politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The LAB betting is now strongly back with Burnham but does

CD13 said:

If I were Ukip, I'd make Suzanne leader and get Nigel Farage to stand for Mayor

Nigel who?

Prediction: Nigel Farage will not be in the TV debates at the next General Election

Miss Plato, but how similar is it to the Heaviest Suicide Note?

DavidL said:

The Kids Company decision would have been a very difficult one to take. Clearly they had little to no internal audit or management systems which controlled the money. Equally clearly they do help a lot of extremely deprived kids who would suffer greatly if their support was withdrawn overnight without any transitional provision.

In these circumstances I can well understand why Civil Servants felt obligated to give the advice that they did and I can equally understand why Ministers decided that a grant to facilitate restructuring was worth the risk.

It is a good example of a more general problem. We don't like our Charities to be professionalised with well paid managers soaking up a lot of the funds we feel should be going to the front line. On the other hand Charities that are so beholden to the public purse have to account for how the money is spent and to operate performance indicators that show the taxpayer is getting value for money. It's a conundrum.

I completely agree.

Plato said:

Quite a nice 1983 vs 2015 comparison of Corbyn's position. Unsurprisingly - it's very similar to the Longest Suicide Note. http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4517708.ece

I think Burnham is actually like a very sub par Foot candidate in this election. Corbyn is the Tony Benn option !

Cooper = Kinnock; Kendall = Hattersly maybe ;p

DavidL said:

The Kids Company decision would have been a very difficult one to take. Clearly they had little to no internal audit or management systems which controlled the money. Equally clearly they do help a lot of extremely deprived kids who would suffer greatly if their support was withdrawn overnight without any transitional provision.

In these circumstances I can well understand why Civil Servants felt obligated to give the advice that they did and I can equally understand why Ministers decided that a grant to facilitate restructuring was worth the risk.

It is a good example of a more general problem. We don't like our Charities to be professionalised with well paid managers soaking up a lot of the funds we feel should be going to the front line. On the other hand Charities that are so beholden to the public purse have to account for how the money is spent and to operate performance indicators that show the taxpayer is getting value for money. It's a conundrum.

I think a charity which is so beholden to the public purse is not really a charity at all. If it gets money from the public purse it should be properly accounted for. Arguably, the money should go to those parts of the public sector which do help deprived children but which don't have flamboyant heads appearing at parties with celebrities and blowing their own trumpet.

If you're going to restructure an entity, you get in experts to do the restructuring. You don't give money on a vague promise to those people who have caused the problem in the first place. That's what the financial experts were looking at doing and they turned away. That alone should have told Ministers that handing out cash willy nilly was not a good idea.

More to the point, is there actual real evidence of the help given to these extremely deprived children? As opposed to claims. There have been some quite alarming stories and stories of help given which don't really add up and which don't fit with what people have seen when they've gone there.

And, finally, for all the talk about helping children, the charity itself is now withdrawing its help to those children virtually overnight having ensured that staff are paid. That is a curious priority. It will be the public sector which will need to pick up the pieces.

What evidence did those two Ministers have which gave them the confidence to overrule the advice from their civil servants and give a Ministerial direction? That's one question I'd be asking those Ministers.

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

DavidL - yes, it is only a policy wanted by the vast majority of the public, after all. What do the little people know?

DavidL said:

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

Isn't SNCF is considerable difficulties?

@PippaCrerar: .@jeremycorbyn sets out his ideas for housing revolution incl extending right to buy to private renters http://t.co/08iLEMtlGJ

DavidL said:

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

I don't know. It would certainly be cheaper to run the railways directly, on the assumption that they would be a vertically integrated entity and cut out a lot of the additional paperwork involved in the current 'structure'.

At the same time, it would mean taking Network Rail's debts onto the official government balance sheet. While they are in practice there already, of course, it wouldn't exactly look good. Plus, what little is left of the Department of Transport probably wouldn't be equal to the task of running it efficiently (it took BR around 35 years to make a decent fist of it, after all, under a much more effective bureaucracy).

To be honest, I don't think there is any good solution to the current problems facing the railway network. Renationalisation isn't ideal - but the status quo isn't likely to be tenable for much longer either (too costly and inefficient) so it might be a good option at least as a temporary measure.

JWisemann said:

DavidL - yes, it is only a policy wanted by the vast majority of the public, after all. What do the little people know?

