politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Nearly of third of current LAB voters not sure that Corbyn would make the best PM
How solid is Labour's vote? Nearly a third of their 2017 voters are not sure Jeremy Corbyn would make the best Prime Minister. #Lab17 pic.twitter.com/XiQaQCmQyf
I'm detecting signs of hubris amongst the Corbynistas at the moment. For example, the plan to do over utility company shareholders is brave considering what happened to May with the "dementia tax"
I'm not convinced Corbyn will ever be PM. If he lasts to the next election I could easily see a 1992 scenario playing out.
Well he's still a good chance to be pm - it doesn't matter if people are not sure if they still vote, and they might hold up better than a tory party waiting to engage in internal bloodletting. If not him, he'll stand down for a successor.
A half-decent Tory campaign where a Labour Govt. is a real threat will do wonders to concentrate their minds.... The real prospect of Corbyn and McDonnell killing the goose that lays the NHS golden eggs needs to be exposed.
Edited extra bit: just seen the Aston Martin rumours, but they were circulating last race weekend too. F1 needs to get more teams in. If it lost two there'd be a paltry 16 cars on the grid.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
They could vote LD
If they are anti tories first there is no poont doing that on most places even in the sw. I think the desire to get out the tories will eclipse concerns about labour, when push comes to shove.
I am wondering about those 3 in 20 Tory voters who are not sure. I am very surprised, nay astonished, that there are so many. We hear a great deal from Labour people who are not enamoured of JC. However that so many Tory voters cant decide between May and Corbyn suggests that both parties vote may be soft.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
They could vote LD
If they are anti tories first there is no poont doing that on most places even in the sw. I think the desire to get out the tories will eclipse concerns about labour, when push comes to shove.
Indeed. I am one of those people. Although I will get a Tory MP whatever I do, short of moving, The choice is massive majority or large majority. There is absolutely no utility in me voting LD, no matter how many dodgy bar charts they produce.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
I think that is the real question. I suspect most will still want the Tories out, especially after 12 years. And if the Conservatives continue with their current zombie state then those views may well extend beyond traditional Labour supporters.
I am wondering about those 3 in 20 Tory voters who are not sure. I am very surprised, nay astonished, that there are so many. We hear a great deal from Labour people who are not enamoured of JC. However that so many Tory voters cant decide between May and Corbyn suggests that both parties vote may be soft.
Or maybe the Tory supporters expect the party to offer them a different choice by an election. Which it will.
Mind you, as a long-time connoisseur of naked political spin and hypocrisy, I do have to admit to a sneaking regard for the sheer brazen chutzpah of John McDonnell. Normally you have to compare what politicians say on different days to appreciate the full glory of their hypocrisies; only McDonnell would think he could get away with these two bits of the same speech:
And, yes, in 1997, after 18 years of Thatcherism, when whole industries and communities across our country had been destroyed by the Tories and our public services were on their knees, it was the Blair/Brown government that recognised and delivered the scale of public investment that a 21st century society needed.
and
The scandal of the Private Finance Initiative, launched by John Major, has resulted in huge, long-term costs for tax payers, whilst handing out enormous profits for some companies. Profits which are coming out of the budgets of our public services.
Over the next few decades, nearly two hundred billion is scheduled to be paid out of public sector budgets in PFI deals. In the NHS alone, £831m in pre-tax profits have been made over the past six years. As early as 2002 this conference regretted the use of PFI.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
I think that is the real question. I suspect most will still want the Tories out, especially after 12 years. And if the Conservatives continue with their current zombie state then those views may well extend beyond traditional Labour supporters.
I think whenever the next election is held, the message "Brexit was hard fought - but Britain is through that, full of optimism and fighting hard to shape its place in the world. Don't let Labour piss it all up against a wall again" will have some considerable resonance.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
I believe enough of it is sensible to keep on board those appalled by the bits that are not , hatred for some at tories high enough, and a tired tory party divided enough, will see labour win.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
Yes, such a policy programme could win, if faced with a tired, jaded government. There has been a consensus in politics for a few decades now, and whilst people are generally better off (IMO), many feel like they are being left behind.
But what makes me laugh are the Labourites who were against Corbyn before the election due to his policies and past words and deeds, who now support him just because they think he might win ...
I am wondering about those 3 in 20 Tory voters who are not sure. I am very surprised, nay astonished, that there are so many. We hear a great deal from Labour people who are not enamoured of JC. However that so many Tory voters cant decide between May and Corbyn suggests that both parties vote may be soft.
Or maybe the Tory supporters expect the party to offer them a different choice by an election. Which it will.
Yes, I get that. However, none of the prospective leaders has significantly better ratings. Will EVERY Tory voter think thank God we've got Boris now. Time for mature and efficient leadership?
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
I think that is the real question. I suspect most will still want the Tories out, especially after 12 years. And if the Conservatives continue with their current zombie state then those views may well extend beyond traditional Labour supporters.
I think whenever the next election is held, the message "Brexit was hard fought - but Britain is through that, full of optimism and fighting hard to shape its place in the world. Don't let Labour piss it all up against a wall again" will have some considerable resonance.
