Elections in the UK

[Straha]

David Millibrand might very well be the upcoming leader of Labour.

EDIT: At Straha, regarding the Labour has no upcoming leader.

Key word is, of course, might. He's a promising could be but his flip-flopping over whether or not to challenge Brown over the past three years wrecked a lot of his credibility as a decisive leader and his ideological credentials are not quite all there. If there's a challenge from the anti-Blair camp, say from his brother Ed or from Ed Balls to name two potential candidates, it could turn into a real blood bath. Worse is that there is no longer an ideological unity to the Labour party so there is no natural cohort of people to look at for a leader to emerge from, and Labour hasn't had to worry about having an ideological stance since 1995 so this realignment is going to be a tad bloody. Miliband might be the way of the future, but he's not going to be an unchallenged leader and he's certainly not going to have Labour in shape for a long time.

Also:



As a final note, if the Lib-Dems don't screw this up and turn themselves into an actual center-left party then Labour is either going to have its support poached and end up with a real split base or it's going to have to go back to its socialist roots, which aren't the most popular in Britain these days. Either way, Labour is in for a shit time for the near future.

Everyone campaigned on spending cuts to roughly the same degree, the tories just wanted to start this year not next year. I'd expect there to be some cuts this year under a coalition government, but probably not as many as there would be under a Tory majority government.

The Lib-Dems have agreed to the Conservatives' campaign promise of Six Billion pounds in cuts this year, with more in the future. Both Labour and the Lib-Dems campaigned ardently against any spending cuts this year, so this is a big start, and the Tories can always say "We wanted to do more" and then blame the Lib-Dems.

So, yeah.

[Stofsk]

You guys scrapped double jeopardy and the accused's right to silence?

EDIT: referring to the list posted before

[Teebs]

You guys scrapped double jeopardy and the accused's right to silence?

EDIT: referring to the list posted before

Labour were... how can I put this...? Less progressive than they like to think.

[Big Orange]

Objectively speaking the Labour Party has killed more Muslims and ruined even more lives than the BNP ever will (as truly loathsome and ignorant as they are).

I have a feeling this Coalition is too drastic for British politics, as necessary as it is and the direct result of the lack of faith people have in the political parties, though it probably won't last for more than three years. The Liberal Democrats are too fragmented and dispersed as a party in comparison to the more monolithic Conservatives and Labour, they don't seem to have much teeth and weight behind them (as let down by the Edwardian electoral system as they were).

And LibCon Coalition has already gone into scheme of cutting pack public spending and services, with 170,000 NHS staff getting axed. I don't want the Randroid tools to overdo the slashing of public spending, since it seems the UK public sector got as bloated as it did to compensate for the UK private sector getting ever more fragmented and contracted in the last three decades to appease free market crapitalism. One good example is how Wales is so dependent on the public sector after Thatcher put paid to most of its coal mines, leaving a weak private sector. On a related note Jeremy Paxman gets punked by Plaid Cymru economist:

[Starglider]

One good example is how Wales is so dependent on the public sector after Thatcher put paid to most of its coal mines, leaving a weak private sector.

Those coal mines were government owned, i.e. part of the public sector. If they have been financially viable, private operators could have taken them over. In short Wales was already hopelessly dependent on the public sector, the Conservatives tried to change that, but as soon as Labour got back into power they hired a huge number of near-worthless civil servants to replace the subsidy that was supporting the relatively useful (but not profitable) coal miners. Thus shoving the public sector teat right back into the Welsh collective mouth.

The ideal solution to this would be to prevent the post-war Labour government from nationalising so many industries in the first place. The only good idea they had was the NHS, everything else from defense to economic policy was an unmitigated disaster (in both the Attlee and Wilson governments) that directly led to many of the problems the UK faced in the second half of the 20th century.

[Darth Tanner]

On a related note Jeremy Paxman gets punked by Plaid Cymru economist:

A purposefully dishonest one, Wales does indeed get £1018 more spent on it per capita than England regardless of his using London (gee I wonder how the government could spend so much in a city with most of its major offices in) on its own to generate his statistics in calling for billions more to be sunk into Wales at the time of a budgetary crisis.

with 170,000 NHS staff getting axed.

