Labour ?

I would have thought as an ex prime minister he would be advocating vote Labour,  or is he just being realistic?

I think Blair really wants 'anyone but Corbyn' and 'anything but Brexit' rather than 'vote labour'.

Bruce

I think Blair makes a powerful argument here, and a statesmanlike one. The terms of Brexit will have a profound impact on the UK for decades to come and that issue is bigger than party politics and the all-too-common short-sightheness of prioritising what is needed to stay in power for the next five years. I wonder if some of the Tory grandees will speak out in a similar way e.g. Major, Hestletine,   

MDS posted:

I think Blair makes a powerful argument here, and a statesmanlike one. The terms of Brexit will have a profound impact on the UK for decades to come and that issue is bigger than party politics and the all-too-common short-sightheness of prioritising what is needed to stay in power for the next five years. I wonder if some of the Tory grandees will speak out in a similar way e.g. Major, Hestletine,   

Mike, I agree that Brexit will have a profound effect and I think Blair is right to suggest we seek clarity from our various candidates as to their position.

I shall be seeking clarity from the Conservative and Libdem candidates for Newbury in the next few days.

Grammar schools, the NHS, Trident and our infrastructure etal will have to take a back seat this time round !

I am a lifelong labour voter.  I consider the Blair/Brown years to have been a disaster for the party because right wingers disliked their political correctness e.g. on immigration and left wingers their sell outs e.g. on low taxation.

We may be missing a point here.  The inaccuracy of recent polls has been a major factor.  My guess is that people vote against apparently high poll majorities on the principle of helping out the underdog.

I feel that the Tories will be raising taxes despite their normal unwillingness to do so.  Even so, their hidden agenda is to destroy the NHS but they will never admit it, the rich, tightwad Mfrs. 

Shep,

I'm not for or against, but I don't follow your logic, why do you think the tories have a hidden agenda to destroy the NHS?

Don Atkinson posted:

MDS posted:

I think Blair makes a powerful argument here, and a statesmanlike one. The terms of Brexit will have a profound impact on the UK for decades to come and that issue is bigger than party politics and the all-too-common short-sightheness of prioritising what is needed to stay in power for the next five years. I wonder if some of the Tory grandees will speak out in a similar way e.g. Major, Hestletine,   

Mike, I agree that Brexit will have a profound effect and I think Blair is right to suggest we seek clarity from our various candidates as to their position.

I shall be seeking clarity from the Conservative and Libdem candidates for Newbury in the next few days.

Grammar schools, the NHS, Trident and our infrastructure etal will have to take a back seat this time round !

I agree, Don.  I suspect some candidates (of all parties) will have some awkward conversations when they are out canvassing and are faced with people who quiz them on the Brexit agenda.  Pre-prepared lines-to-take and sound-bites will not persuade everyone. 

For the same reason Trump wants to get rid of Obamacare.  They don't want to contribute to the health care of the less well-off.

The Tories have always been accused of this hidden agenda since Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979.  It's a completely overlooked fact that under her leadership that expenditure on NHS exceeded that on Defence for the first time.  It was Blair who embarked on a series of ill-thought PFIs across NHS. 

The Strat (Fender) posted:

The Tories have always been accused of this hidden agenda since Margaret Thatcher was elected in 1979.  It's a completely overlooked fact that under her leadership that expenditure on NHS exceeded that on Defence for the first time.  It was Blair who embarked on a series of ill-thought PFIs across NHS. 

At risk of splitting-hairs, I think the PFI idea was Brown's, and we all know how the Labour government of that period was effectively two factions, increasingly hostile to one another.   

As I understand it, any labour member advocating a vote for another party is deliberately going against labours own rules and constitution and therfore it becomes  an expellable offence? 

Does this not apply to Mr Blair?

Actually the PPP (Public Private Partnership) which morphed into PFI had its genesis under the previous under the previous Tory administration but New Labour embraced it with open arms.  Indeed Ed Milliband spoke proudly of his children being born in a PFI hospital.  

Indeed so. The reason for PFI is because it doesn't count as public expenditure. So you can spend more without spending more. Never mind that it binds future budgets for thirty years or more. I've negotiated a couple of PFIs for local authorities (noting that I'm unprofessional of course) and it's an absolute nightmare, and a massive gravy train for lawyers, advisers and the banks, all of which expenditure could have been used for the scheme itself, or not spent at all. But then it's not real money, so it doesn't matter. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Indeed so. The reason for PFI is because it doesn't count as public expenditure. So you can spend more without spending more. Never mind that it binds future budgets for thirty years or more. I've negotiated a couple of PFIs for local authorities (noting that I'm unprofessional of course) and it's an absolute nightmare, and a massive gravy train for lawyers, advisers and the banks, all of which expenditure could have been used for the scheme itself, or not spent at all. But then it's not real money, so it doesn't matter. 

Unfortunately the payback for many years to come is exactly that: real money, and lots of it, hence the destitution of so many NHS trusts.

Local authorities can borrow from the PWLB (public works loans board) at far lower rates than can the banks, so the total cost of PFI is far greater than funding directly on the national balance sheet. But as is so often the case, short term expediency trumps long term common sense. For the local authorities, the PFI credits they receive through their grant makes it cheaper than borrowing directly from the PWLB, but of course the total cost at national level is far greater. 

The trouble now of course is that we thousands of schools, all built at a similar time, and all falling apart. What to do?

As I see it, the real problem is that Britain wants Scandinavian levels of public services with American levels of tax. That's just not possible, but no political party has the balls to say it. 

