The UK Politics & Brexit Thread

[st13phil]

I don't see them as being dependent on each other - rather both result from a structural breakdown and losing of the way in their parties.

Agreed. My comment above was rather tongue-in-cheek. That the Labour Party is unable to capitalise on the shambles that is May's government is testament to their lack of direction and lack of leadership; May's government's performance is testament to theirs.

Maybe what we're seeing is that modern politicians are actually irrelevant and really don't do much more than group navel gazing - while everybody esle gives up on them and gets on with their lives.

I think the Brexit fiasco has shone a bright light on how ineffectual the current incumbents of the HoC are, to the surprise of some of the electorate but not to others. Where are the real political heavy-weights? The ones who have conviction and good judgement and the ability to carry others with them, rather than just pandering to the latest "focus group" output? The fact that none spring to mind is somewhat disturbing.

I remember what my first boss - who was Technical Director of a significant UK plc - told me almost 40 years ago about people at the top: You tend to think that they're something special until you see them up close, when you realise that the vast majority of them are anything but special, and instead are very ordinary in their abilities.

 

[leef44]

PFI was a Conservative idea but one that Labour foolishly embraced and told us that it was a "win-win" situation with better public services being provided at less cost to the taxpayer.

In reality, we had here today, gone tomorrow politicians dreaming up these PFI schemes and civil servants with little or no negotiating experience or financial acumen dealing with the extremely astute private companies who would make them happen.

The outcome was inevitable:

PFI deals 'costing taxpayers billions'

Although PFIs cost the taxpayer billions, what is the alternative? A government which expands the infrastructure of public services. The opposing argument is that governments change and policies change so it could have cost the taxpayer more if you spend even more billions establishing an infrastructure which inevitably pays a defined benefit pension to its civil servants. And then a future government rips it all out at an even bigger cost or staff go on strike if their pension schemes are reduced or curtailed.

The biggest hidden cost to public services is defined benefit pension schemes. The potential liability for the future generation is a big risk to society. It is not sustainable.

These pension funds need massive top ups due to life expectancy increases and the hit on the equity market from the recession.

When we moan about not getting the public services we expect, whether it is from the council, schools or hospitals or police force, the constraining factor to employ more people is the cost of these pension schemes.

 

[leef44]

Both Labour and the Conservatives are split down the middle over Brexit.

The only party that could get its act together and make headways at this time was always going to be one that was specifically formed around Brexit and therefore have no diversity of opinions on this potentially-divisive matter.

One thing that troubles me and maybe I am over simplifying here so hopefully those more knowledgeable can explain:

The EU has made it clear that there cannot be a free trade agreement and the ability for Britain to go out to make its own international trade deals (the two are mutually exclusive). Otherwise Britain could become the conduit of all international trade with the EU which would bring immense business to Britain at the cost of the rest of the EU.

With that point made pretty clear doesn't that mean the only way we could leave the EU is to go with no deal? Otherwise, a deal would mean we continue paying to the EU and not have control of our trade agreement which mitigates any economic benefit to pay for the cost of leaving the EU in the first place. Or to put it another way, any deal would have to leave us worse off than staying.

So why doesn't any single politician stand up and make this point i.e. if we are going to leave then it is the "No Deal" option?

 

[190]

Final salary pensions schemes are no more in public services and pay is low. Schools in particular have had funding cut to the bone and there is nothing left to give. A particular problem for successful schools is when they recruit more students than the previous year there is no funding for them at all in the first 12 months. It's a crazy system that penalises successful schools.

 

[Dryce]

Although PFIs cost the taxpayer billions, what is the alternative?

Paying for what you can actually afford.

PFI is not actually a solution if it costs more. It's deferring a chunk of a higher bill to later. The risk of PFI is you get sjhiny stuff now and you're paing well over the odds for it years later which means you're eating into a future generation's finances. You become poorer.

The alternative is .... to live within your means and spend more effectively. It's called compromising.

 

[Dryce]

Final salary pensions schemes are no more in public services and pay is low.

That's too simplistic. There's plenty in public sector doing very (very very) nicely. There has always been a large number of low paid - and just like private sector there is a split between the haves and have nots in the system.

 

[markjay]

One thing that troubles me and maybe I am over simplifying here so hopefully those more knowledgeable can explain:

The EU has made it clear that there cannot be a free trade agreement and the ability for Britain to go out to make its own international trade deals (the two are mutually exclusive). Otherwise Britain could become the conduit of all international trade with the EU which would bring immense business to Britain at the cost of the rest of the EU.

With that point made pretty clear doesn't that mean the only way we could leave the EU is to go with no deal? Otherwise, a deal would mean we continue paying to the EU and not have control of our trade agreement which mitigates any economic benefit to pay for the cost of leaving the EU in the first place. Or to put it another way, any deal would have to leave us worse off than staying.

So why doesn't any single politician stand up and make this point i.e. if we are going to leave then it is the "No Deal" option?

'No Deal' means hard border in Ireland, which few in the UK will accept (let alone the DUP). That's the impasse.