A majority of people support capital punishment(1), and have done for 30 years. Do you advocate bringing that back as well.

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/latest-press-releases/bsa-32-support-for-death-penalty.aspx

(1) I don't so obviously I'm on the "wrong" side of the argument.

JWisemann said:

'It's just so stupid'
Says the serial clickbait repost offender and delusional extreme right 'swing voter'

A bit early in the day isn't it?

Disraeli said:

JWisemann said:

DavidL - yes, it is only a policy wanted by the vast majority of the public, after all. What do the little people know?

A majority of people support capital punishment(1), and have done for 30 years. Do you advocate bringing that back as well.

http://www.bsa.natcen.ac.uk/media-centre/latest-press-releases/bsa-32-support-for-death-penalty.aspx

(1) I don't so obviously I'm on the "wrong" side of the argument.

Err.. your link shows the opposite - that it is supported by less than 50% of the population, and certainly many less than favour rail nationalisation.

Cyclefree said:

DavidL said:

I think a charity which is so beholden to the public purse is not really a charity at all. If it gets money from the public purse it should be properly accounted for. Arguably, the money should go to those parts of the public sector which do help deprived children but which don't have flamboyant heads appearing at parties with celebrities and blowing their own trumpet.

If you're going to restructure an entity, you get in experts to do the restructuring. You don't give money on a vague promise to those people who have caused the problem in the first place. That's what the financial experts were looking at doing and they turned away. That alone should have told Ministers that handing out cash willy nilly was not a good idea.

More to the point, is there actual real evidence of the help given to these extremely deprived children? As opposed to claims. There have been some quite alarming stories and stories of help given which don't really add up and which don't fit with what people have seen when they've gone there.

And, finally, for all the talk about helping children, the charity itself is now withdrawing its help to those children virtually overnight having ensured that staff are paid. That is a curious priority. It will be the public sector which will need to pick up the pieces.

What evidence did those two Ministers have which gave them the confidence to overrule the advice from their civil servants and give a Ministerial direction? That's one question I'd be asking those Ministers.

These are all valid questions and I don't know enough about the activities of the Charity to answer them.

I agree that the fundamental problem is the idea that Charities can operate as arms of the State without the accountability of the State for public money when they become dependent on public funds. Publically funding the "third sector" is fraught with these kind of risks. OTOH it might be argued that that third sector is more flexible, more imaginative, better at encouraging volunteers and can, on occasion, have better motivations.

I think it is clear that the money was paid to prevent the closure that is now occurring. It has failed. Whether this is because the situation was already terminal and was misjudged or false promises were given we do not yet know.

I think a charity which is so beholden to the public purse is not really a charity at all. If it gets money from the public purse it should be properly accounted for

Indeed. And yet we don't demand that from e.g. the recipients of much of our foreign aid or from the EU to whom we pay vast sums every year. Funnily enough, there is massive corruption and waste as a result...

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?

I don't know but even if it did so what?

There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.

Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?

I don't know but even if it did so what?

There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.

Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.

Panic measure by Burnham. Looks like he has seen some private polling. I'm hoping Cooper doesn't try and match him.

@MichaelLCrick: Kids Company also big problem for Labour too. Lab Govt first funded them, & Harman bid defender. May may it hard for proper Commons scrutiny

Mr Wiseman,

Don't let that Welshman wind you up so much.

He's just an intellectual bully.

McTernan responds to Andy's toy train set proposal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784458/In-2015-Labour-should-not-be-thinking-about-nationalisation.html

SimonStClare said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

blackburn63 said:

Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.

It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...

The Kid’s Company receives ~£5m annually from Government funds, when the charity found themselves in financial difficulty last July and were on the brink of going bankrupt, they approached HMG for an extra £3m on the premise of downsizing and restructuring which did not entail wages IMRC.

Must admit to being baffled why despite receiving the necessary funding it claimed was needed to keep it afloat, it appears they will close down anyway. – I can quite understand why HMG would rather not have the collapse of such a high profile charity on its hands, but now is the time for the fraud squad to take a closer look me thinks.

Expanded too far, too fast? Cash flow issues. Classic small/medium business issue?

