sneaker Future

Mr. Federer’s arrival at On comes at an important time in the evolution of both the brand and the 50-year-old global sneaker market, where, historically, so-called performance categories (tennis, running, basketball, cross-training) have driven industry growth.According to its founders, On has been profitable since 2014 Its sneakers are sold in 55 countries, there are almost 500 employees, and the company has also started producing all day, hiking and trail running footwear, as well as sports apparel.For the past four years, however, the popularity of performance shoes has been dwindling. In their place are sports lifestyle shoes — sports-inspired or fashion-forward sneakers that are not intended for sports use — which are set to become the largest footwear category in the United States, according to NPD. Matt Powell, a senior industry adviser on sports for NPD, said that, for now at least, On appears to be bucking that trend.“Many people are no longer in need of expensive and highly technical sneakers — they just want to look good,” Mr. Powell said. “But there are still tens of millions of people out there who are runners who do want those types of shoes, and increasingly want unique brands that others don’t have.”On, he said, is catering to that crowd. “But the signature On aesthetic — which is very design forward — has also appealed to tastemakers from the sneaker community,” he said. “It’s pretty clear it wants to be more than a niche running brand.”It may not rank in the booming sneaker resale market, or feature in the most hyped of sneaker drops, but On’s position at the intersection of fashion, performance and outdoor lifestyles mean it is gaining traction with a casually attired, digitally connected and health-conscious professional class. Which is where Mr. Federer — and possibly much of his fan base — come in. “Sometimes, as an athlete of a certain age, you can feel like a falling star,” Mr. Federer said. “You can almost feel your image and success fading.”In the past, he said, he never used to want to dwell on life after tennis. “Now,” he said, “it feels good committing to what will come next.” Source link Read the full article

[itsworn]

Mission Accomplished: WWII Vet Gets His Dream 1967 Mustang Restored

On Saturday, March 31, 2018, during a private event in Danville, Indiana, The Finer Details team presented the restored Candyapple Red 1967 Mustang hardtop to 96-year-old World War II veteran Harry Donovan and members of his family. As Mr. Donovan looked on, Jay Webb and David Engle pulled the cover off of the “War Hero Dream Mustang.” The proud yet humble owner stood in total silence taking it all in, then quietly turned his head from side to side in a nod of approval.

Mr. Donovan then slowly made his way toward the driver-side door of the restored ’67 Mustang. He stepped back, opened the door to look inside, then reached up and placed his right hand on the roof as a tear ran down his left cheek. Through the lens of my Nikon, Mr. Donovan’s emotions were clear in the expression on his face and in the look in his eyes. With the help of several talented members from The Finer Details, who decided in the fall of 2016 to do the right thing, the 96-year-old World War II veteran has successfully completed the most memorable rescue mission of his life.

Ninety-five-year-old World War II Veteran Harry Donovan and his 1967 Mustang are seen at the Indianapolis Speedway in September 2016. This is how the Mustang looked when it was recovered in 2016, after it and the restorer went AWOL years before. The engine, transmission, hood, bumpers, and other parts had been removed during captivity.

Back in 2009, Mr. Donovan set out to restore the Mustang for his late wife, Marie. A so-called family friend stepped forward and offered to restore the car. Mr. Donovan trusted the person with the car and gave him the keys and several thousand dollars toward restoring the car. That restorer drove off, and not long after, went off the radar. The ’67 Mustang, along with the restorer, was AWOL.

With help from the state of Indiana, Mr. Donovan’s ’67 Mustang was recovered a few years later as a rolling shell. The hood, engine, transmission, interior parts, and most of the exterior trim had been pulled from the car and likely sold after it was essentially stolen from Mr. Donovan. Not long after on July 7, 2016, Indianapolis Star “Call for Action” reporter Tim Evans made the theft and recovery front-page news, and that’s how the team at The Finer Details found out about it.

The Finer Details in Danville, Indiana, prepare the Donovan 1967 Mustang for mediablasting.

After seeing it on the front page of the Indianapolis Star and reading the disturbing details of how Mr. Donovan had been taken advantage of, the young men from The Finer Details felt compelled to do the right thing, so they came up with a plan to restore the Mustang for him. Their plan called for each to provide their automotive restoration expertise free of charge to Mr. Donovan. They reached out to people within the automotive community for parts and materials to aid the restoration project. Suppliers and private donors answered with an outpouring of support.

