The United Kingdom Elections 2010

[Tellos Athenaios]

Probably exaggerated but Japan always features high in “public” sector value for money. You know the public transport system where services being 2 minutes delayed apparently means they'll write a note for your boss explaining why you are late.

[Furunculus]

The problem wasn't with the train service itself, it was due to lack of accountablity for those involved and the lack of foresight and management. Also, the way the train service operated with funds and budget from government itself was always an issue. There are many factors but it is quite different from the way it should be done, and the ways it was done by our international friends. Also our current rail service is a joke and it is very far from "modern" go to railway and board the first 'Northern Rail' train, you will quickly agree, it is exploitation by private firms out for a quick buck, while paying no attention to the state of the system or any investment in its infrastructure.

For the final deathnail, have a look at France's rail. It is arguably the best rail service in the world, and it is publicly owned and ran. When I talk about public owned, better examples would be like France's very successful public enterprises, etc opposed to the joke systems we used to have.

I am all for modernisation and progress. I think government giving "budgets" is a fundamentally inefficient process. I am for government subs and investment into a good and working system, however.

Edit: Being honest, Louis is probably best to comment with my France examples. Can you shed any light on this for the benefit of us?

Edit2: I randomly found this link, I hope this is true, and I would love to see the system expanded into a North-South route running all the way from London to Edinburgh.

i would counter that works in one country is not necesarily the right solution for another, we have never got good value from nationalised industries, different culture, different ethos, but then i am alone in believeing peoples are not identical.......

[Beskar]

i would counter that works in one country is not necesarily the right solution for another, we have never got good value from nationalised industries, different culture, different ethos, but then i am alone in believeing peoples are not identical.......

Then I will point out "It was how we were raised" and that change is indeed possible. It requires people just to get on with getting changed other than leaving it for another day.

Edit: I just realised that saying about how the French system was better earlier with an avatar of Napoleon is just amusing.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

The problem wasn't with the train service itself, it was due to lack of accountablity for those involved and the lack of foresight and management. Also, the way the train service operated with funds and budget from government itself was always an issue. There are many factors but it is quite different from the way it should be done, and the ways it was done by our international friends. Also our current rail service is a joke and it is very far from "modern" go to railway and board the first 'Northern Rail' train, you will quickly agree, it is exploitation by private firms out for a quick buck, while paying no attention to the state of the system or any investment in its infrastructure.

The problem was the chronic lack of investment from the Second World War onwards. The carriages in use in the early nineties were pretty much the ones from when rail was electrified. The system was never modernised, and barely maintained. The shameful state the tracks were left in was illustrated by the rail crashes that used to happen year on year, but have now stopped.

Perhaps Northern Rail is not as interested in improving the service, but First Great Western and South West Trains both operate modern stations and rolling stock.

I am all for modernisation and progress. I think government giving "budgets" is a fundamentally inefficient process. I am for government subs and investment into a good and working system, however.

this is basically how our system works, except the boards and profits are private, not public.

[Myrddraal]

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.

i will rarely ever do this because it consider it rude, but this truly deserves a Tribesman style reponse:



roflmao!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.



Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.

I dissagree, as someone who works for a UK university and therefore is part-Public Sector. The Public Sector employs people for a host of reasons, the last of which is economics. One of the favourites is "we have money in the budget", another is, "to show we are still recruiting in a recession".

[Louis VI the Fat]

French trains. Can you shed any light on this for the benefit of us?

London-Glasgow 550 kilometers
Time: 5 and a half hours

Paris-Marseille 660 kilometers
Time: three hours
Free wifi aboard, wine served, guaranteed seat, runs every 30 minutes.


Oh, you can have quick snacks at the train station too. Here is 'Le Train Bleu' restaurant at Paris' Gare de Lyon, directly above the tracks so you can leave thirty seconds before your train to Marseille departs:

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Rude doesn't even begin to describe it.

Furunculus and I like it rough. We rubbish each other's claims while keeping a sense of mutual respect.

[Myrddraal]

I dissagree, as someone who works for a UK university and therefore is part-Public Sector. The Public Sector employs people for a host of reasons, the last of which is economics. One of the favourites is "we have money in the budget", another is, "to show we are still recruiting in a recession".

I'm not arguing that the reasoning behind government spending is economical considerations on the part of ministers. I'm saying that public sector spending is not a money sink into which money simply disappears. The important part of the post was:

Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

EDIT on an aside, I couldn't agree more. In my area we have problems with the roads (which area doesn't) but whilst the local govern't doesn't spend money on fixing the potholes, it instead uses the money to plant trees on the verges, and replace the pavement where it's in good condition, simply because these items fall under different budgets. Ridiculous.

[Furunculus]

Those who are comparing weath generation with 'making people or worse off' have misunderstood some principles of economics. Public spending is not a sink where the money disappears. Public spending is an allocation of GDP towards projects which either replace private spending or would otherwise not go ahead under a free market. The money does not 'disappear'. Whether or not this is desirable is a different argument.

