Labour - either very confident or very stupid

[Spiral]

I know what drives my investments.
If you can explain what I am set to gain from Jeremy Corbyns privatisation plans, that my children and grandchildren won't suffer from greatly, then I'm all ears

Bringing rail franchises back into public ownership when the current shyte operations expire doesn't sound like the kind of thing that will be paid for by your grandchildren, If I'm honest, but you're so far beyond reason I'm not even going to interfere with your delusion. I couldn't give a toss about industry nationalisation, generally speaking. Unlike a lot of Labour voters, I'm utterly indifferent to it.

You still don't appear to know what a govt. bond does, though, and that's my point. On this forum you've consistently, more or less, equated infrastructure investment to a session on the beer, as though there's no such thing as a return on investment, or as though any return on investment can only ever be measured numerically. You'll forgive if people don't take your faux-frugal bull$hit arguments seriously.

[Damo]

Bringing rail franchises back into public ownership when the current shyte operations expire doesn't sound like the kind of thing that will be paid for by your grandchildren, If I'm honest, but you're so far beyond reason I'm not even going to interfere with your delusion. I couldn't give a toss about industry nationalisation, generally speaking. Unlike a lot of Labour voters, I'm utterly indifferent to it.

You still don't appear to know what a govt. bond does, though, and that's my point. On this forum you've consistently, more or less, equated infrastructure investment to a session on the beer, as though there's no such thing as a return on investment, or as though any return on investment can only ever be measured numerically. You'll forgive if people don't take your faux-frugal bull$hit arguments seriously.

It's funny you mention rail franchise. I'm extremely well versed in the challenges faced in rail management in this country and that's one of the main reasons I know how full of bovine business Corbyn is when it comes to nationialsation.
I know full well too what what a govt bond equates to hence my original point. You mention it equating to a beer session which is quite ironic given your usual posts at this type of hour, it's instant euphoria measured against the morning after affect when the money spent doesn't quite equate to the grand promises issues at the time of spending

[Damo]

Yes, we must stop Jeremy Corbyn from becoming prime minister so that future generations are not saddled with the debts which were racked up by the selfish and irresponsible generations before them.

Just in case you didn't spot the sarcasm, that is already happening, without Corbyn.

I appreciate that you don't like him, but at least make a constructive argument as to why you don't like him, instead of that pi5s weak effort.

I have made a constructive argument as to why I dislike him.
He plans to saddle future generations with debt by issuing bonds to pay for re-nationalising major industries.
I thought my point was pretty clear.
Did you ignore it or do you struggle with reading?

[CardyTheClaret]

Imagine just how bad schools and the NHS would be now though if it wasn't for that period between 97-2010?

No fan at all of Labour, but you've picked a strange period to pull them up on!

The same period that the last Labour government closed Burnley’s A&E and sent us all down to the shithole at Blackburn. Oh aye, great move for the NHS.

[JohnMcGreal]

I have made a constructive argument as to why I dislike him.
He plans to saddle future generations with debt by issuing bonds to pay for re-nationalising major industries.
I thought my point was pretty clear.
Did you ignore it or do you struggle with reading?

So you're against investing in highly lucrative and essential industries which could potentially benefit the country and its citizens, but you're in favour of throwing the same sort of money down the drain in order to cut ourselves off from our biggest allies and trading partners, potentially harming the country and its citizens.

Future generations will be grateful that a previous government invested in their future.

They won't be grateful that a government of no-wits spent an astronomical amount of money on making the country economically, socially and politically poorer.

You're more than happy to saddle future generations with debt to pay for blue passports, but you're not happy to invest in rail and energy companies. It's a very odd position to take, but you're entitled to take it.

It is funny, though, how the loudest defenders of the future generations are often the ones doing the most to sabotage them.

[Herts Clarets]

Blue passports. A line i only ever seem to hear from those opposed to Brexit. And this thread provides another tick in that box.

[AndrewJB]

As someone above states, the current government is the worst we've had in living memory. Contrast their stated aims with what we know as outcomes, and we see failure. Osborne claimed it was imperative for Britain to cut indebtedness, and went on to borrow more money than any government in history. This was the main plank in their manifestos, and they completely screwed it up. Their vehicle for achieving this - austerity - has failed. Their nearly eight years in power has brought us a massive sell off of public assets, huge rises in inequality, wage stagnation, a larger debt burden, but the wealth of the very richest here has ballooned. On balance the UK is worse off now than before they took over. They've just about bankrupted Britain, and left the country in such a state it's going to take a lot of work for the next government to fix it.