That very much depends on how the economy is going. We are overdue a recession after 10 years. If that coincides with Brexit this government is going to find selling itself very difficult whether that is fair or not.
But I think the forthcoming conference is as important as I can recall. The Tories desperately require new leadership and new ideas that resonate with the concerns of the British people. Housing, transport, job security, even social care need radical new thinking and leadership. If the Conference is all about Brexit the Tories will be in serious trouble.
There’s no anti-Semitism in Labour, they had an enquiry and everything. https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/labour-fringe-expel-jewish-activists-israel-like-nazis/ A fringe event at Labour conference has heard calls to expel Jewish activists from the party, while a speaker compared Israel to Nazis and the audience was banned from tweeting in an attempt to silence “hostile” coverage.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
Yes, such a policy programme could win, if faced with a tired, jaded government. There has been a consensus in politics for a few decades now, and whilst people are generally better off (IMO), many feel like they are being left behind.
But what makes me laugh are the Labourites who were against Corbyn before the election due to his policies and past words and deeds, who now support him just because they think he might win ...
Tribalism results in some terrible political decisions. Look across the pond at the US - how many voted for Trump just because he was the GOP candidate?
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
Wait a minute. I thought Khan was an enemy of Corbyn? It is difficult to keep up with the right's views of the Labour Party.
Edited extra bit: just seen the Aston Martin rumours, but they were circulating last race weekend too. F1 needs to get more teams in. If it lost two there'd be a paltry 16 cars on the grid.
I am wondering about those 3 in 20 Tory voters who are not sure. I am very surprised, nay astonished, that there are so many. We hear a great deal from Labour people who are not enamoured of JC. However that so many Tory voters cant decide between May and Corbyn suggests that both parties vote may be soft.
Or maybe the Tory supporters expect the party to offer them a different choice by an election. Which it will.
Yes, I get that. However, none of the prospective leaders has significantly better ratings. Will EVERY Tory voter think thank God we've got Boris now. Time for mature and efficient leadership?
I thought Hammond was in team Boris?
The Tories need some new faces as urgently as Labour do.
Edited extra bit: just seen the Aston Martin rumours, but they were circulating last race weekend too. F1 needs to get more teams in. If it lost two there'd be a paltry 16 cars on the grid.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
I believe enough of it is sensible to keep on board those appalled by the bits that are not , hatred for some at tories high enough, and a tired tory party divided enough, will see labour win.
The Tories should play it very long, looking like at least until 2021 up to the end of any transition period. They either then have a new leader or May has become some kind of UK Merkel (successful version pre this weekend). On the other hand, can Labour keep their relentless drive towards Venezuela/Mugabe style politics without coming a cropper? 4+ more years of such madness is difficult to sustain and keep "popular".
Edited extra bit: just seen the Aston Martin rumours, but they were circulating last race weekend too. F1 needs to get more teams in. If it lost two there'd be a paltry 16 cars on the grid.
That’s a good question! I’ll guess that as the shareholders are still Austrian at this stage, so the entry will remain with that country. Always annoys me when cars built in Brackley have the German national anthem played when they win.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
After the last election - it's certainly Labour's turn for hubris
Indeed now I think about it- you could say these things take turns.
Labour overconfident in 2015, Tories underconfident. Tories probably overconfident in 2010.
Were Labour overconfident in 2005? Not sure I remember really...
One of the notable things about 2001/2005 was, in spite of the election being relatively 'easy' for Labour, they really did not spare their main opposition. Every utterance by any tory was turned into an attack, not even a gulp of oxygen was given to them.
Under Blair/Brown/Campbell (to 2003), the Tory vote was decimated four times over (14.1m down to 8.8m), those 6 million did not go to Labour over the same period.
I am wondering about those 3 in 20 Tory voters who are not sure. I am very surprised, nay astonished, that there are so many. We hear a great deal from Labour people who are not enamoured of JC. However that so many Tory voters cant decide between May and Corbyn suggests that both parties vote may be soft.
Or maybe the Tory supporters expect the party to offer them a different choice by an election. Which it will.
Yes, I get that. However, none of the prospective leaders has significantly better ratings. Will EVERY Tory voter think thank God we've got Boris now. Time for mature and efficient leadership?
I thought Hammond was in team Boris?
The Tories need some new faces as urgently as Labour do.
We can certainly agree on that. Not just faces, but thinking too. Across both major parties.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
I believe enough of it is sensible to keep on board those appalled by the bits that are not , hatred for some at tories high enough, and a tired tory party divided enough, will see labour win.
Fine. Except it becomes clearer all the time that on Brexit Labour is as divided as the Tories...
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
After the last election - it's certainly Labour's turn for hubris
Indeed now I think about it- you could say these things take turns.
Labour overconfident in 2015, Tories underconfident. Tories probably overconfident in 2010.
Were Labour overconfident in 2005? Not sure I remember really...
2005 saw the Labour safe seat vote drop off further but hold up pretty well in surburbia/ metropolitania . Iirc, post-Iraq, pre-election, the main lab fear was the lds eating into labs metropolitan marginal/surburban vote - so they were relieved the thing they were worried about didn’t happen on a big scale.