Even if remotely true (the article claims a near 20% cut in the total NHS budget which is laughable) there is huge scope in the NHS for cutting waste, the central IT system Labour set up is set to cost over £20 billion and a good half a billion is spent on management consultants so when the axe falls it doesnt have to fall on nurses and doctors. Although doctors could do with having their generous contracts axed and being forced to provide out of hours cover.

[Korgeta]

On a related note Jeremy Paxman gets punked by Plaid Cymru economist:

with 170,000 NHS staff getting axed.

Even if remotely true (the article claims a near 20% cut in the total NHS budget which is laughable) there is huge scope in the NHS for cutting waste, the central IT system Labour set up is set to cost over £20 billion and a good half a billion is spent on management consultants so when the axe falls it doesnt have to fall on nurses and doctors. Although doctors could do with having their generous contracts axed and being forced to provide out of hours cover.

There will be a big cut in the budget nonetheless, the fact is Trust hospitals are already doing their own cuts (such as mine) so they can be more prepared or show they done their part. For example were shedding 30% of admin, adding more shifts for support workers and nurses (to reduce length of night shifts and avoid premimumn night pay) The NHS will work on cutting an equivaliant amonut to jobs as opposed to jobs itself. And whilst full time jobs won't be cut (at first) voulntary, term and part time time jobs will be phased out.) If these measures fail to save five million (on average per trust) then jobs will go. And this is cuts being made by the NHS board, what the ConLib goverment intends to introduce i have no idea.

[Admiral Valdemar]

Those coal mines were government owned, i.e. part of the public sector. If they have been financially viable, private operators could have taken them over. In short Wales was already hopelessly dependent on the public sector, the Conservatives tried to change that, but as soon as Labour got back into power they hired a huge number of near-worthless civil servants to replace the subsidy that was supporting the relatively useful (but not profitable) coal miners. Thus shoving the public sector teat right back into the Welsh collective mouth.

The ideal solution to this would be to prevent the post-war Labour government from nationalising so many industries in the first place. The only good idea they had was the NHS, everything else from defense to economic policy was an unmitigated disaster (in both the Attlee and Wilson governments) that directly led to many of the problems the UK faced in the second half of the 20th century.

The same sentiment was voiced in the north about the collieries too. The simple fact of the matter, as you state, is that they're not profitable. They still have coal, but the UK peaked in the good anthracite last century, so unless someone wants a haircut, any project to run those coal mines again is certainly going to be tricky. There are some operations opening or potentially looking at being opened when the price is right, though years of neglect and the simple fact that without CCS it's a horrid way to get your power, make such prospects doomed to fail.

I think we can all agree that nationalising and privatising at extremes is never a good idea. Some areas simply shouldn't be run by inefficient G-men, while others are best run in the interests of the public. Though given how fucked up our railways have become in places, one wonders if British Rail would be seen as a paragon of efficient public sector management now (admittedly, the bigger problem is how Labour handled the private contracts in reality. Oh, and Railtrack).

[Starglider]

hough given how fucked up our railways have become in places, one wonders if British Rail would be seen as a paragon of efficient public sector management now

Rail just isn't competitive given cheap oil and cheap cars. Fuel prices have gone up, but relatively poor people can still buy a 60 MPG diesel Skoda on credit - cars are even more accessible now than when BR was privatised. Meanwhile cars have also gotten very reliable, and road construction has not kept pace with demand (leading to a higher capacity factor for the existing road base, at the cost of inconvenience for people stuck in traffic jams - and of course more fuel burn). The combined effect is that the manpower cost of maintaining a car/truck infrastructure has gone down while rail has remained more or less constant; magnified by rising labor costs.

In short massive subsidy is required to make passenger rail competitive, and neither the UK nor the US was or is prepared to subsidise it that much. This might change once oil prices pass $200/barrel, unless mass adoption of electric cars have eliminated the rail electrification advantage.