[Damo]

So you're against investing in highly lucrative and essential industries which could potentially benefit the country and its citizens, but you're in favour of throwing the same sort of money down the drain in order to cut ourselves off from our biggest allies and trading partners, potentially harming the country and its citizens.

Future generations will be grateful that a previous government invested in their future.

They won't be grateful that a government of no-wits spent an astronomical amount of money on making the country economically, socially and politically poorer.

You're more than happy to saddle future generations with debt to pay for blue passports, but you're not happy to invest in rail and energy companies. It's a very odd position to take, but you're entitled to take it.

It is funny, though, how the loudest defenders of the future generations are often the ones doing the most to sabotage them.

The fact you consider the rail network to be highly lucrative just shows how little you know.
please excuse me for taking the rest of your post with the required level of salt

[Walton]

Our pothole-ridden roads are a daily, physical reminder of the failed austerity project from the worst government in living memory.

Take how bad the roads now are, and then apply the same standard of neglect to the NHS, the education system, the military, the state pension, the benefits system.

These Tories have f*cked the lot.

And now we've got Brexit on top. F*cks sake.

[Lancasterclaret]

Cut the patronising bullshit - what the **** are you on about? I simply referred to the illegal war in Iraq and the huge difficulty that caused, including a terrible reflection on the Labour government. To the extent that it's Blair's legacy. Are you saying it didn't happen and/or it wasn't massive political decision and disaster in the period in question?

Right, but thats not what you said at the start (or it might have been Herts who said it destabilized the middle east). I'm not saying that it wasn't illegal, or that it didn't cause massive problems, I'm saying that if you think if Gulf Wars 1 & 2 didn't happen the Middle East would be different then I'm telling you that you are wrong. it would have been a different cluster f**K, but it would still have been a disaster when the various dictators lost their grip on power. Which is why you need to read more than a history of the Gulf War.

Regarding PFI, no one is defending that, in fact I said in my first comments that they should just have taxed us all more to pay for it. But I'll keep repeating till I'm blue in the face, without that govt in power, those buildings would not have been built.

Cardy, the move to A & E at Blackburn is a decision made as the NHS gets costlier and costlier to run. I'm not saying its the right decision, but I can see the merits in it. The mini- A/Es that replaced them are fine for 90% of minor cases from what I gather.

Agree with Herts that purely public sector doesn't work, but neither does purely private sector. Its getting the balance right and getting the staff involved behind it. In my experience that employees in the public sector are too set in their ways and very resistant to change, even if it is demonstrably better.

And worst government in living memory. Yep, and its about to get worse when it tries to square what was promised to what is reality when Brexit comes.

[Sidney1st]

Worst government in living memory?
Short memories some people have on here.

A poor government dealing with a poor labour legacy more like.

[Lancasterclaret]

No, they blamed the Lib Dems and Lab in the last one.

This one is all them

[KRBFC]

I'd say anyone who picks sides in politics is very gullible and stupid.

[JohnMcGreal]

The year is 2060. Great Britain is a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Sidney1st is foraging for berries in the woods whilst bemoaning the Labour government of 1997-2010.

[Lancasterclaret]

There isn't a lot about this lot to defend, so even their own MPs have stopped doing it

https://twitter.com/5WrightStuff/status ... 1207659520" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Reference the blue passports, its complete denial to say that its not a big thing for some Brexiteers. my father and mother in law have had converted blue passports since I've known them and the only thing about the EU that they actually come out with that isn't lifted from the Daily Mail is their unshakeable belief that a blue passport is better. It makes me chuckle, but its a fairly harmless consequence of Brexit.

[TVC15]

Aye - always about the Labour legacy...stock answer from every Tory whilst they f-uck everything up.

Conveniently ignoring that the world went into recession in 2008.

Austerity has been a disgrace - front line services cut to the public yet very little change in the number of back office and management staff working in the public sector.

As for Brexit - has there ever been a bigger mistake made by any government ? Whether you agree with it or not how can a government in power who were against Brexit agree to hold a referendum and then lose that referendum ?