Of course, those ex-lab voters came back to bite the party in 2015.
Bigly.
Have the tories made a similar mistake using their time in power to stamp on the faces of the young?
“. . . the real winner from the weekend’s events is the European leader who doesn’t have to worry about such irritating things as elections: Jean-Claude Juncker. A week ago, with Theresa May’s Florence speech coming up, there was a sense that the battle over Brexit might end up being conducted over his head and the head of his chief negotiator, Michael Barnier. May was expected by many to appeal for the deadlock to be lifted, for the future relations between Britain and the EU to be hammered out by national leaders, motivated by the interests of the export industries, not by obstinate officials in back rooms in Brussels who cared only about imposing some kind of defeat on Britain. That hope appears to be over for now. . . .”
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
I believe enough of it is sensible to keep on board those appalled by the bits that are not , hatred for some at tories high enough, and a tired tory party divided enough, will see labour win.
Fine. Except it becomes clearer all the time that on Brexit Labour is as divided as the Tories...
Perhaps so, but government will bear the brunt of that I think.
Mind you, as a long-time connoisseur of naked political spin and hypocrisy, I do have to admit to a sneaking regard for the sheer brazen chutzpah of John McDonnell. Normally you have to compare what politicians say on different days to appreciate the full glory of their hypocrisies; only McDonnell would think he could get away with these two bits of the same speech:
And, yes, in 1997, after 18 years of Thatcherism, when whole industries and communities across our country had been destroyed by the Tories and our public services were on their knees, it was the Blair/Brown government that recognised and delivered the scale of public investment that a 21st century society needed.
and
The scandal of the Private Finance Initiative, launched by John Major, has resulted in huge, long-term costs for tax payers, whilst handing out enormous profits for some companies. Profits which are coming out of the budgets of our public services.
Over the next few decades, nearly two hundred billion is scheduled to be paid out of public sector budgets in PFI deals. In the NHS alone, £831m in pre-tax profits have been made over the past six years. As early as 2002 this conference regretted the use of PFI.
I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that PFI was one of the worst and financially disastrous policies of recent times. Its only competitor could be the current University fees program. Both will have seriously adverse effects on demand and available resources for decades to come. Both arise from politicians fundamental dishonesty and desire to give people something for nothing while kicking the can down the road. Both of our major parties are tarnished with both policies. It is not a happy state of affairs.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
I believe enough of it is sensible to keep on board those appalled by the bits that are not , hatred for some at tories high enough, and a tired tory party divided enough, will see labour win.
Fine. Except it becomes clearer all the time that on Brexit Labour is as divided as the Tories...
They're divided tactically, but only a tiny minority would be unhappy if Brexit collapsed completely.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
I believe enough of it is sensible to keep on board those appalled by the bits that are not , hatred for some at tories high enough, and a tired tory party divided enough, will see labour win.
Fine. Except it becomes clearer all the time that on Brexit Labour is as divided as the Tories...
They're divided tactically, but only a tiny minority would be unhappy if Brexit collapsed completely.
The Labour Conference (Marxist party of UK) has become a hard left mantra which many thought was dead and buried.
Where are all these labour moderates who are idly standing by and watching their party taken over by the hard left and the unions. Is is time that made a stand and resigned on block to set up a centre left party of their own
Big_G, with respect, calling Labour Marxist is the equivalent of calling AfD (or UKIP for that matter) Nazis - it's just plain silly.
Someone should tell that to John "I'm honest, I'm a Marxist" McDonnell
Funny watching some of the PLP this morning trying not to look awkward whilst not joining in with the OHHHHH JEEEERRRREMY COOOORRRRBYN chant at Conference
I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that PFI was one of the worst and financially disastrous policies of recent times. Its only competitor could be the current University fees program. Both will have seriously adverse effects on demand and available resources for decades to come. Both arise from politicians fundamental dishonesty and desire to give people something for nothing while kicking the can down the road. Both of our major parties are tarnished with both policies. It is not a happy state of affairs.
There was nothing at all wrong with PFI, when used properly and negotiated sensibly. However, Blair and Brown were completely uninterested in value for money, they just wanted to be able to boast about zillions of pounds of 'investment'. Unsurprisingly, the civil servants followed the lead which their political masters gave them, and equally unsurprisingly, companies like Capita (headed by big Labour donor Rod Eldridge) obliged.
The key point now is that the money has already been wasted. Bringing PFI contracts back in-house can only be done in one of two ways. Either the government pays full market value for them, in which case there is zero advantage for the taxpayer, or you renege on the contract and confiscate some or all of the value of the contracts, in which case you damage the UK's credit worthiness. Presumably McDonnell intends the latter.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
I believe enough of it is sensible to keep on board those appalled by the bits that are not , hatred for some at tories high enough, and a tired tory party divided enough, will see labour win.
Fine. Except it becomes clearer all the time that on Brexit Labour is as divided as the Tories...
They're divided tactically, but only a tiny minority would be unhappy if Brexit collapsed completely.
Does that "tiny minority" include nearly all of Corbyn's new youth vote....?