One cannot discount the facts: This project would not have happened without the help of many individuals and companies who donated their skilled labor, parts, and materials. The American Legion and Tony Katz from WIBC, a local radio station, stepped up and offered their support with the project. With help from committed people, the Donovan Mustang became a mission for them to see through to completion.

Rust had overtaken the driver-side framerail on the Donovan 1967 Mustang. It was replaced at The Finer Details with a new reproduction part courtesy of National Parts Depot (NPD).

On a chilly Saturday morning in Danville, in the showroom of The Finer Details, a humble and proud ’67 Mustang owner stood at attention, taking in the results. As Mr. Donovan examined his wife’s beloved Mustang, which now looked new again, he quietly said, “This is for Marie.”

In September 2016, Mr. Donovan mentioned he and his late wife, Marie, talked about how they’d regretted not buying a V-8–powered Mustang. The inline six-cylinder was good enough to take their kids and grandkids to the beach, but it lacked the sound and horsepower each of them liked. In the background, taking it all in, were Jay Webb, David Engel, and Justin Bliss from The Finer Details. Mr. Donovan also talked about his favorite country singer, Patsy Cline, and his favorite song, “Marie.”

The Donovan 1967 Mustang receives an application of yellow filler primer followed by a black misted guide coat. This process is used by The Finer Details team to identify surface defects and uniformity of the level surface during the block-sanding process.

During the unveiling of the Mustang, a star-gazed Harry Donovan stood at the driver-side door opening with his right arm resting on the white vinyl roof. Ken Mosier from The Finer Details broke the silence when he declared, “Harry, we have something special for you to hear.” Then Jay Webb, also from The Finer Details, turned on the radio to play Harry Donovan’s all-time favorite song, “Marie,” out of the restored Mustang’s radio. To say this was an emotional experience is an understatement. Speaking for everyone in the showroom at this special moment, we all felt honored to share this once-in-a-lifetime moment with Mr. Donovan and his family. There was also a sense of pride and a sense of accomplishment for The Finer Details Team. The look on Harry Donovan’s face when “Marie” started playing on the radio told them they’d successfully completed their mission.

A few minutes later, the hood was raised and Harry Donovan looked into the engine bay to see a freshly rebuilt 302ci V-8 engine staring up at him.

The Donovan 1967 Mustang receives a Candyapple Red PPG Top-Coat Urethane paint application at The Finer Details in Danville, Indiana. Painting the engine bay the body color is one of their trademarks. After receiving permission from Harry Donovan they put their painted engine bay mark on the ’67 Mustang.

“I want to hear the V-8 engine run,” Mr. Donovan said with eagerness in his voice. He slowly made his way to the driver-side door opening and, with some help, slid into the driver seat and turned to motion for his grandson, Harry “Hobs” Donovan IV, to get into the passenger-side seat. Mr. Donovan then turned the ignition key and the engine started right up. He revved it up a bit and listened to the sweet sound coming from the dual exhaust. Both of his hands went up in approval and there was a look of pleasure on each of their faces as both nodded their heads in approval while taking it all in.

“My grandfather is on cloud nine,” said Hobs. “He’s elated. This man has done so much for his family during his lifetime. We’re so grateful to all the people who made this possible for him. We can’t put into words how much this means to the Donovan family.”

Jay Webb, Scott Dowdy, and Dave Engle (left to right), team members from The Finer Details in Danville, Indiana, join owner Harry Donovan (seated) and his 1967 Mustang at the 2017 World of Wheels show in Indianapolis, Indiana. The car was shown in under-restoration condition during the show.

Plans are underway to have Mr. Donovan and Hobs drive the ’67 Mustang to a private location. It will be the first time in decades that Mr. Donovan has driven the Mustang. Hobs told his grandfather that the last time he recalls riding in the ’67 Mustang was 13 years ago when his grandmother, Marie, took him and her other grandchildren for one of their road trips to the local Dairy Queen for some ice cream.