We now have the weakest PM in history and a cabinet full of idiots. Boris Johnson as foreign secretary is akin to appointing Joe Pasquale as Chancellor of the Exchequer. David Davies, Jeremy Hunt, Michael Gove, Philip Hammond...the list of useless self serving c-unts is endless.

[bfcmartin]

You go on about the weak government but no mention of the far weaker opposition. That's where the problem lies

[Sidney1st]

The year is 2060. Great Britain is a post-apocalyptic wasteland. Sidney1st is foraging for berries in the woods whilst bemoaning the Labour government of 1997-2010.

There would be a other poor labour government in-between, don't worry.

[Sidney1st]

Didn't we have a recession with Labour in charge?

I've voted for both parties and I've stated on this very thread that both were/are poor governments.

I'm not blinded by either party like some clearly are on this forum.

[Lancasterclaret]

I wouldn't worry about it Sidney, I say I vote Lib Dem on pretty much every thread and I still get accused of being a Corbynista by those who think anyone to the left of Genghis Khan is a communist.

[AndrewJB]

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... daily-mail" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

This kind of dovetails with the Corbyn was a spy thread. Are all these new members ‘hard left’ do you think?

[dsr]

Conveniently ignoring that the world went into recession in 2008.

And it wasn't Gordon Brown's fault that he gone spend, spend, spend like Viv Nicholson? When there are good times and the funds are awash, then you pay back the bonds. Then when the bad times come, you can borrow again. It's stable.

Gordon Brown did actually take credit for the good times in the world economy, by claiming he had abolished boom and bust. Well, if he claims credit for abolishing it, then he can take the blame for bringing it back, surely?

I agree the tories weren't much better. Blathering about about "austerity" while not practising it - political suicide. Why claim that you're cutting the money paid to public services when it isn't true? Idiots. I rate Cameron with Blair - two sides of the same coin.

[CrosspoolClarets]

Our pothole-ridden roads are a daily, physical reminder of the failed austerity project from the worst government in living memory.

Take how bad the roads now are, and then apply the same standard of neglect to the NHS, the education system, the military, the state pension, the benefits system.

These Tories have f*cked the lot.

And now we've got Brexit on top. F*cks sake.

Just spotted this, it’s an interesting line of thought.

Observations would be:

1. My cities roads were the worse in the country for 20 years due to underfinancing from Labour council after Labour council. Now in the last five (due to Clegg actually, but with help from the Tories) we have some of the best.

2. When your surgery gets cancelled due to lack of staff, or your kid has to sit in a class with 35 others, think about Labour’s PFI deals. A quarter of the huge £4.5bn top up the NHS recently received is equivalent to the profits of the PFI companies alone, let alone the cost of building and paying for it. That waste is the equivalent of 40,000 nurses. The Tories austerity (I’m no fan of them either) would do well to match that level of incompetence.

Just a bit of balance.

[dermotdermot]

Didn't we have a recession with Labour in charge?

I've voted for both parties and I've stated on this very thread that both were/are poor governments.

I'm not blinded by either party like some clearly are on this forum.

It may have escaped your notice, Sidney, but may I point out that in the eighteen years of conservative government between 1979 and 1997, we had no less than THREE recessions, one of which was particularly crippling. Much more so than the recession of 2010. There was no need for austerity. It only makes things worse.

[AndrewJB]

And it wasn't Gordon Brown's fault that he gone spend, spend, spend like Viv Nicholson? When there are good times and the funds are awash, then you pay back the bonds. Then when the bad times come, you can borrow again. It's stable.

Gordon Brown did actually take credit for the good times in the world economy, by claiming he had abolished boom and bust. Well, if he claims credit for abolishing it, then he can take the blame for bringing it back, surely?

I agree the tories weren't much better. Blathering about about "austerity" while not practising it - political suicide. Why claim that you're cutting the money paid to public services when it isn't true? Idiots. I rate Cameron with Blair - two sides of the same coin.

The rise in our deficit after 2008 was a result of the financial crisis. We bailed out the banks, and took in a lot less tax at the same time. I’m no fan of Brown (way too right wing in my opinion), but you can’t really blame him for his response to a world crisis.

