Snap General Election called

[Son of Mathonwy]

Reeves' plans to borrow more for investment look promising*. And clearly the markets are pretty calm about it. Sure yields went up - there would have to be a knee-jerk reaction upwards to this announcement - but +0.06% is just a murmur.

* but we shall see what she will actually spend it on . . .

Isn't it PFI mk 2, but with a different p? Lets hope the governance is substantially better. As you say, its the what that matters....

I think the choice of p makes quite a bit of difference

[Banquo]

Reeves' plans to borrow more for investment look promising*. And clearly the markets are pretty calm about it. Sure yields went up - there would have to be a knee-jerk reaction upwards to this announcement - but +0.06% is just a murmur.

* but we shall see what she will actually spend it on . . .

Isn't it PFI mk 2, but with a different p? Lets hope the governance is substantially better. As you say, its the what that matters....

I think the choice of p makes quite a bit of difference

not necessarily in a good way, unless the public sector can somehow start to deliver large projects well. I guess servicing the debt might not be as high, but the commissioners will likely be similar.

[Which Tyler]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eparations

Britain’s former colonies should be thankful for the legacy of empire, not demanding reparations, according to the Conservative leadership candidate Robert Jenrick.

The MP and former minister said countries that were part of the empire “owe us a debt of gratitude for the inheritance we left them” in the form of legal and democratic institutions.

[Puja]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... eparations

Britain’s former colonies should be thankful for the legacy of empire, not demanding reparations, according to the Conservative leadership candidate Robert Jenrick.

The MP and former minister said countries that were part of the empire “owe us a debt of gratitude for the inheritance we left them” in the form of legal and democratic institutions.

I'm trying to work out if he genuinely believes that (far from impossible, given the teaching and media presentation of Empire that was around in mine and his day) or if he's just trying to out-right-wing Badenoch's declaration that reparations would never be on the table under her lead.

Still, good to see that Kipling's poetry remains popular.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Isn't it PFI mk 2, but with a different p? Lets hope the governance is substantially better. As you say, its the what that matters....

I think the choice of p makes quite a bit of difference

not necessarily in a good way, unless the public sector can somehow start to deliver large projects well. I guess servicing the debt might not be as high, but the commissioners will likely be similar.

If the p stands for public then what we're talking about is the normal way public infrastructure etc funded, ie with public money. To call that PFI mk2 is insanely misleading.

PFI brings huge problems. If the deal is too favourable to the private sector this means the state (schools, the NHS, whatever) being forced to overpay for services for decades. If it is too unfavourable (more unlikely) as we have seen, it leads to private companies failing at great cost and the state being forced to step in anyway. And it's all just dodgy accounting, a way to hide government debt.

We don't even know if this is for large projects yet (presumably it will be for a number of things) and, if it is, where's the evidence the private sector can deliver large projects any better than the state?

[Banquo]

I think the choice of p makes quite a bit of difference

not necessarily in a good way, unless the public sector can somehow start to deliver large projects well. I guess servicing the debt might not be as high, but the commissioners will likely be similar.

If the p stands for public then what we're talking about is the normal way public infrastructure etc funded, ie with public money. To call that PFI mk2 is insanely misleading.

PFI brings huge problems. If the deal is too favourable to the private sector this means the state (schools, the NHS, whatever) being forced to overpay for services for decades. If it is too unfavourable (more unlikely) as we have seen, it leads to private companies failing at great cost and the state being forced to step in anyway. And it's all just dodgy accounting, a way to hide government debt.

We don't even know if this is for large projects yet (presumably it will be for a number of things) and, if it is, where's the evidence the private sector can deliver large projects any better than the state?

Its possibly mark 2 in the sense that its extra borrowing for infrastructure build as was PFI, with a change of rules (not quite hiding debt, but increasing it through rule bending). 'insanely misleading'....ok, it was a mild jab, but you didn't see the question mark, obviously.

You seem convinced that public sector delivery is better than private. My argument on PFI is that it wasn't a terrible idea, but appallingly implemented. By the public sector . So I'd hope the projects and their implementation are better handled either way, which was my original point. The commissioning and commissoners are key, and as you say, where and what.

BTW what would you point to as a state delivered project?

[Son of Mathonwy]

not necessarily in a good way, unless the public sector can somehow start to deliver large projects well. I guess servicing the debt might not be as high, but the commissioners will likely be similar.

If the p stands for public then what we're talking about is the normal way public infrastructure etc funded, ie with public money. To call that PFI mk2 is insanely misleading.

PFI brings huge problems. If the deal is too favourable to the private sector this means the state (schools, the NHS, whatever) being forced to overpay for services for decades. If it is too unfavourable (more unlikely) as we have seen, it leads to private companies failing at great cost and the state being forced to step in anyway. And it's all just dodgy accounting, a way to hide government debt.

We don't even know if this is for large projects yet (presumably it will be for a number of things) and, if it is, where's the evidence the private sector can deliver large projects any better than the state?

Its possibly mark 2 in the sense that its extra borrowing for infrastructure build as was PFI, with a change of rules (not quite hiding debt, but increasing it through rule bending). 'insanely misleading'....ok, it was a mild jab, but you didn't see the question mark, obviously.