[J]

Terribly sorry, we seem to have emptied the piggy bank...

Bloomberg link

‘There’s No Money Left,’ U.K. Minister Learns (Update1)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Robert Hutton

May 17 (Bloomberg) -- Arriving for work at the U.K. Treasury last week, the incoming chief secretary, David Laws, found a note from his predecessor, Liam Byrne, offering advice on the job.

“Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid to tell you there’s no money left,” Laws cited it as saying.

“Which was honest,” Laws, whose position is the No. 2 in the Treasury after the chancellor of the exchequer, told a press conference in London today. “But slightly less than I was expecting.”

The note underscores the task facing Britain’s Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition as it seeks to reconcile demand for improved health and education services with promises to reduce the largest budget deficit since World War II.

It was also in the tradition of Reginald Maudling, Conservative chancellor of the exchequer from 1962 to 1964. Leaving his residence after election defeat, he was reported byJames Callaghan, his successor, to have remarked, “Sorry, old cock, to leave it in this shape.”

Byrne didn’t respond to requests for comment. He was quoted by Sky News as saying the note was a joke. “I do hope David Laws’ sense of humour wasn’t another casualty of the coalition deal,” he said, according to Sky News.

According to the Treasury, the letter read as follows: “Dear Chief Secretary, I’m afraid there’s no money. Kind regards -- and good luck! Liam.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Robert Hutton in London at rhutton1@bloomberg.net;

Last Updated: May 17, 2010 09:14 EDT

[Admiral Valdemar]

I just saw Alastair Darling on the six o'clock news say this is "the oldest trick in the book, straight out of Yes, Minister" in reference to the blame on the past administration. Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? So Labour being in for 13 years means the current fuck-ups AREN'T down to them? Yeah, must've been Maggie still.

[bobalot]

The ideal solution to this would be to prevent the post-war Labour government from nationalising so many industries in the first place. The only good idea they had was the NHS, everything else from defense to economic policy was an unmitigated disaster (in both the Attlee and Wilson governments) that directly led to many of the problems the UK faced in the second half of the 20th century.

Perhaps you could actually list these problems and provide evidence that supports your case instead of pontificating about them in vague terms.

[Big Orange]

If we didn't need coal mines, how come we import cheaper coal from Eastern Europe and Russia instead? The sudden (sometimes violent) closure of Britain's old industries (not just the coal mines) in a relatively short space of time from the early 80s to early 90s is the primary reason why large swathes of Scotland, Wales, and Northern England have been so traumatised by the Tory rule to this day, becoming irrationally tribalistic Labour voters for a generation now (inspite of Labour spending the country into the ground, getting into conflicts more messier than the Falklands War, and carrying on with many of Thatcher's economic policies). And the Poll Tax towards the end of Thatcher's reign seemed to incur more spontaneous violence on the streets from regular people than the bank bailouts.

[Thanas]

Rail just isn't competitive given cheap oil and cheap cars.

It is in Germany.

[Admiral Valdemar]

If we didn't need coal mines, how come we import cheaper coal from Eastern Europe and Russia instead? The sudden (sometimes violent) closure of Britain's old industries (not just the coal mines) in a relatively short space of time from the early 80s to early 90s is the primary reason why large swathes of Scotland, Wales, and Northern England have been so traumatised by the Tory rule to this day, becoming irrationally tribalistic Labour voters for a generation now (inspite of Labour spending the country into the ground, getting into conflicts more messier than the Falklands War, and carrying on with many of Thatcher's economic policies). And the Poll Tax towards the end of Thatcher's reign seemed to incur more spontaneous violence on the streets from regular people than the bank bailouts.

We need coal, but it's cheaper abroad, so the free market provides, as it were. Anyway, the UK doesn't have anywhere near enough economically viable seams to bring about the rebirth some want in the industry. Natural gas is our best fuel for home heating, and we've used up our supplies of that already, something which led to coal being phased out as a UK industry too.