I was shocked and saddened to learn of the death of Mark Senior. Shocked because, not having met him, I had formed a mental image of him as being in his mid-30s when I first joined the site and thus in his mid-40s now. It turns out he was 70 - so I suppose that serves as a tribute to his irrepressible enthusiasm for his cause and the tenacity with which he expressed it on here.
Obviously we did not often see eye-to-eye politically, but one of the chief assets of this site is that the presence of well-informed authority on all sides means that no-one gets away with empty bluster in support of their own preferences. And Mark exemplified that authority best of all. RIP.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
They could vote LD
If they are anti tories first there is no poont doing that on most places even in the sw. I think the desire to get out the tories will eclipse concerns about labour, when push comes to shove.
Indeed. I am one of those people. Although I will get a Tory MP whatever I do, short of moving, The choice is massive majority or large majority. There is absolutely no utility in me voting LD, no matter how many dodgy bar charts they produce.
Sounds like there's no utility in you voting for anyone. Con - they would win anyway, by a long way. Lab - Con win anyway, by a long way. LD - Con win anyway, by a long way. ...etc.
I suppose you could vote in such a way as to maximise one of the losing party's chances of retaining their deposit.
I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that PFI was one of the worst and financially disastrous policies of recent times. Its only competitor could be the current University fees program. Both will have seriously adverse effects on demand and available resources for decades to come. Both arise from politicians fundamental dishonesty and desire to give people something for nothing while kicking the can down the road. Both of our major parties are tarnished with both policies. It is not a happy state of affairs.
There was nothing at all wrong with PFI, when used properly and negotiated sensibly. However, Blair and Brown were completely uninterested in value for money, they just wanted to be able to boast about zillions of pounds of 'investment'. Unsurprisingly, the civil servants followed the lead which their political masters gave them, and equally unsurprisingly, companies like Capita (headed by big Labour donor Rod Eldridge) obliged.
The key point now is that the money has already been wasted. Bringing PFI contracts back in-house can only be done in one of two ways. Either the government pays full market value for them, in which case there is zero advantage for the taxpayer, or you renege on the contract and confiscate some or all of the value of the contracts, in which case you damage the UK's credit worthiness. Presumably McDonnell intends the latter.
Politicians of both stripes used PFI to hide debt off balance sheet and to make the unaffordable affordable now. In many cases money was effectively being borrowed at well above market rates. Labour were the worst of the culprits but the Major government started it and PFI deals continued into the Coalition, albeit at a diminishing rate. Even Vince Cable worked out how absurd it was. It was that obvious.
Either the government pays full market value for them
Whats the Present value of a government guaranteed 7% or so net yield for 30 years on say a million ? With inflation at 3.9% (Current RPI), I make it 2.4 times the original value.
So for every million Brown "invested", Corbyn might have to pay 2.4 million to "uninvest" it all !
Mind you, as a long-time connoisseur of naked political spin and hypocrisy, I do have to admit to a sneaking regard for the sheer brazen chutzpah of John McDonnell. Normally you have to compare what politicians say on different days to appreciate the full glory of their hypocrisies; only McDonnell would think he could get away with these two bits of the same speech:
And, yes, in 1997, after 18 years of Thatcherism, when whole industries and communities across our country had been destroyed by the Tories and our public services were on their knees, it was the Blair/Brown government that recognised and delivered the scale of public investment that a 21st century society needed.
and
The scandal of the Private Finance Initiative, launched by John Major, has resulted in huge, long-term costs for tax payers, whilst handing out enormous profits for some companies. Profits which are coming out of the budgets of our public services.
Over the next few decades, nearly two hundred billion is scheduled to be paid out of public sector budgets in PFI deals. In the NHS alone, £831m in pre-tax profits have been made over the past six years. As early as 2002 this conference regretted the use of PFI.
I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that PFI was one of the worst and financially disastrous policies of recent times. Its only competitor could be the current University fees program. Both will have seriously adverse effects on demand and available resources for decades to come. Both arise from politicians fundamental dishonesty and desire to give people something for nothing while kicking the can down the road. Both of our major parties are tarnished with both policies. It is not a happy state of affairs.
PFI and tuition feee, two fundamentally sensible policies completely messed up in their implementation.
There would be a good case to be made for personally surcharging the negotiators on the government side for some of the late '90s PFI contracts, which were so rediculously one sided as to amount to malfeasance in public office.
Mr. Price, it can be very tricky assessing age over the internet. When I was about 18, I was a frequent visitor to a certain site and most people there (when the subject happened to arise) guessed I was in my 30s or 40s.
Presumably I now come across as a seventysomething
Politicians of both stripes used PFI to hide debt off balance sheet and to make the unaffordable affordable now. In many cases money was effectively being borrowed at well above market rates. Labour were the worst of the culprits but the Major government started it and PFI deals continued into the Coalition, albeit at a diminishing rate. Even Vince Cable worked out how absurd it was. It was that obvious.
It's not just about borrowing. The advantages of PFI, if done properly, are firstly that the risk of cost overruns or problems transfers to the contractor. This is not an idle or theoretical consideration, it happens frequently that the contractor sustains heavy losses. Secondly, good PFI contracts will harness the improved efficiency of the private sector, which has a very strong incentive to be efficient, whereas the public sector has no such incentive.