[Spiral]

It's a bit moronic to attack the current Labour party management on PFI, if we're being honest; an idea conceived but ultimately shelved by the Conservatives in the early-90's yet embraced by New Labour (hmm...wonder why it went unchallenged for so long /s) while being attacked from the left of the party (and the faction now in control of the Labour party)-the faction which Tories and centrists are opposing yet...wait...somehow...also agreeing with??? (wait, what?) on the disaster of PFI? Wow! Weird.

[RingoMcCartney]

It's a bit moronic to attack the current Labour party management on PFI, if we're being honest; an idea conceived but ultimately shelved by the Conservatives in the early-90's yet embraced by New Labour (hmm...wonder why it went unchallenged for so long /s) while being attacked from the left of the party (and the faction now in control of the Labour party)-the faction which Tories and centrists are opposing yet...wait...somehow...also agreeing with??? (wait, what?) on the disaster of PFI? Wow! Weird.

"The faction now in control of the Labour party"

Which is the very same faction that oversaw Trafalgar Square being turned into an enormous skip, and the dead not being buried. You were being cavalier with the use of the tag "moronic".

If the cap fits......

[Spiral]

"Jeremy Corbyn calls for London to be turned into landfill; open-air cadaver museum"

[dsr]

The rise in our deficit after 2008 was a result of the financial crisis. We bailed out the banks, and took in a lot less tax at the same time. I’m no fan of Brown (way too right wing in my opinion), but you can’t really blame him for his response to a world crisis.

But the fact that we already had a deficit was not the result of the financial crisis - it was the result over overspending by the government. And remember, the national debt excludes all these PFI hospitals that people are justly complaining about. The whole reason for having these vastly expensive PFI deals was that the debt doesn't show in the government debt. If any public company tried producing accounts on this basis, the directors would be in jail; but the various governments of the day seem to think (as they so often do) that the normal rules don't apply to them.

But pre-crash, there was a large national debt AND a national deficit, and both debt and deficit would have been very much larger if the Chancellor had produced honest accounts.

[Spiral]

https://www.ft.com/content/c886f3ee-a43 ... 1809486fe2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

28/09/2017

Theresa May sticks by private sector, picking up pace of PFI deals

The government is determined to push ahead with its private finance plans by more than tripling the value of road-building projects this year, despite the Labour party threatening to nationalise PFI projects due to the heavy cost to taxpayers.

Theresa May’s continued support for the private sector delivering public projects is a reflection of the sharpened dividing lines between the Conservatives and Labour on how the economy should be run.

The prime minister on Wednesday called the free market “the greatest agent of collective human progress ever created” in a speech at the Bank of England and she will use next week’s Tory party conference to remake the case for private enterprise.

Meanwhile Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn used the high cost of PFI schemes as an illustration of how he would put the state back at the centre of the economy, whether building roads or running railways, mail services, water and energy.

Although the number of PFI deals has plummeted since 2010, the Treasury has in recent months committed to the controversial scheme under a revamped model dubbed PF2.

The controversial £1.3bn A303 tunnel under Stonehenge and the £1.5bn Lower Thames Crossing tunnel in east London are both preparing to begin construction using PF2, with financial advisers sought for the schemes by next month.

The two projects’ capital value of close to £3bn is a significant increase on the current £1bn under construction using PFI. The Midland Metropolitan Hospital and 46 schools are already using PF2, while Tyne and Wear Metro is considering using it for £435m of new trains.

Private sector investment is at the heart of the Conservative government’s infrastructure plans. Mrs May included a commitment to PF2 in both the Budget and her industrial strategy this year. A revamped National Infrastructure Plan in December called on the private sector to finance and deliver at least half of the £500bn of infrastructure improvements pledged by 2021.

But the viability of PFI schemes was again called into this question this week when Labour said it would look at taking existing projects back into the public sector as well as opposing the use of PF2 for any new projects. The opposition party argues that it is cheaper for the government to pay for new infrastructure directly.

One senior official at the Infrastructure and Projects Authority, part of the Treasury, told the FT this month that the government was “fully committed to PF2” but had decided to release projects “as they were ready rather than providing a pipeline all at once”.

