General Election 2015

[viberunner]

Except when the children are older they'll be having to pay off our services now AND fund their own. I agree "big fucking deal" because it's not me having to pay for it. FREE MONEY.

Labour DID borrow, they just borrowed "off books". But they still borrowed. The capital value of PFI (as of 2007) is around £70b, committing us to a future £200 billion of spending. And that's in addition what ever else is being spent-on in the future. It even came to the farcical stage where the UK government was doing the lending, that is the state became the "private" finance.

Here's what the National Audit Office reported in 2011

The use of PFI has the effect of increasing the cost of finance for public investments relative to what would be available to the government if it borrowed on its own account.

...

most PFI debt is invisible to the calculation of Public Sector Net Debt (PSND) and is therefore not included in the headline debt and deficit statistics. If all current PFI liabilities were included in the National Accounts then the OBR estimates that national debt would increase by £35 billion (2.5% of GDP)

...

Efforts to meet fiscal rules at a national and European level may have contributed to the misuse of PFI. Rules designed to promote fiscal sustainability have had the paradoxical effect of incentivising the use of off-balance sheet finance—which is likely to prove less sustainable.

...

A PFI deal will have a smaller (but much longer lasting) impact on the current budget of an organisation whereas a conventionally procured capital project will result in a significant one-off hit to the capital budget. In the long term, the PFI arrangement will build up big commitments against future years' current budgets that have not even yet been allocated or agreed.

...

Government has always been able to obtain cheaper funding than private providers of project finance but the difference between direct government funding and the cost of this finance has increased significantly since the financial crisis. The substantial increase in private finance costs means that the PFI financing method is now extremely inefficient. Recent data suggests that the Weighted Average Cost of Capital of a PFI is double that of government gilts.

...

Some of the claimed risk transfer may also be illusory—the government is ultimately accountable for the delivery of public services. Therefore it would not be able to allow a number of services provided under a PFI contract to cease for any length of time.

...

etc. etc.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201012/cmselect/cmtreasy/1146/114608.htm

The point about risk is apposite. The privatisation of London Underground's infrastructure and rolling-stock was a disaster, the two private companies created under the PPP, Metronet and Tube Lines have now been taken into public ownership due to their financial problems at vast taxpayer cost.

There's also the incentive for PPP/PPI to want to provide the biggest possible project even if not needed. An example is Coventry, the city’s two hospitals were to have been renovated by the public sector for £30m. Instead they were demolished and one was built for £410m.

Or Balmoral High School in Northern Ireland, cost £17m to build in 2002. In 2007 it was closed due to lack of pupils, but the PFI contract is due to run for another 20 years and so millions will be paid out, each year, for an unused facility.

Basically: where there's muck there's brass, but so too where there's brass there's muck.

[kaosmark2]

New Labour did about 60% of things right. The other 40% were pretty appalling.

ID cards. Tuition fees.

[viberunner]

ID cards. Iraq war. Tuition fees. Iraq war. Banking (non) regulation. Iraq war. PPP/PFI. Iraq war. NHS direct. Iraq war. Alistair Campbell. Iraq war.

A ludicrously-low minimum wage (but almost very slightly more than zero I suppose) and Regional Devolution were the upsides.

Civil Partnerships is a bit of both (good "the gays" got something, cowardly it wasn't marriage). They got the Good Friday Agreement, but even Major had that process well underway.

Put a lot of money into the NHS, but a lot of that merely went to doctors salary (they rose on average 30% in but a single year after their new contracts).

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/6157219.stm

[eFestivals]

The thing that scares me the most is that c**ts like Blair are coming out and saying Labour need to become a centre-right party again.

Is it c**tish, or is it the only way that we'll get an amount of social welfare?

It's all very well wanting more, but the last 40 years have shown that we don't get it if we ignore what Blair is saying.

That doesn't mean, btw, that someone who has taken what Blair is saying on board has to act as Blair did. He got corrupted by power and chased the corruption; there's still plenty of space there for other better ways.

[eFestivals]

If they sell their principle to get into power, what's the point of having them in power?

because not everything gets sold.

Do you want something better, or do you want nothing at all?

The 'something' might not be as much as you'd like, but it's very definitely better than nothing.

[eFestivals]

I've heard it suggested that Dave will repeal the fixed term parliament act so he can call an election when it suits him. I must say it seems a bit blatant to me...even for a Tory!

Why is it?

It was a law that was passed as a way of shoring up the coalition, to ensure its stability. Nothing within that new law was for any other purpose.

It's no more trying to manipulate victory than the huge cries at the moment for PR, and you think manipulation in your favour is acceptable while manipulation you don't want isn't.

