2015 UK General Election Thread

[Dave42]

Originally Posted by Damien

Problem for Labour. They've just admitted (on the radio) they can't match the Tories £8bn increase in spending in the NHS. Only £2.5 billion increase.

there is no way tories will spend £8bn increase on NHS which is in a big mess since last election Osborne refused to answer where money coming from 4 times Andrew Marr asked him

not sure Labours mansion tax will raise the £2.5bn either for the NHS

[heero_yuy]

I'm glad that R4's PM program bring in the analysts from More or Less to go over the figures and debunk some of the promises.

Take everything with a very large pinch of salt.

[Hom3r]

A reason NOT to vote tory, how many businesses have the tories sold off?

British Rail
British Gas
British Steel
Coal
Royal Mail
Electricity
Plus many more.

A few had tories which made money out of it.

Originally Posted by Hom3r

A reason NOT to vote tory, how many businesses have the tories sold off?

British Rail
British Gas
British Steel
Coal
Royal Mail
Electricity
Plus many more.

A few had tories which made money out of it.

Selling those businesses saved most of them from bankruptcy ,governments are not put in place to run companies in my opinion.

---------- Post added at 18:39 ---------- Previous post was at 18:37 ----------

Originally Posted by Hom3r

A few had tories which made money out of it.

Conveniently forgetting about all the Labour supporters and funders making millions out of PFI

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by martyh

Selling those businesses saved most of them from bankruptcy ,governments are not put in place to run companies in my opinion.

Just look at those money pits of the seventies. The state was well rid of them. I cannot seriously believe that people think that nationalised industries were better. Unless of course they never experienced them.

I lived through the seventies couldn't care less attitudes, months to get a phone line installed and then only with their crappy equipment. British Leyland on constant strike. British Steel costing £3million a day of your money.

[Osem]

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Just look at those money pits of the seventies. The state was well rid of them. I cannot seriously believe that people think that nationalised industries were better. Unless of course they never experienced them.

I lived through the seventies couldn't care less attitudes, months to get a phone line installed and then only with their crappy equipment. British Leyland on constant strike. British Steel costing £3million a day of your money.

Some people really do see through rose tinted specs

Yeah things were sooooooo much better then.... If more of those lefty loonies who bang on about BL cars actually put their money where their mouths were at the time maybe they'd have survived a bit longer.

As for British Rail - I remember countless cancellations, disgusting trains/stations, numerous strikes, etc. etc. Yes they were indeed the glory days of train travel in the UK.

Originally Posted by heero_yuy

Just look at those money pits of the seventies. The state was well rid of them. I cannot seriously believe that people think that nationalised industries were better. Unless of course they never experienced them.

I lived through the seventies couldn't care less attitudes, months to get a phone line installed and then only with their crappy equipment. British Leyland on constant strike. British Steel costing £3million a day of your money.

Even Blair and Brown realised that Nationalisation was wrong

Some industries are much better privatised. Especially telecoms. That said I don't think all of them are and it's become something of pushing the ideology at all costs no matter what. You need to take it as a case-by-case issue rather than privatisation = good, nationalisation = bad.

Rail I don't think it makes sense to privatise as there is only one track and thus competition is meaningless. Once they have the franchise then they don't have long to turn a profit. This is why state investment has only increased since it was 'privatised' as there is no incentive for the private companies to invest. Remember that awful tender that FirstGroup put up where they claimed they would pay more and have cheaper tickets? Never made any sense and thankfully Virgin took it to court at which point the Government 'saw some mistakes' and pulled the tender.

Britain is rare in having a privatised runway. France and Germany do not. Even America, home of capitalism and competition, don't have it.

Royal Mail I am not sure of either but we'll wait and see how that turns out. I worry about the uneconomical deliveries. How long before villages get a few deliveries a week?

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by martyh

To explain that you have to look at the how the tax revenues were used ,one example I am personally familiar with was the Decent Homes Scheme ,a scheme where the Labour government of 2000 gave away billions to LA's to upgrade council houses ,a worthwhile and much needed scheme that was extremely badly managed and wasted a lot of the funds. It was due for completion in 2010 but a report in 2010 estimated completion in 2018 costing billions more .
I am sure there are other failures from both labour and conservative but this was a main policy for Labour and much lauded by Blair and Brown and accounts for a lot of waste in the public purse


http://www.24dash.com/news/housing/2...l-Audit-Office


It's worth mentioning also that the current government is still borrowing money to pay for this scheme because they have an obligation to continue the scheme until completion which also accounts for a lot the extra borrowing in the current government

£40bn of borrowing a year? Add a £17bn a year surplus and that is the sort of figure of excessive spending we're talking about. That was still all pre-banking crisis.