Of course it hasn't always worked like that, but I think you'll find that nearly all the disaster stories date from the Blair/Brown years.
Either the government pays full market value for them
Whats the Present value of a government guaranteed 7% or so net yield for 30 years on say a million ? With inflation at 3.9% (Current RPI), I make it 2.4 times the original value.
So for every million Brown "invested", Corbyn might have to pay 2.4 million to "uninvest" it all !
Yep, and to no purpose. The money has already been wasted, it can't be unwasted.
I am wondering about those 3 in 20 Tory voters who are not sure. I am very surprised, nay astonished, that there are so many. We hear a great deal from Labour people who are not enamoured of JC. However that so many Tory voters cant decide between May and Corbyn suggests that both parties vote may be soft.
Or maybe the Tory supporters expect the party to offer them a different choice by an election. Which it will.
Yes, I get that. However, none of the prospective leaders has significantly better ratings. Will EVERY Tory voter think thank God we've got Boris now. Time for mature and efficient leadership?
I thought Hammond was in team Boris?
The Tories need some new faces as urgently as Labour do.
Hammond only supported Boris as a tactic to avoid getting sacked by May.
Either the government pays full market value for them
Whats the Present value of a government guaranteed 7% or so net yield for 30 years on say a million ? With inflation at 3.9% (Current RPI), I make it 2.4 times the original value.
So for every million Brown "invested", Corbyn might have to pay 2.4 million to "uninvest" it all !
Yep, and to no purpose. The money has already been wasted, it can't be unwasted.
There's more. According to a prof's blog post Guardian are linking to, which reminds us that these deals were to build and to provide long-term ongoing maintenance, back-office admin etc.
The latter costs will still have to be paid for by Government, presumably through new staff if it say NHS or school.
The papers are full of stories about Cabinet disunity and squabbling, which is fair enough. However, the only squabbler seems to be one Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson; everyone else seems to be on-message.
Either the government pays full market value for them
Whats the Present value of a government guaranteed 7% or so net yield for 30 years on say a million ? With inflation at 3.9% (Current RPI), I make it 2.4 times the original value.
So for every million Brown "invested", Corbyn might have to pay 2.4 million to "uninvest" it all !
Yep, and to no purpose. The money has already been wasted, it can't be unwasted.
And worse, in some (many? all? I don't know) of the cases, the government doesn't even get the building at the end of it so would presumably have to buy it or enter into another lease.
FWIW, I do think that given the scale of the profits handed these companies, there is a moral argument for sub-market compulsory purchase at the end of the term - but whether that can be squared with a legal case, or whether a fair formula can be developed are different questions.
I am wondering about those 3 in 20 Tory voters who are not sure. I am very surprised, nay astonished, that there are so many. We hear a great deal from Labour people who are not enamoured of JC. However that so many Tory voters cant decide between May and Corbyn suggests that both parties vote may be soft.
Or maybe the Tory supporters expect the party to offer them a different choice by an election. Which it will.
Yes, I get that. However, none of the prospective leaders has significantly better ratings. Will EVERY Tory voter think thank God we've got Boris now. Time for mature and efficient leadership?
I thought Hammond was in team Boris?
The Tories need some new faces as urgently as Labour do.
Hammond only supported Boris as a tactic to avoid getting sacked by May.
FWIW, I do think that given the scale of the profits handed these companies, there is a moral argument for sub-market compulsory purchase at the end of the term - but whether that can be squared with a legal case, or whether a fair formula can be developed are different questions.
That would penalise current investors, who in large part aren't the ones who reaped the bumper profits a decade or more ago. That would mean confiscation from a lot of ordinary investors and pension funds, who have bought into the PFI deals directly or indirectly for the secure long-term income.
It's not just about borrowing. The advantages of PFI, if done properly, are firstly that the risk of cost overruns or problems transfers to the contractor. This is not an idle or theoretical consideration, it happens frequently that the contractor sustains heavy losses.
One of the issues though, is that the company running the PFI contract can in theory go bust - at which point the hospital or school still needs running. The income source on the other hand is incredibly safe (The UK always pays its' debts). So the effective yield ought to have been slightly above gilt yield low.
I wonder what inflation clauses are in these contracts - will the gov't or contractor effectively pay for inflation ?
Either the government pays full market value for them
Whats the Present value of a government guaranteed 7% or so net yield for 30 years on say a million ? With inflation at 3.9% (Current RPI), I make it 2.4 times the original value.
So for every million Brown "invested", Corbyn might have to pay 2.4 million to "uninvest" it all !
Yep, and to no purpose. The money has already been wasted, it can't be unwasted.
The money is not necessarily wasted but it is sunk.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
They could vote LD
If they are anti tories first there is no poont doing that on most places even in the sw. I think the desire to get out the tories will eclipse concerns about labour, when push comes to shove.
Indeed. I am one of those people. Although I will get a Tory MP whatever I do, short of moving, The choice is massive majority or large majority. There is absolutely no utility in me voting LD, no matter how many dodgy bar charts they produce.