Other projects including new prisons and a new railway line between Cambridge and Oxford are also expected to use private finance. Although not dubbed a PF2 scheme, the new £4.2bn Thames super-sewer, which is being built under the capital, uses private finance to keep it off both Thames Water’s and the government’s balance sheets even though it is being paid for through an increase in Thames Water customers’ bills.

Under the PF2 scheme, companies construct buildings, take responsibility for financing the projects and hire contractors to maintain the assets — often for as long as 30 years.

Although critics argue that the schemes are more expensive for taxpayers than public funding over the long term, supporters say the contractors are incentivised to deliver better projects because they are responsible for the upkeep.

The new PF2 scheme retains essential features of the initial PFI such as the ability to keep projects off balance sheet, but it also gives the public sector a share in the investment.

Most PFIs have been sold as financial investments once the construction period is over, creating a lucrative market in secondary PFI projects and meaning most of the current hospitals, waste projects and bridges built under the PFI scheme are in the hands of specialist infrastructure funds and construction companies that would require compensation if Labour were to with renationalise PFIs.

In March last year, 716 PFI projects were in operation in defence, education, health and transport, with a capital value of just under £60bn. Charges paid by the government on PFI schemes are just over £10bn a year. In 2012, the Department of Health gave a £1.5bn bailout to seven health trusts weighed down by PFI debts, but many are still struggling.

The decision to press ahead with PF2 comes despite a catalogue of private finance initiative failures outlined in a 2013 Treasury document. The Jubilee line extension on London’s Tube network was completed two years late and ran £1.4bn over budget and a Trident submarine berth for the Royal Navy at Faslane in Scotland tripled in costs and was completed two-and-a-half years late.

Nonetheless, it is a growing trend for governments worldwide. The US outstripped the UK for the first time last year using private/public sector partnerships. The US president Donald Trump has also pledged to deliver $1tn in infrastructure improvements some of which are expected to use private finance.

"But Labour"

[AndrewJB]

But the fact that we already had a deficit was not the result of the financial crisis - it was the result over overspending by the government. And remember, the national debt excludes all these PFI hospitals that people are justly complaining about. The whole reason for having these vastly expensive PFI deals was that the debt doesn't show in the government debt. If any public company tried producing accounts on this basis, the directors would be in jail; but the various governments of the day seem to think (as they so often do) that the normal rules don't apply to them.

But pre-crash, there was a large national debt AND a national deficit, and both debt and deficit would have been very much larger if the Chancellor had produced honest accounts.

Overspending, or undertaxing? I agree that PFI is a rip off. The more likely government to end that is Labour.

[BennyD]

I don't know why I'm defending Blair Labour vision anyway, I'm a bloody Lib Dem!

But when you look at stuff, especially infrastructure that the country desperately needed, it tended to get built in that period.

Agreed. However, they used a lot of PFI to get it done and we haven't even started to pick up the tab for that yet. When we do, it'll be like tipping your waiter 250% the cost of your meal.

[Sidney1st]

Overspending, or undertaxing? I agree that PFI is a rip off. The more likely government to end that is Labour.

Labour are going to end PFI?

Doubt it, they'll have promises to keep in regards to infrastructure and they'll need PFI to help them keep those promises.

[AndrewJB]

Corbyn’s opposition to PFI is longstanding, and prescient. As was his opposition to the Iraq War. Given everything he’s said about it I cannot see him using that vehicle to fund any of his infrastructure projects, any more than I can see him launching an invasion of a Middle Eastern country.

[hampsteadclaret]

Ringo....post 77

I believe you’re getting your central London squares mixed up.
You meant to refer to Leicester Square.. have you ever been beyond the Summit up Manny Road..?

You should keep off these heavyweight political threads if you can’t keep your end up..

[jlup1980]

You go on about the weak government but no mention of the far weaker opposition. That's where the problem lies

Ok, I'll bite! How is the opposition the problem when they're not in power?! This current government is an absolute disgrace; it's like watching The Thick of It and Veep at the same time. Nobody seems to have the slightest idea what to do about anything, whether it's education, Grenfell, the NHS or the dreaded Brexit talks. How is any of that the fault of Corbyn and his opposition? He's actually holding his own in the opinion polls even after his Russian spy smearing and all the other attempts to discredit his political views. That says a lot more about the government than the opposition!

