Snap General Election called

[Sandydragon]

Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

He seems to be fueled by personal ambition and nothing else. He has no ideas, not a clue what to do now he's in charge other than to manage the status quo. Unfortunately he was elected to change things, not (just) manage things. Farage will decide who wins next time.

He has played the first 100 days really badly. Waiting until the actual budget has been a mistake, the policy announcements this far have been reasonable enough but none have really landed with a bang. Plus the idea of cabinet members breaking cover this early and arguing against the treasury in public is not a good one.

The budget needs to sent a clear message and direction of travel. Most government departments are facing very significant cuts to their operational budgets which is causing a lot of alarm, following years of austerity, even if wages are being increased a little.

[Sandydragon]

FFS the NHS is not safe in Streeting's hands.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... h-ministry

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

The NHS needs a proper review and reform. There are ways to bring in private investment without turning this into America. Outcomes are currently not good for patients in many areas and that should be the focus, not how the money is provided.

[Son of Mathonwy]

"But the Conservatives criticised the move as “jobs for the boys” and said it showed that Labour view government business as “a gravy train for your mates”."

W O W. They're probably not wrong, but wow. The gall on them to be offering those kind of critiques after the last few years.

Puja

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

The NHS needs a proper review and reform. There are ways to bring in private investment without turning this into America. Outcomes are currently not good for patients in many areas and that should be the focus, not how the money is provided.

Let's not call for reform without knowing what kind of reform that is. I'd prefer gradual improvement over misguided reform.

If the private sector is involved it needs to have no input on strategy because it will always be guided by profit maximisation.

If it is to be involved, the costs need to be properly balanced against the benefits. Is it genuinely cheaper than doing in-house? This is fine for catering and cleaning - these are not medical skills. But private medicine in competition with the NHS uses the same doctors, trained at great expense by the NHS, creating a scarcity of those same doctors in the NHS and pushing up wage demands. Subcontracting medical work can also de-skill the NHS, which is costly in the long run, leading to dependence on the private sector which can then ramp up the price. There should be no assumption that the private sector is more efficient, there's no evidence for it. If an area of the NHS is not working optimally, that can be solved by reorganization. Bring the private sector in and there are a lot of new costs, primarily paying shareholders but also all the overheads of running a business, personnel, accounting etc.

[Son of Mathonwy]

Starmer is one of those people who has been promoted above his competency. It happens from time to time across all organisations. Mostly it happens due to factors outside of the control of the individual who benefits from the circumstances, but they don't recognise that their success strongly influenced by chance and instead believe in their own inimitable agency.

In the specific case of Starmer, he had benefited from predecessors who made him look good in comparison. First Corbyn and then the Tory dregs. His election result was a very low vote share that would have never granted him power in normal circumstances, yet he clearly believes that he himself has achieved a landslide victory rather than one falling into his hands.

As seen from his attitude towards the gifts, one major flaw he has is a sense of entitlement and lack of humility. Along with his sense of entitlement is an undercurrent of hypocrisy and willingness to engage in dishonesty in order to get what he wants. Essentially a belief that the ends justify the means. This was clear from the beginning when he lied his way to the Labour leadership. He spins this behaviour as ruthlessness and is evidently proud of this 'quality' of his. It is however a great moral flaw that will be his undoing.

He seems to be fueled by personal ambition and nothing else. He has no ideas, not a clue what to do now he's in charge other than to manage the status quo. Unfortunately he was elected to change things, not (just) manage things. Farage will decide who wins next time.

He has played the first 100 days really badly. Waiting until the actual budget has been a mistake, the policy announcements this far have been reasonable enough but none have really landed with a bang. Plus the idea of cabinet members breaking cover this early and arguing against the treasury in public is not a good one.

The budget needs to sent a clear message and direction of travel. Most government departments are facing very significant cuts to their operational budgets which is causing a lot of alarm, following years of austerity, even if wages are being increased a little.

Despite what Reeves says, we're still in austerity and won't get out till spending increases (quite significantly in some areas).

Deeply unimpressed as I am with 'the new changed Labour Party' I have to wait till the budget before I can completely give up on them. That will show us what they really stand for. Obviously things don't look good, with the 2-child limit and the winter allowance thing. Also, I can't help thinking if they really had some game-changing plans for the economy, they'd have had the budget by now.

[Sandydragon]

Yeah. Obviously the NHS is even less safe in the hands of the Tories.

The NHS needs a proper review and reform. There are ways to bring in private investment without turning this into America. Outcomes are currently not good for patients in many areas and that should be the focus, not how the money is provided.

Let's not call for reform without knowing what kind of reform that is. I'd prefer gradual improvement over misguided reform.

If the private sector is involved it needs to have no input on strategy because it will always be guided by profit maximisation.

If it is to be involved, the costs need to be properly balanced against the benefits. Is it genuinely cheaper than doing in-house? This is fine for catering and cleaning - these are not medical skills. But private medicine in competition with the NHS uses the same doctors, trained at great expense by the NHS, creating a scarcity of those same doctors in the NHS and pushing up wage demands. Subcontracting medical work can also de-skill the NHS, which is costly in the long run, leading to dependence on the private sector which can then ramp up the price. There should be no assumption that the private sector is more efficient, there's no evidence for it. If an area of the NHS is not working optimally, that can be solved by reorganization. Bring the private sector in and there are a lot of new costs, primarily paying shareholders but also all the overheads of running a business, personnel, accounting etc.

To be fair, that's why I put review and reform. There are many obvious areas for improvement, but we need some kind of plan first. Hopefully the focus is on patient outcomes, not ideology and we must sort out the funding model, potentially looking to European neighbours for inspiration.

[Mellsblue]

There are some brilliant ideas on the public consultation page. One of my favourites is from a certain Dr H. Shipman.

[Sandydragon]

There are some brilliant ideas on the public consultation page. One of my favourites is from a certain Dr H. Shipman.

This is from the great British public who brought you Boaty McBoatface. Public consultation always seems a good idea until the public actually respond

[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 . . .

[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....

[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