Originally Posted by Damien

Some industries are much better privatised. Especially telecoms. That said I don't think all of them are and it's become something of pushing the ideology at all costs no matter what. You need to take it as a case-by-case issue rather than privatisation = good, nationalisation = bad.

Rail I don't think it makes sense to privatise as there is only one track and thus competition is meaningless. Once they have the franchise then they don't have long to turn a profit. This is why state investment has only increased since it was 'privatised' as there is no incentive for the private companies to invest. Remember that awful tender that FirstGroup put up where they claimed they would pay more and have cheaper tickets? Never made any sense and thankfully Virgin took it to court at which point the Government 'saw some mistakes' and pulled the tender.

Britain is rare in having a privatised runway. France and Germany do not. Even America, home of capitalism and competition, don't have it.

Royal Mail I am not sure of either but we'll wait and see how that turns out. I worry about the uneconomical deliveries. How long before villages get a few deliveries a week?

State investment has increased since privatisation because prior to that, there had been 50-odd years of chronic underinvestment and certain parts of the network were becoming dangerous. Signing contracts with 3rd parties to run services creates obligations around the quality of the infrastructure. Companies like Virgin and First don't appreciate the reputational damage caused by faulty tracks and signals killing their customers.

Once upon a time, Britain was rare in having a railway at all. Being prepared to do things differently to our competitors used to be considered one of our great strengths.

Originally Posted by Chris

State investment has increased since privatisation because prior to that, there had been 50-odd years of chronic underinvestment and certain parts of the network were becoming dangerous. Signing contracts with 3rd parties to run services creates obligations around the quality of the infrastructure. Companies like Virgin and First don't appreciate the reputational damage caused by faulty tracks and signals killing their customers.

Then nationalise with further investment. All real investment has to be done by the Government anyway so why create a system where companies need to skim a profit as well?

The fact that the Government underfunded it for decades and then used that as evidence it doesn't work is perverse. If the only real value in having the third parties involved is because they'll complain about track quality then that isn't the greatest argument besides the track isn't privatised as well is because we had to reclaim it when Railtrack went down the pan.

When he had to reclaim the East Coast Main Line it turned out to run better than it had before and even return a profit.

Once upon a time, Britain was rare in having a railway at all. Being prepared to do things differently to our competitors used to be considered one of our great strengths.

Things are only worth doing differently if there is a logical purpose for it. The logic behind the privatisation of the rail network seems to be that privatisation is good.

Originally Posted by Damien

Then nationalise with further investment. All real investment has to be done by the Government anyway so why create a system where companies need to skim a profit as well?

Because the profit incentive produces innovation and efficiency. Come on ... This was one of the key ideological arguments of the 20th century. News flash: Statism lost.

The fact that the Government underfunded it for decades and then used that as evidence it doesn't work is perverse. If the only real value in having the third parties involved is because they'll complain about track quality then that isn't the greatest argument besides the track isn't privatised as well is because we had to reclaim it when Railtrack went down the pan.

It's not an issue of "track quality" - incidents at Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar and Greyrigg demonstrated chronic safety issues, both in terms of the physical state of the track and the safety culture - or lack thereof - of those who were supposed to be responsible for its maintenance. These issues stretched back well before privatisation (see: Clapham Junction) but if the involvement of private companies is what it took to force the issue up the agenda, then that's all to the good.

A state owned and operated railway will always have to fight for an allocation of cash in the government's annual planned expenditure, and is as vulnerable as anything else that relies on same, namely everything else overseen by the DoT, the home office, foreign office, DfE ... You name it. Contractual obligations to third parties is what has allowed our railway network to first of all overcome its chronic safety issues, and now, to begin to address chronic capacity issues.

When he had to reclaim the East Coast Main Line it turned out to run better than it had before and even return a profit.

This is nonsense. The Great Western and West Coast franchises outperformed East Coast in terms of passenger satisfaction and other key measures throughout its stint under DOR control. In any case, the best comparison will be between DOR and the next five years performance under Virgin, as there was not another operator running like for like services on the same track at the same time. Comparing DOR with a prior franchise whose operator conceded had failed is somewhat pointless. The fact is, national rail franchises do not routinely fail. This was exceptional, and comparing an exceptional and rare private failure with a brief period of state control in which nothing went wrong, but in which nothing was spectacular either, tells us nothing useful.

Things are only worth doing differently if there is a logical purpose for it. The logic behind the privatisation of the rail network seems to be that privatisation is good.