[Stayingup]

Agent Cob has proven this week he is not only a traitor to his country but also working class voters too. Not the middle class metroplitan luvvies who so adore him
But how would this London ideologue know about the working classes? Answer he wouldn't. He's a sham.

[Lancasterclaret]

Yeah, staying in the custom union is really bad news for the workers............

[bfcmartin]

Go on then jlup 1980 tell me the name of 12 Labour Mps who are credible minister standard

[Lancasterclaret]

I'll throw it right back to you martin, how many Conservative MPs are ministerial standard (I agree with you about the Lab ones btw)?

[claretandy]

Yeah, staying in the custom union is really bad news for the workers............

They aren't proposing to stay in THE custom union, the are proposing to negotiate A customs union, which the EU will reject as "cherry picking".

[Lancasterclaret]

Its the same thing, with a different name.

All the reputable news agencies are saying that is what they are being briefed.

[bfcmartin]

Kenneth Clark David Davis Michael Fallon Andrea Leadsome Priti Patel Amber Rudd Sir Nicholas Soames David Lidington Jeremy Wright Victoria Atkins Lucy Frazer and Sajid Javed . The only labour MP that could turn their party into an electable one in my view is Keir Starmer

[Lancasterclaret]

1st definately, no!, sexpest, mad, liar, ok, give you her, no, no, no, don't know her x 2, no

[NCClaret]

Corbyn’s opposition to PFI is longstanding, and prescient. As was his opposition to the Iraq War. Given everything he’s said about it I cannot see him using that vehicle to fund any of his infrastructure projects, any more than I can see him launching an invasion of a Middle Eastern country.

... and Corbyn's opposition to the EU WAS longstanding

[Stayingup]

Best bit about those Blair/Bush wars was Blair going on to be the Middle East Peace Envoy.

Someone was clearly on crack the day they made that decision.

You mean the Prince of Peace for Northen Ireland who has become an IRA stooge?

[AndrewJB]

Kenneth Clark David Davis Michael Fallon Andrea Leadsome Priti Patel Amber Rudd Sir Nicholas Soames David Lidington Jeremy Wright Victoria Atkins Lucy Frazer and Sajid Javed . The only labour MP that could turn their party into an electable one in my view is Keir Starmer

Priti Patel is nothing more than a parrot. I agree with Kenneth Clark though, and I'd add Dominic Grieve - neither of whom will actually end up in the cabinet again.

For Labour I'd say John McDonnell is a much sharper mind than either Osborne or Hammond for the Treasury. Thornberry is first rate. Jon Ashworth, Angela Rayner, and Rebecca Long Bailey have all impressed me. I suppose we'll just have to wait until they take power and you'll be able to compare them to the current shower directly. Diane Abbott has upset a few people on here, but I can't imagine her being as crap as Theresa May when it comes to the portfolio of Home Secretary. Anyone remember those awful racist vans she sent around telling people to 'go home'?

[Stayingup]

Yeah, staying in the custom union is really bad news for the workers............

Are you really as numb as you come across?

[Lancasterclaret]

Probably!

Mind you, I don't tend to comment on threads where I haven't a clue whats going on so I guess I'm not as numb as I could be.

[Clarets4me]

Priti Patel is nothing more than a parrot. I agree with Kenneth Clark though, and I'd add Dominic Grieve - neither of whom will actually end up in the cabinet again.

For Labour I'd say John McDonnell is a much sharper mind than either Osborne or Hammond for the Treasury. Thornberry is first rate. Jon Ashworth, Angela Rayner, and Rebecca Long Bailey have all impressed me. I suppose we'll just have to wait until they take power and you'll be able to compare them to the current shower directly. Diane Abbott has upset a few people on here, but I can't imagine her being as crap as Theresa May when it comes to the portfolio of Home Secretary. Anyone remember those awful racist vans she sent around telling people to 'go home'?

I nearly stopped reading at " Thornberry is first rate ", as for Diane Abbott, jesus wept ! If you're impressed by Angela Rayner, then you need your bumps felt... McDonnell has a sharp mind, but is an un-reconstructed Trot, preaching street anarchy and bully-boy protests...

The sooner the pro Labour electoral bias is eliminated by implementing the Boundary Commission changes the better.....I'm no particular fan of the Conservatives, but I have seen the far-left in action and it's not pretty...