As for relying on cutting waste to fund the deficit, this is extremely dubious. Any government would like to reduce waste. Any government which succeeded would be able to lower taxes whilst increasing public spending and would probably guarantee themselves reelection. Just because the Conservatives shout about it does not mean they are capable of reducing this waste. What I'm trying to say is that reducing waste is not a policy decision, it is an ongoing task for the civil service.

Rude doesn't even begin to describe it. The least you could do is show a bit of humility over your figures.

before we start building armies of straw-men, let us be clear that i am not an extreme libertarian-anarchist as i accept that government has its place, however i consider it immoral for the state to spend more than 40% of the wealth generated by its citizens because taxation is basically legalised robbery and should thus be kept to a minimum as a matter of principle.

there is nothing dubious about the expectation of massive waste from a government that has increased public spending 250% in the space of only three terms, anyone who has worked in both the public sector and the private sector will have a bone-deep scepticism of the ability of any government to properly allocate and use such sums of money.

excuse me, what humility over which figures?

[Myrddraal]

I hear what you say about tax being kept as low as possible on principle. I agree as well, but there were some posts in this thread that seemed to be taking the attitude that public spending was a drain on the economy, that a penny paid in taxation 'disappeared' out of the economy, never to be seen again. This obviously isn't true. A penny spent is a penny earnt, etc.

Public spending does not make money disappear, the objective of public spending is to force expenditure into avenues which would not recieve funding under a free market system. Whether or not an example of public spending is desirable or not is a different matter, but to denounce public spending in general is a bit short sighted. Let's not forget that when Atkins gets contracted to build a stretch of road, that pays for the salaries and generates weath for private individuals.

excuse me, what humility over which figures?

I could almost see the virtual spittle fly as you denounced the skyrocketing public spending. Louis quite rightly pointed out that public spending increases as a function of both inflation and increasing GDP. You obviously weren't aware of the fairly small difference as a percentage of GDP (or you chose to ignore it), the least I expected was an acceptance of that, but instead you replied with what I consider to be quite the opposite of humility. It seems that Louis' ability to detect mutual respect outstrips mine.

[InsaneApache]

One of the problems with the public sector is mission creep and empire building. Things you just don't get in the private sector. For example see how many ministers and junior ministers we have today compared with the days of the empire. I can't remember the exact figure but it's something along the lines of 40% of the Labour benches are government ministers in some form or another.

Just to be clear. I don't think the public sector is bad per se and there are fellows in the public sector who do a good job. Unfortunatley the government see the private sector as a cash cow, used to increase the public sector. When you arrive at the situation where 52% of the workforce is employed in the public sector you are indeed staring into the abyss. Don't believe me? Take a look at Greece where something like 7 out of 10 of the workforce work for the government/local authorities. Look how well that ended up.

[Banquo's Ghost]

One of the problems with the public sector is mission creep and empire building. Things you just don't get in the private sector.

Oh come on, IA. What do you think the banking crisis was?

There is no inherent reason why an organisation of people shouldn't be effective and efficient regardless of whether they are publicly or privately owned. The major difference is that the public sector is largely protected from the consequences of getting it wrong, so over time, poor performers and bad practices settle in. Mediocrity becomes the norm, and outstanding performers viewed as troubling. When private sector organisations get to a certain size or monopoly, or operate in a market which has to be maintained, they too get fat and lazy, to wit, the banks.

The public sector in the UK needs to be managed with discipline and to high performance standards. People need to be fired often and easily unless they do their jobs effectively. Unions should be removed from all public sector involvement - nowadays they operate only to protect the useless and pointless. Governments must publish their performance indicators and budgets in detail to the public (as the shareholders) and order managers to deliver on them without fail or lose their jobs - this includes the minister and permanent secretary, both of whom are then barred from further office. Promotions should go to the most able, not the most senior. And public service to these standards should be celebrated just as a entrepreneur is respected.

This kind of hard discipline could be usefully imposed on large corporates too. A businessman with a small, or medium sized business will often lose most of what he owns if he isn't efficient. A corporate boss borks a business and simply moves on to another high paid job with his buddies. Organisations, from top to bottom, are most efficient when the people therein are driven by the knowledge they have a lot to lose, as well as being recognised and respected with status in their community when they achieve.

[InsaneApache]

Oh come on, IA. What do you think the banking crisis was?

You know exactly what I meant.

The banking crisis was caused by the dismantling of controls put in place after the great crash of 1929 and the decision to bugger about with the Bank of England as the policeman of the bankers. Light regulation wasn't the problem, wrongheaded regulation was. After all in the dystopian utopian world, all shall be winners. Even if they can't afford the mortgage they had.