@BBCNormanS: Former Labour adviser close to Downing Street says he warned about problems at @KidsCompanyUK back in 2007

@BBCNormanS: Gordon Brown took "a personal interest" in funding of @KidsCompanyUK -former Labour adviser

ydoethur said:

This is the actual letter from Sir Humphrey (well, Sir Richard):

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/445933/20150626_Request_for_Ministerial_Direction_-_RH_to_OL_and_MH.pdf

But I can't find numbers of employees. A lot may of course be part-time or highly-qualified, but at the same time I'm still blinking at those numbers on the monthly wage bill.

Found it at last - apparently last year they had 495 employees plus north of 9,000 volunteers

http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1068298&SubsidiaryNumber=0

(hope that works as a URL)

rottenborough said:

SimonStClare said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

blackburn63 said:

Charities should not receive taxpayer's money, it is not the role of govt to decide what's best for people, its the right of the individual. Plenty of people are making very good money out of charities, I find it obscene.

It was stated by the BBC that £800k of the £3 million they were given went straight to paying the wage bill...

The Kid’s Company receives ~£5m annually from Government funds, when the charity found themselves in financial difficulty last July and were on the brink of going bankrupt, they approached HMG for an extra £3m on the premise of downsizing and restructuring which did not entail wages IMRC.

Must admit to being baffled why despite receiving the necessary funding it claimed was needed to keep it afloat, it appears they will close down anyway. – I can quite understand why HMG would rather not have the collapse of such a high profile charity on its hands, but now is the time for the fraud squad to take a closer look me thinks.

Expanded too far, too fast? Cash flow issues. Classic small/medium business issue?

It would appear so, at least according to an article I read in the Guardian last month. – The charity got caught in a wave of publicity when it became the celebrity charity du jour and income rocketed to £25m PA. – looks like that bubble may have now burst.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Plato said:

I thought Andy's promise to "guarantee everyone a home of their own to rent or buy" was the best one.

It's just so stupid and fantastical.

DavidL said:

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

I am very dissappointed that Burnham has not made any promise of an owl for every voter.

There's still time. That one last push Ural waiting for...

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?

I don't know but even if it did so what?

There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.

Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.

It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.

In the middle ground, which you find in the more grown up countries of Northern Europe, you get far cheaper, more cost effective services which do not burden the public finances.

Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.

Dair said:

It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.

*cough*Prestwick*cough*

Dair said:

DavidL said:

Alistair said:

DavidL said:

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

Doesn't renationalisation of the railways enjoy popular cross party support among the electorate?

I don't know but even if it did so what?

There is no money left. We have to choose between the good things we want to do (assuming it is a good thing which is of course highly debatable) and this should not be in any sane politician's top 100.

Labour have to adapt to the post Brown impoverished State. And that means forgetting the wish list and concentrating the available funds where they are most needed.

Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.

How? Is this just like the thefts govts did in the past?

rottenborough said:

McTernan responds to Andy's toy train set proposal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784458/In-2015-Labour-should-not-be-thinking-about-nationalisation.html

Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.

Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.

If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.

fitalass said:

Herald Scotland - SNP under fire over indyref omission from conference agenda

" THE SNP is facing criticism after it emerged that members will not get a say over a possible second independence referendum at the party's upcoming conference.

The draft agenda for the SNP conference in October includes no mention of a potential repeat vote, as reported by The Herald on Monday, or last year's historic poll.

Jim Sillars, the former SNP deputy leader, told website CommonSpace that he knew motions regarding another referendum had been tabled by local branches. What makes it on to the agenda is decided by a party committee.

He said: "Why the committee has not approved them for discussion at the conference is a mystery to me"."

OooooooooH another Tory "SNP Bad" pathetic whinge.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Dair said:

Re-nationalisation need not cost a single penny, in fact if done properly should be significantly cheaper to both government and traveller.

How? Is this just like the thefts govts did in the past?

In the specific case of the UK Railways, the private operators own NOTHING. The rolling stock is not owned by them, the infrastructure is not owned by them. Re-nationalisation of UK Railways is probably the most trivial nationalisation I could imagine because it can be done costlessly every time a franchise expires.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

MarqueeMark said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

Plato said:

I thought Andy's promise to "guarantee everyone a home of their own to rent or buy" was the best one.

It's just so stupid and fantastical.