1. It adds to the national mandate. 2. Over time, seats that were once safe can become marginals and then switch. 3. There've been more than enough elections of the last 20 (and a bit) years where supposedly safe seats fell to prove that parties that work them can get their reward when the circumstances are right.
Either the government pays full market value for them
Whats the Present value of a government guaranteed 7% or so net yield for 30 years on say a million ? With inflation at 3.9% (Current RPI), I make it 2.4 times the original value.
So for every million Brown "invested", Corbyn might have to pay 2.4 million to "uninvest" it all !
Yep, and to no purpose. The money has already been wasted, it can't be unwasted.
The money is not necessarily wasted but it is sunk.
If it wasn't wasted, then who's complaining, it was a good deal for the taxpayer.
The labour Corbyn cult madness is certainly more sustained than the 2010 Cleggasm but does any sane person believe the increasingly blatant Marxist policy programme will actually win an election in a 21st century Western democracy? As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
Labour could easily win. Fear of what a hard-left party could do in government quite simply isn't believed by far too many, and a lot more accept the simplistic solutions at face value.
By 2022, it will be 12 years since the last Labour government; it will be 33 years since the Berlin Wall fell; it will be 37 years since the Miners' Strike; it will be 43 years since the winter of discontent. For a lot of people - not just the young - it's all ancient history.
I wonder what inflation clauses are in these contracts - will the gov't or contractor effectively pay for inflation ?
Usually they are inflation-proofed, so the taxpayer takes the inflation risk. They vary as to how inflation is calculated, but I believe a lot of them used RPI.
The contrast between what is announced at the conference, and the policy detail behind it, continues:
Debbie Abrahams, the shadow work and pensions secretary, has just finished her speech to the conference. She said Labour would allow the women affected by the accelerated increase in the state pension age (the so-called Waspi women - women against state pension injustice) to retire early. ... "As a starter, I can announce today that a Labour government in power now would allow these women to retire up to two years early."
What she omitted to point out to delegates is that the WASPIs' pensions would be reduced by 6% for each year that they bring their retirements forward. Somehow I don't think that's quite what the 'WASPIs' had in mind.
@saddo I think as long as the alternatives to Labour remain very unattractive to young people, they'll continue to vote Labour, even despite the whole Uber decision and Corbyn's views on Brexit. It is up to other parties to up their game.
Corbyn looked as if he couldn't win in June. That wont be true next time, giving soft Labour voters pause for thought.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Maybe, but will those soft voters really pass up the chance to vote the tories out next time even if labour are predicted to do better? The tories have been largest party for 3 elections, the left don't want it to be 4.
They could vote LD
If they are anti tories first there is no poont doing that on most places even in the sw. I think the desire to get out the tories will eclipse concerns about labour, when push comes to shove.
Indeed. I am one of those people. Although I will get a Tory MP whatever I do, short of moving, The choice is massive majority or large majority. There is absolutely no utility in me voting LD, no matter how many dodgy bar charts they produce.
If your vote won't affect the outcome surely that free you up to vote with purpose?
Let's say your Tory MP has a 15K majority over Labour if you (and others) vote Labour.
I would have thought that your personal objectives would be better served by Tory having a 20K majority over Kabpur but there being 5K Green or LD or Natural Law votes depending on which minority issue is your personal priority?
That way your MP knows that lots of people really care about ecology or Europe or yogic flying or whatever. Seems a cleaner signalling device to me
The papers are full of stories about Cabinet disunity and squabbling, which is fair enough. However, the only squabbler seems to be one Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson; everyone else seems to be on-message.
BoJo's destructive and narcissistic cynicism is unparalleled in modern British politics. Lloyd George has some similarities, but at least in his early career LG was driven partly by a desire to improve the lot of the poor. Boris is driven solely by the need to improve his own career.
"Fear of what a hard-left party could do in government quite simply isn't believed by far too many, and a lot more accept the simplistic solutions at face value."
For some of the younger ones, it's ... "This Marxist idea sounds very nice, It's a pity no ones tried it before, so why not us?"
For the older ones ... well, some believe that Kim Jong Un is a nice guy and Stalin got a bad press.
Whether there's enough real fruitcakes around, that's anyone's guess.
I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that PFI was one of the worst and financially disastrous policies of recent times. Its only competitor could be the current University fees program. Both will have seriously adverse effects on demand and available resources for decades to come. Both arise from politicians fundamental dishonesty and desire to give people something for nothing while kicking the can down the road. Both of our major parties are tarnished with both policies. It is not a happy state of affairs.
There was nothing at all wrong with PFI, when used properly and negotiated sensibly. However, Blair and Brown were completely uninterested in value for money, they just wanted to be able to boast about zillions of pounds of 'investment'. Unsurprisingly, the civil servants followed the lead which their political masters gave them, and equally unsurprisingly, companies like Capita (headed by big Labour donor Rod Eldridge) obliged.
The key point now is that the money has already been wasted. Bringing PFI contracts back in-house can only be done in one of two ways. Either the government pays full market value for them, in which case there is zero advantage for the taxpayer, or you renege on the contract and confiscate some or all of the value of the contracts, in which case you damage the UK's credit worthiness. Presumably McDonnell intends the latter.