See above. Give people a profit incentive and they operate more efficiently and innovatively. The market, regulated where necessary, works. Simple as.

Originally Posted by Chris

Because the profit incentive produces innovation and efficiency. Come on ... This was one of the key ideological arguments of the 20th century. News flash: Statism lost.

I am talking about the specific application of the principle on the rail network. You can't just declare Statism lost and the argument as been won. France, Germany and even America have state run railways. We still have many services run by the state. It's not a question of if the state should run everything or nothing but the degree to which the state is involved. Pretty much every nation has varying degrees of it.

It's not an issue of "track quality" - incidents at Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar and Greyrigg demonstrated chronic safety issues, both in terms of the physical state of the track and the safety culture - or lack thereof - of those who were supposed to be responsible for its maintenance. These issues stretched back well before privatisation (see: Clapham Junction) but if the involvement of private companies is what it took to force the issue up the agenda, then that's all to the good.

I would say the incidents themselves contributed to the awareness of the dire state of the infrastructure before rail companies complained. That and the increased amount of passengers on the rail networks as the country becomes increasingly centralised in urban areas.

I don't think we need to involve companies so we can have a contractual way of holding the Government to account for the state of the rail network. This wasn't even the intention of privatisation as the rail network was privatised and failed so now we do it. We're stuck with a situation that even those behind the scheme didn't want. A hybrid system where the major investment comes from the State and the companies run the service and the rolling stock - badly.

A state owned and operated railway will always have to fight for an allocation of cash in the government's annual planned expenditure, and is as vulnerable as anything else that relies on same, namely everything else overseen by the DoT, the home office, foreign office, DfE ... You name it. Contractual obligations to third parties is what has allowed our railway network to first of all overcome its chronic safety issues, and now, to begin to address chronic capacity issues.

This is already the case now. HS2 is being funded by the state. Voters can decide where it should be priortised, not third parties.

This is nonsense. The Great Western and West Coast franchises outperformed East Coast in terms of passenger satisfaction and other key measures throughout its stint under DOR control. In any case, the best comparison will be between DOR and the next five years performance under Virgin, as there was not another operator running like for like services on the same track at the same time. Comparing DOR with a prior franchise whose operator conceded had failed is somewhat pointless. The fact is, national rail franchises do not routinely fail. This was exceptional, and comparing an exceptional and rare private failure with a brief period of state control in which nothing went wrong, but in which nothing was spectacular either, tells us nothing useful.

OK I will concede East Coast may not the best example.

Still. It takes a lot of fail. You need to be really bad to have the franchise taken away from you. One I used was routinely late, 4 carriages instead of 8 at rush hour had the time, broken down train after broken down train, trains cancelled and refunds not materialising. It took years before they lost the franchise. The new one is better but still undependable and the cost insane.

See above. Give people a profit incentive and they operate more efficiently and innovatively. The market, regulated where necessary, works. Simple as.

Why? It's not as if they'll be kicked out of business by more efficient companies. They have a monopoly on the line as long as they meet the targets. Other than that they'll be encouraged to keep as much money as they can in profit before the tender is up for renewal. They will have to be doing some impressive job to do well enough to make a profit and still be cheaper than the state. I think that one of the central reasons privatisation works is competition which doesn't exist on the railways.

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by Osem

Some people really do see through rose tinted specs

Yeah things were sooooooo much better then.... If more of those lefty loonies who bang on about BL cars actually put their money where their mouths were at the time maybe they'd have survived a bit longer.

As for British Rail - I remember countless cancellations, disgusting trains/stations, numerous strikes, etc. etc. Yes they were indeed the glory days of train travel in the UK.

As opposed to now where it's cheaper to fly than get the train in many cases

---------- Post added at 01:55 ---------- Previous post was at 01:53 ----------

Originally Posted by Chris

Because the profit incentive produces innovation and efficiency. Come on ... This was one of the key ideological arguments of the 20th century. News flash: Statism lost.



It's not an issue of "track quality" - incidents at Ladbroke Grove, Potters Bar and Greyrigg demonstrated chronic safety issues, both in terms of the physical state of the track and the safety culture - or lack thereof - of those who were supposed to be responsible for its maintenance. These issues stretched back well before privatisation (see: Clapham Junction) but if the involvement of private companies is what it took to force the issue up the agenda, then that's all to the good.

A state owned and operated railway will always have to fight for an allocation of cash in the government's annual planned expenditure, and is as vulnerable as anything else that relies on same, namely everything else overseen by the DoT, the home office, foreign office, DfE ... You name it. Contractual obligations to third parties is what has allowed our railway network to first of all overcome its chronic safety issues, and now, to begin to address chronic capacity issues.