Politics is all about using the power you have. It's hardly an outrage for the winner to use the power they've been handed.

And then when I stop to think about how you believed it would be the right thing for the SNP to make Labour dance to their tune, I realise the idea of democracy has just died.

[eFestivals]

So there are more urban areas in the North.

it's not about "urban", it's about "industrial".

There's plenty of urban areas of the north which vote tory, just as there's plenty of urban areas in the south that vote tory.

It's the industrial areas in both north and south that vote Labour, and is why there's fewer Labour MPs in the south - because there's almost no industrial areas.

[micawber]

Since when was Hove industrial? Too simplistic.

[eFestivals]

So there are more urban areas in the North.That's may be why there is a North South divide, It doesn't mean there isn't one.. Draw a line from Grimsby to the Wirral and you have at the most 50 Tories north of that line which means you have about 280 south of it.

There are only a dozen labour MP's out of 199 seats in the South East, South west & East of England.

Doesn't mater if you call it North/South or Rural urban, It's a divided country.

edit: Oh & I think you may find wealth comes into it too.

hmmm, but in Scotland people only voted Labour because their dad did, so the snipper's narrative goes.

It's funny how England is just so different. You could almost call it a divide.

Not that you'd want to play up any differences, right?

[eFestivals]

The much blasted PFI is one example of that. We needed to rebuild hospitals and schools and after 20 years of under investment from the Tories. We would of needed to borrow MASSIVE sums to do it without PFI and pay the interest rate to go with it. PFI was a good choice for a government with a lot of spending to do.

that's complete crap, unfortunately.

PFI was not a good choice. Nothing that was borrowed couldn't have been borrowed in the normal govt manner, and PFI caused the borrowing to cost waaaay more than it otherwise would have done.

It's cause was within Blair's pledge to stick to tory spending/borrowing plans if elected. That meant that Labour was committed to no extra govt borrowing, with PFI borrowing fiddled off the govt books.

At the end of the day, PFI's only purpose has been to shovel huge amounts of unnecessary money into the pockets of bankers.

Punching Miliband is the order of the week, but he managed to keep himself out of that trap despite so much of the debate being about public spending. He managed to separate day-to-day spending and investment spending in the public's mind, and have the idea of investment spending waved thru as OK by the British public - because nothing of "spending money we don't have" was any significant part of the election debate around Labour with the planned extra spending as investment spending.

[eFestivals]

Isn't the difference that the original PFI left the assets in public hands, but the newer arrangements put in place under coalition hands the assets to the PFI partners?

Nope. PFI under Labour had the 'asset' (building) revert to private hands at the end of the contract, on the basis that it public services would need something different when the contracted ended.

The purpose of PFI to Labour was an accounting fiddle, to keep govt borrowing off the govt's books, so that Labour adhered to their promise of sticking to the tory's plans for the frist year or three after 1997.

Thankfully the accounting rules have been changed (by the hated EU) to put PFI borrowing back into the govt's books, so PFI is now much less of an attractive proposition - because everyone knows the govt could just print the cash instead.

And yet Oborne has continued with it, because the bankers tell him it's essential - essential to keep them in the lifestyle they've become accustomed to.

But it also helps prop-up govt finances in other ways, because it impacts into GDP figures in a way that direct borrowing doesn't, and so makes the UK's financial position look better than it otherwise would do.

[eFestivals]

Except when the children are older they'll be having to pay off our services now AND fund their own.

You supported a party who's loudest campaign was about spending our kid's money for our benefit today.

Are you confused, much?

Or is it that pissing money up the wall is OK when it's done by your friends but not OK when done by your enemy?

Either way, it's just pissed down the drain for our kids to pay for.

[pink_triangle]

Its looking like Chuka V Hunt V Kendall V Cooper V Burnham for the labour leadership. I havent heard enough about Kendall to make an informed opinion. I think both Chuka and Hunt could have the potential to reach out to those voters in the midlands and south that labour have lost. If we get Burnham with his ties to previous regimes and likely union support then we will end up with the same result as last time.

[eFestivals]

New Labour did about 60% of things right. The other 40% were pretty appalling.

And what are the percentages for the tories?

Is getting that 60% better or worse than living under the tories?

There ends the lesson.

[eFestivals]

Since when was Hove industrial? Too simplistic.

there's always exceptions.

'Industrial' towns and cities for where Labour gets their votes is far more accurate a way of summarising it than north/south or urban/rural, which are the other versions which tend to get used.

Whether or not that's 'real' support or support as a consequence of history (which is now the Scottish narrative) can be argued over, but that's a different argument.