DavidL said:

I mean seriously? http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784239/Andy-Burnham-vows-to-renationalise-the-railways.html

Even in 2020 money is going to be incredibly tight: the NHS will be screaming having endured the consequences of another 5 years of higher internal inflation and increased demand against a budget standing still in real terms; benefit cuts will have exposed many of the less able in our society to real hardship; our infrastructure will be creaking and groaning as a result of a restricted capital spend for the best part of a decade; the debt interest burden will be close to intolerable and there will be some desperation to reduce it and Andy Burnham (and Corbyn) wants a train set to play with.

When oh when are Labour going to start thinking seriously about their priorities and what the country (and in particular their supporters) really need?

I am very dissappointed that Burnham has not made any promise of an owl for every voter.

There's still time. That one last push Ural waiting for...

ooooh what a hoot.

Knowing my luck, my free owl will have a torn knee....

I watched BBC Newsnight report on kids company last night. It was unfortunate that there was no representative of it interviewed. They clearly had trouble finding its Chairman Alan Yentob and getting an interview from him. Can anyone help BBC Newsnight with a contact address for Yentob?
http://www.theguardian.com/media/2015/aug/05/bbc-denies-alan-yentob-influenced-newsnight-kids-company-report

malcolmg said:

How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power

Ask Kenny MacAskill

Dair said:

In the specific case of the UK Railways, the private operators own NOTHING. The rolling stock is not owned by them, the infrastructure is not owned by them. Re-nationalisation of UK Railways is probably the most trivial nationalisation I could imagine because it can be done costlessly every time a franchise expires.

The infrastructure is owned by Network Rail, which is sort of not-quite-a-QUANGO, but the rolling stock is owned by ROSCOs, who are privately owned (mostly with banks behind them, as I understand it). So they would have to be bought out.

The franchises all end at different points (annoyingly) so there would have to be varying levels of compensation for short-termination.

The question is, would that money be well spent? That requires us to know what the railways would be like 5-10 years from now - but as I said, I guess it would probably be a bit cheaper in the long run, and it may become necessary.

However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?

Ian Jack's essay on railways and nationalisation is a marvel. It is - genuinely - much more interesting and beautifully written than it sounds. I found it fascinating and gripping. It was written to explain the Hatfield train crash but covers so much more.

It can be found in "The Country formerly known as Great Britain". The essay itself is called "The 12.10 to Leeds."

The whole book is good with some wonderful essays in it.

antifrank said:

handandmouse said:

rottenborough said:

McTernan responds to Andy's toy train set proposal:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11784458/In-2015-Labour-should-not-be-thinking-about-nationalisation.html

Not sure why Burnham thinks this is the right strategy.

Corbyn supporters aren't going to change their 1st pref vote to Andy because he's taken on some of his policies, he'll still be seen as "flip-flopper" and "abstainer". It's highly unlikely that JC's 2nd preferences will come into play.

If anything, it's Kendall 2nd prefs that Burnham needs, to keep him ahead of Cooper. From that perspective, this leftward shift makes no sense.

Andy Burnham is trying to win a few more first preferences from those who would otherwise choose Jeremy Corbyn. If we work on the basis that the current running order for first preferences is roughly:

1. Jeremy Corbyn
2= Andy Burnham
2= Yvette Cooper
4 Liz Kendall

Andy Burnham is in serious danger of going out on the second round as Yvette Cooper scoops up most of Liz Kendall's second preferences. If Andy Burnham can get a few more first preferences from Jeremy Corbyn, he increases his chances of seeing off Yvette Cooper before getting into the head-to-head with Jeremy Corbyn, while making the gap between Jeremy Corbyn and himself to overcome in the final round that much smaller.

Undoubtedly my experience can only be generalised so far, being as it is derived mostly from social media, but the division that has developed between JC and "anyone but Corbyn" makes me think the numbers prepared to switch at this point will be minimal.

TCPoliticalBetting said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

rottenborough said:

Financier said:

The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33641889

Morning all,

I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?

Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.

Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !

I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.

How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools

Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?

That letter from Sir Humphrey Richard makes it perfectly clear he thinks it is a very bad idea ! This calls Letwin and Hancock's judgement into severe question.

Scott_P said:

malcolmg said:

How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power

Ask Kenny MacAskill

Even Kenny is no match for those cretins

Born 1967 (age 47–48)
Welling, London, England

Bollocks ! Means we can't deport him anywhere ><

ydoethur said:

Dair said:

In the specific case of the UK Railways, the private operators own NOTHING. The rolling stock is not owned by them, the infrastructure is not owned by them. Re-nationalisation of UK Railways is probably the most trivial nationalisation I could imagine because it can be done costlessly every time a franchise expires.