Hungryhalibut posted:

Local authorities can borrow from the PWLB (public works loans board) at far lower rates than can the banks, so the total cost of PFI is far greater than funding directly on the national balance sheet. But as is so often the case, short term expediency trumps long term common sense. For the local authorities, the PFI credits they receive through their grant makes it cheaper than borrowing directly from the PWLB, but of course the total cost at national level is far greater. 

The trouble now of course is that we thousands of schools, all built at a similar time, and all falling apart. What to do?

As I see it, the real problem is that Britain wants Scandinavian levels of public services with American levels of tax. That's just not possible, but no political party has the balls to say it. 

Well said. It's the bottom line.

But I still think that the Conservatives are better at encouraging wealth creation, whilst Labour is better at sharing out the wealth that has been created. So, I used to be happy with 2 terms of Conservatives followed by one term of Labour. Or vice versa. not perfect, and certainly could be bettered. By both sides.

I think it's about time we re-thought our decision-making (ie political) system......and I'm NOT suggesting a weekly referendum covering schools, defence, NHS, infrastructure etc

Hungryhalibut posted:

Local authorities can borrow from the PWLB (public works loans board) at far lower rates than can the banks, so the total cost of PFI is far greater than funding directly on the national balance sheet. But as is so often the case, short term expediency trumps long term common sense. For the local authorities, the PFI credits they receive through their grant makes it cheaper than borrowing directly from the PWLB, but of course the total cost at national level is far greater. 

The trouble now of course is that we thousands of schools, all built at a similar time, and all falling apart. What to do?

As I see it, the real problem is that Britain wants Scandinavian levels of public services with American levels of tax. That's just not possible, but no political party has the balls to say it. 

If "George" were still here, he would suggest using the North Sea Oil revenues more wisely for the UK national good.

Don Atkinson posted:

I think it's about time we re-thought our decision-making (ie political) system......and I'm NOT suggesting a weekly referendum covering schools, defence, NHS, infrastructure etc

PR?

Hungryhalibut posted:

Indeed so. The reason for PFI is because it doesn't count as public expenditure. So you can spend more without spending more. Never mind that it binds future budgets for thirty years or more. I've negotiated a couple of PFIs for local authorities (noting that I'm unprofessional of course) and it's an absolute nightmare, and a massive gravy train for lawyers, advisers and the banks, all of which expenditure could have been used for the scheme itself, or not spent at all. But then it's not real money, so it doesn't matter. 

What do you mean when you say you'e negotiated a couple of PFIs for local authorities?

In my experience PFI brought lower contruction costs and lower maintenence costs.

The harms caused to the NHS by New Labour were far greater than just PFI. BLair's Choice Agenda knowingly funnelled large amounts of work and profit to private sector providers. It was smartly done; if it were the Tories they would have been roasted for covert privatisation. They also created a very expensive bureaucracy and a target culture full of perverse incentives. 

Plenty more too. Sins of omission in common with successive and previous administrations in terms of true reform, workforce planning. I could continue.

Any narrative that paints the Labour Party as historic defenders of the NHS is wrong IMHO.

No Party has really bitten the bullet, and I don't see any doing it now. As for the current Tory agenda we are seeing private providers dropping out of some contract tendering because there is just no money in it for them. That is the degree of squeeze now. No idea where it ends, and in truth I don't actually think the Tories do either. Not that I trust them mind you.

Bruce

fatcat posted:

Hungryhalibut posted:

Indeed so. The reason for PFI is because it doesn't count as public expenditure. So you can spend more without spending more. Never mind that it binds future budgets for thirty years or more. I've negotiated a couple of PFIs for local authorities (noting that I'm unprofessional of course) and it's an absolute nightmare, and a massive gravy train for lawyers, advisers and the banks, all of which expenditure could have been used for the scheme itself, or not spent at all. But then it's not real money, so it doesn't matter. 

What do you mean when you say you'e negotiated a couple of PFIs for local authorities?

In my experience PFI brought lower contruction costs and lower maintenence costs.

I was the local authority finance lead working with its technical people and lawyers to negotiate with the prospective contractors. Invariably with pfi you end up with a far higher service than you had before - e.g. Building a new waste processing plant or replacing all the street lights as without the capital element you won't get the funding. I'll say no more as it's something of a diversion. 

Who gives a jot about this trivia when it has become a norm in society to hang dog shit from our trees. 

So it's official, Tony Blair has announced his return to politics? 

I think he must be delusional, but he obviously thinks he has something to offer??? 

thebigfredc posted:

Who gives a jot about this trivia when it has become a norm in society to hang dog shit from our trees. 

Quite so...

My gut feeling says this will be a landslide victory for the Conservatives.

TM will achieve her aim of securing a significant majority of seats in the HoC. She will take this as a mandate for running the Brexit negotiations her way and interpreting the outcome as successful, whatever the end result.

If significantly more than half those who vote, vote Conservative, then I accept that running the Brexit negotiations her way and interpreting the outcome as successful, whatever the end result will be justified, at least in some strange sort of way. And who knows, looking on the bright side, she just might be successful in securing a good outcome. let's hope so any way.

However, if she doesn't secure significantly more than half the popular vote, but still secures a significant majority of seats in the HoC, what then..........? eg :-

In the "limit", suppose there are four candidates for each seat, and the Conservatives win each and every seat with 25% of the votes cast plus 10................eg 25,010 v 24,996 v 24,997 v 24,997............? Is she still justified in running the Brexit negotiations her way and interpreting the outcome as successful, whatever the end result ?