“We set out on this project with a plan to do the right thing,” said The Finer Details team. “Each of us felt compelled to do our part to make this ’67 Mustang special for Mr. Harry Donovan. We’re proud of our country and we support the military. It’s an honor to give back to World War II veteran Harry Donovan. We learned a great deal about ourselves and the team at The Finer Details from this project.”

Harry Donovan’s restored Candyapple Red ’67 Mustang during our photo shoot in Danville, Indiana, the day before the official unveiling at The Finer Details on March 31.

Dave Engle from The Finer Details might have said it best: “It was nearly two years of hard work,” he said. “We wanted to do the right thing. We’re glad Harry Donovan is here to see his dream car. We want him to have fun, make memories, and enjoy it.”

“Others who have the talent, resources, and drive, should step up and do the right thing,” he continued. “This whole process has been truly amazing”

Harry Donovan is joined by his grandson “Hobs,” family members, and a team of people at The Finer Details in Danville, Indiana, during the unveiling on March 31, 2018. These people and others (who unfortunately could not attend) had a role in the Donovan ’67 Mustang restoration project.

Harry Donovan requested a set of whitewall tires be installed on his 1967 Mustang hardtop. The Finer details also decided to use a set of GT wheels, center caps, and beauty rings on the Mustang to make it unique.

The Donovan ’67 Mustang hardtop was originally equipped with an inline six-cylinder engine. Corey Kennedy stepped up and supplied the 302-cid V-8 engine. Harry Donovan had previously put a V-8 engine on his wish list, and The Finer Details team made it happen. The painted engine bay is a trademark item for The Finer Details.

CJ Pony Parts supplied the entire suspension and brake system for the Donovan ’67 Mustang restoration project.

The entire original rusted floorpan was removed and a new replacement was supplied by NPD. Originally the Donovan ’67 Mustang was factory-built with a single exhaust system. Jason Smith stepped up and supplied a complete dual exhaust system for the car to complement the 302ci V-8 engine.

Jay Webb (seated in the passenger-side seat) readies the radio to Harry Donovan’s all-time favorite song, “Marie” by Patsy Cline. Harry originally purchased the ’67 Mustang in 1969 for his late wife, Marie. She drove it daily for 40 years. Once the song started playing, an emotional Harry Donovan quietly patted the vinyl top on the Mustang and stated, “For Marie.”

Harry Donovan and his grandson Harry IV “Hobs” take in the sweet sound of the V-8–powered ’67 Mustang during the unveiling at The Finer Details in Danville, Indiana. Hobs went on to say later, “My grandfather is on cloud nine.”

The Finer Details Team that performed the restoration work on the Mustang is, from front to rear: Jay Webb, Dave Engle, Justin Bliss, Sean Nuss, and Scott Dowdy.

The post Mission Accomplished: WWII Vet Gets His Dream 1967 Mustang Restored appeared first on Hot Rod Network.

from Hot Rod Network http://www.hotrod.com/articles/mission-accomplished-wwii-vet-gets-dream-1967-mustang-restored/ via IFTTT

[ralphmorgan-blog1]

How Tim Burton fought to make ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’

Boo! It's Christmas.

Image: Shutterstock / Stas Vulkanov

Halloween’s over, and Christmas is right around the corner.

At least that’s how the retail gatekeepers of America’s ever-elongating holiday shopping season now see it.

Ebay and Walmart are already breaking out the tinsel this week with yuletide promotions. Amazon's Black Friday deals are already being teased. Meanwhile, Target has outdone them both by vowing to keep festivities within a respectable window (*at a small number of stores) and then immediately decorating its sales racks with an an odd mix of candy corn and canes days before it was even time to trick-or-treat. 

“There’s simply no reason to wait for Black Friday to find the best prices or top gifts this holiday season when shoppers can start AND finish early with eBay,” Ebay chief marketing officer Suzy Deering said in the site’s holiday deal announcement.

SEE ALSO: Amazon customers can now return things for free at Kohl's or Whole Foods

Groan as they may, customers appear to have adapted to this new normal. 

Once upon a time, Black Friday (the day after Thanksgiving) was meant to kick off the country’s Christmas consumerism frenzy. That notion was rendered quaint years ago as the big-money December holidays crept into Thanksgiving’s turf. Now, they’re elbowing their way past Halloween.