The infrastructure is owned by Network Rail, which is sort of not-quite-a-QUANGO, but the rolling stock is owned by ROSCOs, who are privately owned (mostly with banks behind them, as I understand it). So they would have to be bought out.

The franchises all end at different points (annoyingly) so there would have to be varying levels of compensation for short-termination.

The question is, would that money be well spent? That requires us to know what the railways would be like 5-10 years from now - but as I said, I guess it would probably be a bit cheaper in the long run, and it may become necessary.

However, as @handandmouse says, it's difficult to see what Burnham hopes to actually gain from it. Those in favour of renationalisation are probably trending towards Corbyn anyway, and it's the other candidates he needs to start wooing. Maybe he's just not brilliant at strategy?

As I initially said it is not a binary choice between immediate full public ownership and the old days of British Rail and the private operators of today. Take the ideology out of your thinking.

There is no need for early terminations unless voluntarily done by the operator with no compo, otherwise just let them expire, none are longer than 10 years.

There is no immediate requirement for a change in rolling stock ownership either. They continue to be leased as they are today and the decision made on the ownership of new and replacement stock.

The bottom line is that it is the most utterly trivial nationalisation imaginable eith no inherent cost requirements. So the argument people like DavidL have put forward that it is somehow unaffordable is bollocks.

It is actually a huge opening for the Tories. They could renationalise the rail as part of a strategy which includes full automation and driverless trains while whacking the Unions with much more realistic wage levels in the industry. They would get huge public support, costs would plummet and so would fares.

malcolmg said:

Scott_P said:

Dair said:

It's not a binary choice between a socialist paradise public operator where you get £700 a week to sit in an automated train cabin or the whole thing sits in the private sector. There is a middle ground where Infrastructure (which has to include railways) is run as a public good, not on a socialist model, but by government and provides the best value to the national economy.

*cough*Prestwick*cough*

C'mon then , tell us what is wrong with Prestwick. Costs a lot less than the charity fiddles we see down south and provides real jobs in a real community.
You really are snidey so and so. Also costs a lot less than Glasgow and Edinburgh airports get as well.

Prestwick has seen passenger numbers fall from 2.4 million to 900,000. Glasgow has almost 8 million passengers a year. Prestwick has a grand total of 1 passenger company using it. Glasgow has 25 if seasonal schedules are included.

It is easy to run an airport cheaply when no one uses it.

Pulpstar said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

rottenborough said:

Financier said:

The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33641889

Morning all,

I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?

Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.

Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !

I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.

How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools

Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?

That letter from Sir Humphrey Richard makes it perfectly clear he thinks it is a very bad idea ! This calls Letwin and Hancock's judgement into severe question.

It certainly does which is why the Government should be getting freezing orders/injunctions and the rest of it to ensure that there is at least a chance of some of the money being repaid. If they're not - unless there is a bloody good reason why not - they're only compounding the original error.

A worthwhile opposition that wasn't located in its own lower colon should be asking some tough forensic questions.

malcolmg said:

TCPoliticalBetting said:

malcolmg said:

Pulpstar said:

Financier said:

rottenborough said:

Financier said:

The sudden closure of the Kids Company is rather symptomatic of charities that rely on volunteers but use funds to pay their professionals very well. However, Letwin and Hancock could have spoiled any reputations they have left.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-33641889

Morning all,

I've yet to get into the details of this. But I'm wondering why ministers are involved at all in the details of an individual charity?

Because the charity tricked/lied to them about the use of a grant of £3m.

Olly Letwin duped - say it ain't so !

I'd expect more from Hancock however, he'll need to sharpen up if he wants the SPAD Chancellor job under George.

How do these cretinous turnips ever manage to get into a position of power , other than due to being fags at certain schools

Maybe they trusted the promises from kids company's board?

LOL, yes just what an intelligent person would do when , some loser turns up and tells you they have squandered the £5M you gave them not long ago but if you just give them another £3M it will be just fine. Of course you would trust them against all your advisers advice, why would you not.

They didn't just hand them £3m, did they? They imposed plenty of conditions.