Also, the key argument for Brexiters is (rightly) the 'majority' vote. But there is no majority for No Deal Brexit and hard Irish Border, which undermines Brexiters' key argument for having Brexit in the first place. Neither a No Deal scenario nor a hard Irish border were even mentioned before the referendum. This is clearly not what people voted for.

Too many keyboard warriors berated May for her 'incompetence'.... when in reality no one could have done anything different - she is either very foolish or very brave for first taking-on and then persisting with what was clearly an impossible task. Personally I think she's both.

 

[Bellow]

Paying for what you can actually afford.

PFI is not actually a solution if it costs more. It's deferring a chunk of a higher bill to later. The risk of PFI is you get sjhiny stuff now and you're paing well over the odds for it years later which means you're eating into a future generation's finances. You become poorer.

The alternative is .... to live within your means and spend more effectively. It's called compromising.

Repairing schools with broken windows and leaking rooves is hardly the buying of 'shiny things'. That, after their playing fields had been sold off and the curriculum cut to the bone (is teaching the rudiments of music too good for state school pupils?). And that's just the schools. Hospitals were in no better a state. Not much room for compromise there.
Admittedly the PFIs have become a mill stone. Admittedly the costs will be borne by a future generation. But at least they were born in a hospital fit for purpose and educated in schools that were at least safe to inhabit.

 

[Dryce]

Repairing schools with broken windows and leaking rooves is hardly the buying of 'shiny things'.

And hardly something that should need PFI.

That, after their playing fields had been sold off and the curriculum cut to the bone (is teaching the rudiments of music too good for state school pupils?).

Same problem as PFI but liquidating assets and no longer having those assets or amenirties in the future.

And that's just the schools. Hospitals were in no better a state. Not much room for compromise there.

Loads of room for compromise when you're looking at paying over the odds for something.

The trouble is conveninece and fashionability and acceptability.

PFI is a quick fix - like pay day loans, it becomes a fashionable solution, and that means no issue with its acceptability.

So delay spending a bit, spend better, fix stuff and don't replace, negotiate better, whatever - if PFI is overpriced then that means there are savings to be made.

Admittedly the PFIs have become a mill stone. Admittedly the costs will be borne by a future generation. But at least they were born in a hospital fit for purpose and educated in schools that were at least safe to inhabit.

Well in Edinburgh apparently the schools were not safe to inhabit.

And yes if you have unfettered immigration then you do kind of build a demand for more hospitals.

Schools don't have to be shiny and new. You can do things on a temporary basis and live with them with no detriment to education. People tend to draw red lines. It's likle those who put themsleves no perpetual car PCPs without really thinking through what the copsts will be - thinking it's a 'cheap way to run a car'.

 

[Scott_F]

Although PFIs cost the taxpayer billions, what is the alternative? A government which expands the infrastructure of public services. The opposing argument is that governments change and policies change so it could have cost the taxpayer more if you spend even more billions establishing an infrastructure which inevitably pays a defined benefit pension to its civil servants. And then a future government rips it all out at an even bigger cost or staff go on strike if their pension schemes are reduced or curtailed.

The point isn’t that PFI cost the taxpayer billions, it’s the fact that it cost the taxpayer far more than it should have done and, as the article in my link explained, has ended up being far more expensive than other forms of funding that the Government could have used.

The alternatives would have included, amongst others, raising funding for these projects via more conventional (and ultimately cheaper) means or doing what the Lib Dems did at that time when they explained to the electorate that good services cost and could be paid for in part by a small increase in income tax.

But as I have said before, politicians court the large section of the electorate who vote for the party that offers them the best tax breaks, moan about poor public services but can’t (or won’t) see the connection.

 

[John N]

Labour sold of a substantial chunk of the national gold reserves,

I seem to remember that slightly differently:

Labour effectively "Gave Away" a Substantial Chunk of the National Gold Reserves!

 

[markjay]

PFI isn't simply about getting things done for less.

Instead, it's about sharing the risk.

With PFI, if a projects fails, or just costs more than originallly planned, or running a loss, etc, the loss is shared and the cost to the public purse is less than what it would have otherwise been.

The philosophy behind this is the notion that the the governmnet should be a facilitator rather than act like a commercial organisation while taking risks with public money.

 

[Scott_F]

Final salary pensions schemes are no more in public services and pay is low.

No it’s not. There are a great many people throughout the public sector who are renumerated very well as a check of pay scales for Chief Executives down to junior managerial staff in NHS trusts, the Civil Service and local government clearly shows.

And for staff at the lower end of the pay scale, local authorities don't employ anyone on just minimum wage and all of their permanent staff enjoy generous ER pension contributions, sick pay and maternity pay along with up to 24 days annual leave via flexitime on top of a holiday entitlement rarely found in the private sector.

 

[Scott_F]

PFI isn't simply about getting things done for less.

Instead, it's about sharing the risk.

With PFI, if a projects fails, or just costs more than originallly planned, or running a loss, etc, the loss is shared and the cost to the public purse is less than what it would have otherwise been.