Every year, this forward march is justified by sheaths of market research claiming consumers want to get their shopping out of the way early (Does anyone plan to procrastinate?). And customers have indeed started to front-load their gift purchases in recent years, whether as a result or cause of the early marketing momentum, according to research firm NPD Group. 

Not sure Target really gets the idea about waiting a bit to market Christmas-this came in the mail today. http://pic.twitter.com/Llbx4YBjCX

�� Rosemary Wrenn (@rwcanfield) October 25, 2017

There are plenty of other reasons for the early start beyond the obvious incentive to draw out the blockbuster profit period. A longer season can help avoid the sort of long store lines and shortages that wear consumers down. It also hedges against extreme weather events that can keep people from stores or delivery trucks from houses during the critical last-minute rush.

But there's always a risk of driving customers insane with Christmas carols and ruining the seasonal spirit for everyone.

The phenomenon of Christmas creep is nothing new, of course. It’s been a cultural touchpoint at least since Charlie Brown walked into a department store during a 1974 Easter special to find that the aisles were already decked with wreaths. 

But the migration to online shopping has upped the stakes in recent years and made the final months of the year on which retailers rely most all the more crucial. 

Christmas has been creeping since at least 1974.

Image: Screenshot

Traditional chains are unveiling a slew of creative new ideas meant to keep them competitive with online rivals this year as more consumers than ever are expected to move to the web. Target is offering an e-gift feature in which customers essentially pitch presents to their recipients, who, in turn, can customize the items or exchange them for something entirely different without the costly hassle of a physical return. 

The migration to online shopping has upped the stakes and made the final months of the year all the more crucial. 

Walmart says it will throw more than 20,000 holiday parties at its massive super-stores along with 165,000 product demos meant to give shoppers an experience they can't find on the web. It's also putting its two-day shipping and store pick-up options front and center for the first holiday season since it seriously stepped up its game against Amazon.

"We're doubling down on in-store experience,’’  Walmart's chief marketing officer, Tony Rogers, said in a press call on Tuesday. "We know what works during the holidays, and this year, we’re focused on delivering just that."

Happy Halloween! Or, as retailers call it, Christmas Eve.

— Simon Holland (@simoncholland) October 31, 2017

Big plans like these have pushed the start of the season earlier than ever before. More than a third of retailers online and offline said they planned to start their holiday rollout a full month before they did last year, according to one survey.

Changes in buying habits have generally made consumers more impatient with their less frequent store visits, according to market data from Google. At a time when most product research is done on computers and smartphones ahead of time, customers want their shopping trips to be quick and painless, meaning that traditional retailers can't afford to limit choices by waiting on the holiday season, according to the study.

Internet retailers simply risk less by launching their Christmas promotions earlier. 

There are also basic logistical reasons why more online shopping means an earlier holiday season. Internet retailers simply risk less by launching their Christmas promotions earlier. They don't have to hire costly seasonal help; their holiday marketing is naturally more subtle; it doesn't blare in their customers' ears or offend their senses (a pro and a con depending on the situation)—and they don't have to worry about considerations like limited shelf space. 

Groan as they may, customers appear to have adapted to this new normal. Data on Google search trends shows that interest in the Christmas holiday has first spiked increasingly earlier in October each year over the past decade.

Interest in Christmas is coming earlier and earlier among Google searchers.

Image: google trends

Whether that's because they've had an early dose of Christmas cheer shoved down their throats in store aisles or they actually relish the chance to buy their Halloween costumes and their gift lists in one fell swoop is unclear. But in any case, the Christmas creep doesn't show any signs of letting up.

WATCH: How Tim Burton fought to make 'The Nightmare Before Christmas'

Every editorial product is independently selected by Mashable journalists. If you buy something featured, we may earn an affiliate commission which helps support our journalism.

More From this publisher : HERE ; This post was curated using : TrendingTraffic

=> *********************************************** See Full Article Here: How Tim Burton fought to make ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ ************************************ =>

How Tim Burton fought to make ‘The Nightmare Before Christmas’ was originally posted by A 18 MOA Top News from around