Or there is the gun to your head approach.
Renegotiate or never expect a to win another government contract again
I don't think anyone can seriously dispute that PFI was one of the worst and financially disastrous policies of recent times. Its only competitor could be the current University fees program. Both will have seriously adverse effects on demand and available resources for decades to come. Both arise from politicians fundamental dishonesty and desire to give people something for nothing while kicking the can down the road. Both of our major parties are tarnished with both policies. It is not a happy state of affairs.
There was nothing at all wrong with PFI, when used properly and negotiated sensibly. However, Blair and Brown were completely uninterested in value for money, they just wanted to be able to boast about zillions of pounds of 'investment'. Unsurprisingly, the civil servants followed the lead which their political masters gave them, and equally unsurprisingly, companies like Capita (headed by big Labour donor Rod Eldridge) obliged.
The key point now is that the money has already been wasted. Bringing PFI contracts back in-house can only be done in one of two ways. Either the government pays full market value for them, in which case there is zero advantage for the taxpayer, or you renege on the contract and confiscate some or all of the value of the contracts, in which case you damage the UK's credit worthiness. Presumably McDonnell intends the latter.
Politicians of both stripes used PFI to hide debt off balance sheet and to make the unaffordable affordable now. In many cases money was effectively being borrowed at well above market rates. Labour were the worst of the culprits but the Major government started it and PFI deals continued into the Coalition, albeit at a diminishing rate. Even Vince Cable worked out how absurd it was. It was that obvious.
The issue isn't with the PFI borrowing so much as with the maintenance contracts. Something simple, like highway lighting, it's fine. Something like a hospital or school not so much.
Brown abused PFI. I give Blair the credit of not understanding what Brown was doing. Major was broadly ok.
FWIW, I do think that given the scale of the profits handed these companies, there is a moral argument for sub-market compulsory purchase at the end of the term - but whether that can be squared with a legal case, or whether a fair formula can be developed are different questions.
That would penalise current investors, who in large part aren't the ones who reaped the bumper profits a decade or more ago. That would mean confiscation from a lot of ordinary investors and pension funds, who have bought into the PFI deals directly or indirectly for the secure long-term income.
Yes, I know. It's a question of balance and while I can see all sorts of reasons for not doing it, I can see good ones for going ahead too. Governments do change terms of business all the time - not usually as directly as this would be, admittedly - when they change regulations or tax rates. This would be an extreme example but the concept of windfall taxes is not unknown and provided it's kept within reasonable limits, should be considered where companies are taking the taxpayer for a ride (even if the government was originally at fault).
Comments
I'm not convinced Corbyn will ever be PM. If he lasts to the next election I could easily see a 1992 scenario playing out.
There is a whiff of hubris about the left.
Edited extra bit: just seen the Aston Martin rumours, but they were circulating last race weekend too. F1 needs to get more teams in. If it lost two there'd be a paltry 16 cars on the grid.
Indeed now I think about it- you could say these things take turns.
Labour overconfident in 2015, Tories underconfident.
Tories probably overconfident in 2010.
Were Labour overconfident in 2005? Not sure I remember really...
We hear a great deal from Labour people who are not enamoured of JC.
However that so many Tory voters cant decide between May and Corbyn suggests that both parties vote may be soft.
And, yes, in 1997, after 18 years of Thatcherism, when whole industries and communities across our country had been destroyed by the Tories and our public services were on their knees, it was the Blair/Brown government that recognised and delivered the scale of public investment that a 21st century society needed.
and
The scandal of the Private Finance Initiative, launched by John Major, has resulted in huge, long-term costs for tax payers, whilst handing out enormous profits for some companies. Profits which are coming out of the budgets of our public services.
Over the next few decades, nearly two hundred billion is scheduled to be paid out of public sector budgets in PFI deals. In the NHS alone, £831m in pre-tax profits have been made over the past six years. As early as 2002 this conference regretted the use of PFI.
As McDonnell has made clear, how they balance the books is by stealing assets from their owners. The post Grenfell Tower "let's grab all the empty houses in Kensington" threat was only the tip of a very large iceberg.
Will the young cultists have their eyes slightly opened by Khan's union driven assault on their Uber service?
But what makes me laugh are the Labourites who were against Corbyn before the election due to his policies and past words and deeds, who now support him just because they think he might win ...
But I think the forthcoming conference is as important as I can recall. The Tories desperately require new leadership and new ideas that resonate with the concerns of the British people. Housing, transport, job security, even social care need radical new thinking and leadership. If the Conference is all about Brexit the Tories will be in serious trouble.
https://order-order.com/2017/09/25/labour-fringe-expel-jewish-activists-israel-like-nazis/
A fringe event at Labour conference has heard calls to expel Jewish activists from the party, while a speaker compared Israel to Nazis and the audience was banned from tweeting in an attempt to silence “hostile” coverage.
https://joesaward.wordpress.com/2017/09/25/red-bull-and-aston-martin/
The Tories need some new faces as urgently as Labour do.