This is nonsense. The Great Western and West Coast franchises outperformed East Coast in terms of passenger satisfaction and other key measures throughout its stint under DOR control. In any case, the best comparison will be between DOR and the next five years performance under Virgin, as there was not another operator running like for like services on the same track at the same time. Comparing DOR with a prior franchise whose operator conceded had failed is somewhat pointless. The fact is, national rail franchises do not routinely fail. This was exceptional, and comparing an exceptional and rare private failure with a brief period of state control in which nothing went wrong, but in which nothing was spectacular either, tells us nothing useful.



See above. Give people a profit incentive and they operate more efficiently and innovatively. The market, regulated where necessary, works. Simple as.

Or profit incentive could lead to job cuts, gross underinvestment in infrastructure, larger bills and debt leveraged against companies as with the water companies.

[Ignitionnet]

Both of the major parties appear to, at the last minute, have decided to desperately try and cover up their perceived deficiencies.

The Conservatives suddenly magic £8 billion out of the air for the NHS, having spent however many years telling us how vital it is to show fiscal responsibility. George Osborne also told a blatant lie when he said that the worst of the austerity has already been done, it hasn't, but that's another story. He looked a tool when he couldn't explain where the cash was going to come from, about the only place that comes to mind is that he's hoping for growth in tax receipts to cover it. Hmm that sounds a familiar story. One I'm pretty sure he, in between promising to match and exceed Labour's spending, lambasted.

The economic illiteracy of the British people is being ruthlessly exploited. People are told that it's vital the country begins to pay down the debt. It's not - it's vital that we reduce our debt to GDP ratio which certainly isn't the same thing. Astonishing level of duplicity from the coalition in conveniently changing how they've been rating the deficit from absolute terms to the debt to GDP ratio as it scores a better number on the soundbites, especially duplicious as it they only began doing it recently.

Conservatives try to paint it as a bad thing that Labour are willing to borrow for capital investment. This isn't a bad thing - borrowing for productive investment is done all the time. Borrowing Osborne and company's ridiculous model of treating state finances like household ones borrowing in order to make a productive, and profitable investment is exactly the right reason for a household to borrow.

Indeed we have a big investment gap to fill as big businesses seem to be more interested in borrowing to buy back their own stock and hence boost their earnings per share and in turn bonuses for senior staff than they do investing in productive activities. 97% of money is created by private banks, only 3% of free floating funds by the BoE, and of that 97% only about 10% ends up going to business and as mentioned a lot of them are buying their own shares with it. The rest is used to speculate on the financial markets and buy property.

Assuming Labour stick to it, and there's no way they can under their current plans as there's a big black hole there, balancing current spending, running a surplus as much as possible, and borrowing for capital is spot on. As a concept that's a decent way to run an economy, especially one as starved of investment as ours.

That's the main rub with Labour though, a manifesto light on details with a whole bunch of things missing. The numbers simply don't add up.

On a subject close to my heart - housing. The Tories continue spending taxpayers' money to keep house prices high. The most recent scam being extending Right to Buy to housing association tenants universally and increasing the discount for those who already had the right. So if you're young this doesn't help you in any way, you've just seen the social housing stock drop. If you can't afford it you've just seen the social housing stock drop as it'll be funded by forcing local authorities to sell larger properties as they become available - don't grow your family. If you can afford it then congratulations, an estimated 100-200,000 households will be purchasing properties at a taxpayer subsidised discount, given the locations of these an early estimate reckons at least 1/3rd of which will end up in private landlord hands in the not too distant future.

Naturally the Conservatives are going to carry on protecting the greenbelt. Yes, yes, it was fine for it to be less than half the size it is now 20-30 years ago but we just can't afford to lose a single hectare of it now. Never mind that urban greenery has far more value both in terms of quality of life and utility.

Labour's promises on housing are nebulous, lacking in detail, and nowhere near ambitious enough.

What I've heard from the Tories so far is a whole bunch of bribes to their core vote alongside the occasional swipe at a smaller subset of the wealthiest.

What I've heard from Labour is confusing, nebulous, contradictory.

I would say that both completely abandoned any hope of getting a majority, both have been appealing to their core voters, however as a desperate and belated rear guard action both have tried to paper cracks and win some of those in the middle by impersonating the other.

These parties are both unbelievably dire.

Watching the current machinations I suspect Labour will end up in a coalition with the Lib Dems. Whether this gives them enough to form a majority or not I doubt, and they may up in a confidence and supply arrangement with the SNP.

Given how unbelievably crap both Conservatives and Labour are the days of majority politics seem to be over for the foreseeable.