[Serafina]

Rail just isn't competitive given cheap oil and cheap cars.

It is in Germany.

Well, arguably only for single persons or couples on pre-planned trips.
If you want to get your whole family somewhere spontaneously, the car is the cheapest way.
If you decide on short notice to go to a major city in Germany, flying can be cheaper than trains.

But yes, that's pretty much a definition of "competetive".

[Big Orange]

We need coal, but it's cheaper abroad, so the free market provides, as it were. Anyway, the UK doesn't have anywhere near enough economically viable seams to bring about the rebirth some want in the industry. Natural gas is our best fuel for home heating, and we've used up our supplies of that already, something which led to coal being phased out as a UK industry too.

Oil too, but BP's recent incompetence will perhaps put pay to that. The natural gas (alongside sensationalist scare stories) contributed to the UK letting nuclear power unwisely wither on the vine as well, with our current generation of nuclear reactors being built by a French company, EDF Energy, which is a French state business; arguably showing what hooey the privatisation of our civil utilities were (though UK corporations dominate the Indian and Chinese markets, though at great cost to the UK's job market).

And our railways were getting systematically mismanaged way back in the 1960s, long before the badly executed privatisation. Our airline industry (and airline dependent companies) in the worst case scenario will be toppled by Iceland's volcanos (which also helped to topple France's autocratic royalty).

[Thanas]

Well, arguably only for single persons or couples on pre-planned trips.
If you want to get your whole family somewhere spontaneously, the car is the cheapest way.

It is not. Any car km will cost you between 17 and 23 cents per km (or at least it does me). The Bahn is way cheaper.

If you decide on short notice to go to a major city in Germany, flying can be cheaper than trains.

But more time-consuming due to checking, so still competitive. Besides, with a bahncard, any train ride is cheaper than flying (except for those low-cost offers where you are not guaranteed a sure flight).

[Big Orange]

Britain's railway fares are overpriced, much like First Bus are. UK rail ticket prices are arguably the highest in the world.

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Britain's railway fares are overpriced, much like First Bus are. UK rail ticket prices are arguably the highest in the world.

Are the companies making profits at all?

[Big Orange]

Yes, for the shareholders not necessarily the actual service.

Hence why in the past three decades it's more convenient and inexpensive to take an internal flight from London to Edinburgh. Though Britain's dishevelled railway service still has more going for it than Amtrak in the long-run and it's now more integrated into the Channel Tunnel, what with the expansions at St. Pancras.

[Starglider]

It is not. Any car km will cost you between 17 and 23 cents per km (or at least it does me). The Bahn is way cheaper.

For anything other than a business trip to somewhere within walking distance of the train station, you have to add the cost of taxi rides or car hire to get somewhere useful at the destination. I for one wouldn't want to mess about with buses in an unknown city. Furthermore you are restricted to the amount of luggage you can conveniently carry, and can't take any pets. Also the train seats can be pretty damn uncomfortable, I'm never taking the Eurostar to go skiing again solely for that reason.

[bobalot]

hough given how fucked up our railways have become in places, one wonders if British Rail would be seen as a paragon of efficient public sector management now

It was an example of better management. All you have to do is look at the numbers.

In 1994, the number of passenger kilometres travelled was 28.8 billion.
In 2009, the number of passenger kilometres travelled was 50.3 billion.

An increase of 76.6%.

Public subsidies in 1993/4 were £1,627m ($2,430.00 in 2008 terms adjusted by RPI)
Public subsidies in 2008/9 were £5,212m

An increase of 114.5%

In 2007, the subsidies reached a peak of a whopping $6,308m.

Then there was the disaster of RailTrack. Someone thought it would be a brilliant idea to be a infrastructure operator without adequate engineering skills within the organisation. After the Hatfield disaster, nobody had any idea how much of the network at risk. They more or less shut down large parts of the network or simply slapped on speed restrictions. Their profits turned to losses, and RailTrack asked the taxpayer to bail them out. The government had to eventually nationalise this fucking disaster.