You seem convinced that public sector delivery is better than private. My argument on PFI is that it wasn't a terrible idea, but appallingly implemented. By the public sector . So I'd hope the projects and their implementation are better handled either way, which was my original point. The commissioning and commissoners are key, and as you say, where and what.

BTW what would you point to as a state delivered project?

Okay, it just seems so unlike PFI that the comparison doesn't illuminate anything. To me anyway

No not convinced in all cases but I'd like to see evidence that it's truly advantageous for the state to have the private sector deliver or maintain services or assets for the public sector. Yeah, PFI was appallingly implemented by the government.

I'm no expert but I assume the NHS is full of things that were built as part of a state delivered project.

[Banquo]

If the p stands for public then what we're talking about is the normal way public infrastructure etc funded, ie with public money. To call that PFI mk2 is insanely misleading.

PFI brings huge problems. If the deal is too favourable to the private sector this means the state (schools, the NHS, whatever) being forced to overpay for services for decades. If it is too unfavourable (more unlikely) as we have seen, it leads to private companies failing at great cost and the state being forced to step in anyway. And it's all just dodgy accounting, a way to hide government debt.

We don't even know if this is for large projects yet (presumably it will be for a number of things) and, if it is, where's the evidence the private sector can deliver large projects any better than the state?

Its possibly mark 2 in the sense that its extra borrowing for infrastructure build as was PFI, with a change of rules (not quite hiding debt, but increasing it through rule bending). 'insanely misleading'....ok, it was a mild jab, but you didn't see the question mark, obviously.

You seem convinced that public sector delivery is better than private. My argument on PFI is that it wasn't a terrible idea, but appallingly implemented. By the public sector . So I'd hope the projects and their implementation are better handled either way, which was my original point. The commissioning and commissoners are key, and as you say, where and what.

BTW what would you point to as a state delivered project?

Okay, it just seems so unlike PFI that the comparison doesn't illuminate anything. To me anyway

No not convinced in all cases but I'd like to see evidence that it's truly advantageous for the state to have the private sector deliver or maintain services or assets for the public sector. Yeah, PFI was appallingly implemented by the government.

I'm no expert but I assume the NHS is full of things that were built as part of a state delivered project.

The comparison was really about govt commissioning large projects funded with borrowing. On the detail- we might be having a different definition of 'delivery'.

[Mellsblue]

Banquo you are being unfair, nobody has delivered fax machines more prolifically than the NHS procurement team.

[Mellsblue]

A nice little primer to get you ready for tomorrow from the IFG:

https://www.instituteforgovernment.org. ... six-things

[Son of Mathonwy]

The budget. I like it better than I thought I would, because, despite what it said in their manifesto, Labour have decided to spend a bit more, to take us a little bit back from austerity. This is good. Hope the money will be well spent by Streeting et al. Not so pleased with the way the tax has been raised - the biggest part by significantly lowering the starting wage for employers' NICs and increasing the rate from 13.8% to 15%. This will obviously hit low income workers and the employers of low income workers fairly hard. Far better to have added a higher rate of 'ers NICs for higher rate earners ie those who can bear it more easily.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/October_2 ... dom_budget

[Stom]

Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

[Son of Mathonwy]

Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

Jesus. Tory members just can't help themselves.

Bad news for the Tories but bad news for the country too. Hope Starmer can resist her bullshit, divisive lines - she's better ignored than humoured. But this nails one half of UK politics to the far right, even if it nails the Tories to obscurity. Farage must be laughing.

[Mellsblue]

I know, they just can’t. They just won’t stop voting for female leaders. I just wish the other parties’ members were so progressive.

[Sandydragon]

Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

[Puja]

Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

[Son of Mathonwy]

Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Yep. Badenoch actually believes the Tories got ejected because they weren't right-wing enough. So if she ever gets in we'll see austerity-plus as she shrinks the state even further. At least with Jenrick there was the chance that he wouldn't because he was just saying anything to get elected (just like JD* and our own Keir). You know where you are with Badenoch. Unfortunately it's a very nasty place.

There is a danger that she'll out-charisma Starmer though. I think he can handle her but there is a risk. He needs to stay aloof.

* for Viz fans, I don't mean Salinger or Sports .

[Sandydragon]

Way to hide the news… Badenoch is the new leader of the Tories…

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Born again Christians can be more Christian than those who have held belief all their lives.

Ok not the greatest comparison I know but I wouldn’t underestimate the depth of Jenricks beliefs just because he assumed them more recently.

Neither is fit to be PM and this feels like the lurch to the right that the Tories felt they had to do before common sense breaks out again.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Which version of right wing candidate would you have preferred? I’m not a fan of Badenoch but I’d prefer her to Jenrick who seems desperate to be Farage without the pint

Badenoch is a true believer though, which I regard as far more dangerous than the "ordering a demagogue from Temu" of Jenrick. I shudder to think of her being anywhere near power, although thankfully she hopefully won't be.

It'll be bad enough with her getting the platform to complain and whinge regularly and publically.

Puja

Born again Christians can be more Christian than those who have held belief all their lives.

Ok not the greatest comparison I know but I wouldn’t underestimate the depth of Jenricks beliefs just because he assumed them more recently.

Neither is fit to be PM and this feels like the lurch to the right that the Tories felt they had to do before common sense breaks out again.

But how much common sense is left in the party? Seems like most of it has been driven out, outnumbered 2 to 1 amongst the MPs . . . probably far less in the members.