[eFestivals]

Its looking like Chuka V Hunt V Kendall V Cooper V Burnham for the labour leadership. I havent heard enough about Kendall to make an informed opinion. I think both Chuka and Hunt could have the potential to reach out to those voters in the midlands and south that labour have lost. If we get Burnham with his ties to previous regimes and likely union support then we will end up with the same result as last time.

Burnham wouldn't ever get to be PM.

Firstly, he's a scouser, and I have trouble seeing parts of the country taking him seriously just because of that (and no, nothing of the same applies with Scots, just scousers. As proven by Scots PMs, chancellors, etc).

Secondly, he's the man with dirty hands over the NHS 'privatisation' that Labour did. Much as Scotland just turned against Labour, he'd cause an amount of the same in England because of that.

I really don't think the country would warm to Chukka. He's the Labourite who's been getting more insults thrown his way over the last few years from what I've seen.

And posh-boy Tristram? Nah. That ain't going to change anything about a Labour party considered out of touch.

Cooper? The party might vote for her, but the public defo won't with Balls in the background.

Kendal I know nothing about, so she might be electable .... but then again, that I don't know anything about means that most others won't either, which probably makes her too small-fry for a big position in the electorate's eyes.

it looks a bit grim.

[pink_triangle]

I really don't think the country would warm to Chukka. He's the Labourite who's been getting more insults thrown his way over the last few years from what I've seen.

And posh-boy Tristram? Nah. That ain't going to change anything about a Labour party considered out of touch.

Cooper? The party might vote for her, but the public defo won't with Balls in the background.

Kendal I know nothing about, so she might be electable .... but then again, that I don't know anything about means that most others won't either, which probably makes her too small-fry for a big position in the electorate's eyes.

it looks a bit grim.

Did people know much about Cameron when he became tory leader. I know he was shadow cabinet, but he hadnt made much of an impact. Sometimes not being well know means you dont have the baggage that others do.

Everything I have read suggests that Chuka is the man the conservatives dont want, which is a reason to consider apppointing him! He is pretty slick and in this world of personality politics, will probably be able to eat a bacon sandwich better than Ed.

I understand what you have said about Hunt being a posh boy, but again he is quite a slick media perfomer and would probably be liked by some tory voters who labour need to win. Im not really sure what he stands for though.

Im not as pesamistic as some about labours chances. I think a lot of the faults of the last campaign are quite easy to correct.

[eFestivals]

I think a lot of the faults of the last campaign are quite easy to correct.

nah, not so easy to correct.

A big part of what Labour the election was nothing that was within their control - the threat of the SNP to make Labour piss money up the wall. Ed handled that the only way he could, but the country perceived it differently.

[LJS]

Why is it?

It was a law that was passed as a way of shoring up the coalition, to ensure its stability. Nothing within that new law was for any other purpose.

It's no more trying to manipulate victory than the huge cries at the moment for PR, and you think manipulation in your favour is acceptable while manipulation you don't want isn't.

Politics is all about using the power you have. It's hardly an outrage for the winner to use the power they've been handed.

And then when I stop to think about how you believed it would be the right thing for the SNP to make Labour dance to their tune, I realise the idea of democracy has just died.

I did not support dancing in any form.

[LJS]

http://metro.co.uk/2015/05/10/garden-shop-owner-adds-10-tory-tax-to-anyone-who-voted-conservative-5190613/?ito=facebook

[eFestivals]

I did not support dancing in any form.

You didn't?

But you were arguing that Labour had to do a deal with the SNP.

It doesn't take a deal to vote fror what a party supports, and yet both you and that party insisted a deal was necessary.

Perhaps you're thinking that dad dancing doesn't count as dancing?

[LJS]

You didn't?

But you were arguing that Labour had to do a deal with the SNP.

It doesn't take a deal to vote fror what a party supports, and yet both you and that party insisted a deal was necessary.

Perhaps you're thinking that dad dancing doesn't count as dancing?

I can't imagine anyone else is interested in our little tiff, Neil. I'm guessing the future of the Labour is both more interesting & relevant.

[jump]

The Torys getting rid of the EU's human rights is happening alot quicker than I thought it would, the power of a majority government at work.

[gary1979666]

I can't imagine anyone else is interested in our little tiff, Neil. I'm guessing the future of the Labour is both more interesting & relevant.

Nope - I want videos of you and Neil dancing. Then we can judge for ourselves the winner of the arguement.

[gary1979666]

The Torys getting rid of the EU's human rights is happening alot quicker than I thought it would, the power of a majority government at work.

Slick to pick Gove as the man to do it - he's already the man most hated by the left.