The philosophy behind this is the notion that the the governmnet should be a facilitator rather than act like a commercial organisation while taking risks with public money.

Unfortunately, the philosophy had deviated sharply from the reality.

PFI has proved to be a hugely-lucrative one-way bet for the private companies involved:

Lessons learnt from PFI in the NHS

To quote from the article:

"As more PFI hospitals have been built it has become apparent that the risks after construction is completed are minimal, and do not seem to justify the higher levels of compensation provided. With the NHS going through its most austere decade of funding growth, it is vital that we minimise the unnecessary leakage of any patient care funds."

And it has also proved to be an enormous drain on NHS funds with money that should have been spent on patient care being used instead to boost shareholder value and fund executive pay for the PFI companies:

"A recent report by CHPI found that 107 of the PFI companies have made pre-tax profits of £831m over the past six years, equal to 8% of the total NHS payments. If kept within the NHS this would have reduced the hospital deficit over that period by almost a quarter. Over the next five years, we estimate that almost £1bn will be paid as pre-tax profit. That’s money not available for patient care and equal to 22% of the additional money promised to the NHS in 2015."

 

[190]

I've worked in both the private sector and the public sector. My private sector job was better paid with longer holidays and a better pension scheme. Pay and condition should match the quality of service so if you think the service is poor then I have no problem with tax payers thinking they get a bad deal financially.

It seems from the comments that everyone wants the public sector pay and conditions to match the very bottom end of those in the private sector. If that's what you want fine but you can't then expect schools to recruit good teachers that will give your kids the education you desire.

If you applied these principle to cars you would all be driving some cheap crap instead of a Mercedes.

 

[Scott_F]

I've worked in both the private sector and the public sector. My private sector job was better paid with longer holidays and a better pension scheme. Pay and condition should match the quality of service so if you think the service is poor then I have no problem with tax payers thinking they get a bad deal financially.

I've no idea what you were doing and when and I don't need to but it is a very, very rare private sector employer who offers rank-and-file staff better holiday entitlement and a better pension than the public sector.

It seems from the comments that everyone wants the public sector pay and conditions to match the very bottom end of those in the private sector.

Do they ?

If that's what you want fine but you can't then expect schools to recruit good teachers that will give your kids the education you desire.

No it isn't what I want which is why I never said it. What I did do was challenge your blanket assertion that public sector pay is low.

 

[219]

Both Labour and the Conservatives are split down the middle over Brexit.

The only party that could get its act together and make headways at this time was always going to be one that was specifically formed around Brexit and therefore have no diversity of opinions on this potentially-divisive matter.

Yes , parties which campaign the next GE for or against this topic will likely oust the divided parties .
The only danger is dividing the vote for one position or the other through having multiple parties with the same agenda which might work against each other .

I think the situation here in Scotland is easier to predict with the two main parties very clear on Brexit , and supporting the way Scotland voted towards it ; much less clear down south . It is likely that Scotland will vote one way and be outvoted by the rest of the UK voting the other way .

 

[219]

It does feel a little like this....
Sure they will to a degree influence our

lives but perhaps the masses (Inc me) have become so dis-interested and dis engaged in the self interested sub culture of politicians......

There is soooo much wrong with the Chinese system, but playing the long game, slowly tidying up their show, to them Brexit is just a bump in the road with regards their 50 year plan. Our /Western political system is leaving the door wide open for them.

Not in my lifetime, but perhaps in my kid's......

A little off track, but when you look at all the posturing and the likelihood of two faced, lying, Boris the Baffoon to be our Premier politician, were not really going to compete are we....

On that bombshell.....

At least he won’t be escorting Trump round next week - might have been hard to tell them apart .

 

[219]

One thing that troubles me and maybe I am over simplifying here so hopefully those more knowledgeable can explain:

The EU has made it clear that there cannot be a free trade agreement and the ability for Britain to go out to make its own international trade deals (the two are mutually exclusive). Otherwise Britain could become the conduit of all international trade with the EU which would bring immense business to Britain at the cost of the rest of the EU.

With that point made pretty clear doesn't that mean the only way we could leave the EU is to go with no deal? Otherwise, a deal would mean we continue paying to the EU and not have control of our trade agreement which mitigates any economic benefit to pay for the cost of leaving the EU in the first place. Or to put it another way, any deal would have to leave us worse off than staying.

So why doesn't any single politician stand up and make this point i.e. if we are going to leave then it is the "No Deal" option?

I don’t see how UK can be anything other than worse off .

 

[219]

Paying for what you can actually afford.

PFI is not actually a solution if it costs more. It's deferring a chunk of a higher bill to later. The risk of PFI is you get sjhiny stuff now and you're paing well over the odds for it years later which means you're eating into a future generation's finances. You become poorer.

The alternative is .... to live within your means and spend more effectively. It's called compromising.

Very much like people driving around in cars they haven’t actually paid for , and up to their ears in monthly payments for this that and the rest .