Under Blair/Brown/Campbell (to 2003), the Tory vote was decimated four times over (14.1m down to 8.8m), those 6 million did not go to Labour over the same period.
Fine. Except it becomes clearer all the time that on Brexit Labour is as divided as the Tories...
Of course, those ex-lab voters came back to bite the party in 2015.
Bigly.
Have the tories made a similar mistake using their time in power to stamp on the faces of the young?
I think almost certainly.
https://youtu.be/ai4OnlSI36A?t=433
Britain Elects
@britainelects
Following
More
Westminster voting intention:
LAB: 42% (-)
CON: 40% (-2)
LDEM: 8% (+1)
UKIP: 4% (-)
GRN: 2% (-1)
via @ICMResearch, 22 - 24 Sep
The key point now is that the money has already been wasted. Bringing PFI contracts back in-house can only be done in one of two ways. Either the government pays full market value for them, in which case there is zero advantage for the taxpayer, or you renege on the contract and confiscate some or all of the value of the contracts, in which case you damage the UK's credit worthiness. Presumably McDonnell intends the latter.
"A Fox news anchor linked directly to my Twitter feed, directly to my website, and, to date, has refused to apologise for it," he said."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-41384829
Obviously we did not often see eye-to-eye politically, but one of the chief assets of this site is that the presence of well-informed authority on all sides means that no-one gets away with empty bluster in support of their own preferences. And Mark exemplified that authority best of all. RIP.
Con - they would win anyway, by a long way.
Lab - Con win anyway, by a long way.
LD - Con win anyway, by a long way.
...etc.
I suppose you could vote in such a way as to maximise one of the losing party's chances of retaining their deposit.
With inflation at 3.9% (Current RPI), I make it 2.4 times the original value.
So for every million Brown "invested", Corbyn might have to pay 2.4 million to "uninvest" it all !
There would be a good case to be made for personally surcharging the negotiators on the government side for some of the late '90s PFI contracts, which were so rediculously one sided as to amount to malfeasance in public office.
Presumably I now come across as a seventysomething
Of course it hasn't always worked like that, but I think you'll find that nearly all the disaster stories date from the Blair/Brown years.
Hammond is a good tactician and underestimated.
The latter costs will still have to be paid for by Government, presumably through new staff if it say NHS or school.
Many of the audience cheer thinking he said Labour has Momentum on its side.
https://twitter.com/JohnRentoul/status/912323960548855808
FWIW, I do think that given the scale of the profits handed these companies, there is a moral argument for sub-market compulsory purchase at the end of the term - but whether that can be squared with a legal case, or whether a fair formula can be developed are different questions.
David Steel, Liberal Party
I wonder if TFL's decision will affect Uber in Watford?
The income source on the other hand is incredibly safe (The UK always pays its' debts).
So the effective yield ought to have been slightly above gilt yield low.
I wonder what inflation clauses are in these contracts - will the gov't or contractor effectively pay for inflation ?
2. Over time, seats that were once safe can become marginals and then switch.
3. There've been more than enough elections of the last 20 (and a bit) years where supposedly safe seats fell to prove that parties that work them can get their reward when the circumstances are right.
By 2022, it will be 12 years since the last Labour government; it will be 33 years since the Berlin Wall fell; it will be 37 years since the Miners' Strike; it will be 43 years since the winter of discontent. For a lot of people - not just the young - it's all ancient history.
Debbie Abrahams, the shadow work and pensions secretary, has just finished her speech to the conference. She said Labour would allow the women affected by the accelerated increase in the state pension age (the so-called Waspi women - women against state pension injustice) to retire early.
...
"As a starter, I can announce today that a Labour government in power now would allow these women to retire up to two years early."
What she omitted to point out to delegates is that the WASPIs' pensions would be reduced by 6% for each year that they bring their retirements forward. Somehow I don't think that's quite what the 'WASPIs' had in mind.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2017/sep/25/labour-conference-2017-sadiq-khan-says-uk-should-stay-in-single-market-for-good-politics-live
15:47
Learning things is overreacted anyway; I've not learned anything since 2003 and I'm doing fine.
Let's say your Tory MP has a 15K majority over Labour if you (and others) vote Labour.
I would have thought that your personal objectives would be better served by Tory having a 20K majority over Kabpur but there being 5K Green or LD or Natural Law votes depending on which minority issue is your personal priority?
That way your MP knows that lots of people really care about ecology or Europe or yogic flying or whatever. Seems a cleaner signalling device to me
"Fear of what a hard-left party could do in government quite simply isn't believed by far too many, and a lot more accept the simplistic solutions at face value."
For some of the younger ones, it's ... "This Marxist idea sounds very nice, It's a pity no ones tried it before, so why not us?"
For the older ones ... well, some believe that Kim Jong Un is a nice guy and Stalin got a bad press.
Whether there's enough real fruitcakes around, that's anyone's guess.
http://edition.cnn.com/2017/09/25/europe/german-election-result-afd-walkout/index.html
What's going on here?
Renegotiate or never expect a to win another government contract again
Brown abused PFI. I give Blair the credit of not understanding what Brown was doing. Major was broadly ok.
Meanwhile:
https://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/912332035347410945
Bet it is not used again