I wholeheartedly agree with the rest of your post though. Blimey I need to lie down in a darkened room with a wet flannel on me head.

[Furunculus]

I could almost see the virtual spittle fly as you denounced the skyrocketing public spending. Louis quite rightly pointed out that public spending increases as a function of both inflation and increasing GDP. You obviously weren't aware of the fairly small difference as a percentage of GDP (or you chose to ignore it), the least I expected was an acceptance of that, but instead you replied with what I consider to be quite the opposite of humility. It seems that Louis' ability to detect mutual respect outstrips mine.

i know what louis said, and i am aware of its existance.

but this spending increase is not only a function of GDP growth and inflation, it is also impacted by both an increased proportion of spending as a function of GDP, and massively increased deficit borrowing, at a time when you should be using surplus to decrease the deficit in respect of the cyclical nature of economies........................

except brown had the towering arrogance to assume that he had engineered boom-and-bust out of the economy, so he could borrow and spend a much as he damned well pleased.

it was colossal incompetance.

[Louis VI the Fat]

i know what louis said, and i am aware of its existance.

but this spending increase is not only a function of GDP growth and inflation, it is also impacted by both an increased proportion of spending as a function of GDP, and massively increased deficit borrowing, at a time when you should be using surplus to decrease the deficit in respect of the cyclical nature of economies........................

except brown had the towering arrogance to assume that he had engineered boom-and-bust out of the economy, so he could borrow and spend a much as he damned well pleased.

it was colossal incompetance.

Tory spin.


1) Public expenditure, absolute amount, £ billion:

1980 - £ 98,2
1997 - £ 348,0
2008 - £ 525,0

The Tories increased public expenditure by 350%. Labour by 150%. We shall have to conclude Thatcher was a Marxist, responsible for the largest increase in the public sector in British history.
Or not, and look at the numbers in a more relevant way, as % of GDP:


2) Public spending as percentage of GDP:

Tory:
1990 - 35.23
1997 - 38.35

Labour
1997 - 38.35
2008 - 39.88


3)Public net debt as % of GDP:

1980 - 42,11%
1997 - 41,92
2008 - 36,38

That's right. The Tories are the party of public debt, Labour is the party of fiscal discipline. Not unlike the US*, blunt fact simply does not manage to overcome perception of a spendthrifty left, and a disciplined right.

Massive public debt is what you get for describing taxes as daylight robbery. It leads to a refusal to maintain taxes at a realistic level. Public debt is what you get for neo-liberalism and its demand that governments sell the geese with the golden eggs. That is, to privatise directly profitable government sectors so the profits are for the few, and maintaining non-profitable government sectors, so these costs are socialised.


* The UK has the problem of speaking a language closely related to American, so there is even more creeping in of American concepts in British public discourse than on the continent. It undermines traditional British values. In politics, the US lacking a European style social democracy, it is mostly the UK Conservatives that are prone to adopt concepts that are alien to traditional British values.

[InsaneApache]

You are Peter Mandelson and I claim my five pounds.

[Banquo's Ghost]

That's a fascinating site.

Even more interesting is that Thatcher's early government (1980-86) was above the 40% of GDP every year (pretty much in line with the previous decade of alternating Tory and Labour administrations) and then reduced substantially down to 25%. Partly due to an increase in GDP, but also clearly a very tight control from the nasty party. Major's government from 1993 reversed this trend back up to 41%, probably because of his need to bribe the electorate and his sliver of a majority. Labour's early years saw a drop in percentage, but that looks largely due to the big increase in GDP that they inherited from Major (using 2003 adjusted figures). Despite GDP increasing significantly, spending rose inexorably (war is costly) until going over 50% last year.

So a bit more nuanced in the detail than your exposition, Louis. Clearly, Thatcherite fiscal policy FTW.

[Louis VI the Fat]

Clearly, Thatcherite fiscal policy FTW.

The numbers also show that the mythical fiscal discipline of Thatcher was achieved in a very short span of time. From 1987 to 1990. In these three years, 90% of the cut in public debt came about.

The reason is not discipline. It would be hard to achieve this much decrease even by the most irresponsibly ruthless politician in British history. The reason is more simple: enormous privatisation.

Thatcher's second administration simply sold of the geese with the golden eggs. A lot of money was payed to the government for it, all at once. Sharply reducing public debt. Unfortunately, one can only do this trick once.


The legacy: already under Major public debt bounced back to the level where Thatcher started from. Meanwhile, the profitable government sectors had been lost forever, to make private profit to this day.

You've all been had.

[al Roumi]

11%......... 12%........ 20%, who cares, start slashing and start burning. I am convinced there is vast waste given that public spending has SKYROCKETED FROM £250b to £625b IN THE LAST FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!!!!!!1111111111ONEONEONE

The private sector is a wealth creator (i.e. makes people better off), and the public sector is a wealth consumer (i.e. makes people worse off), therefore i start from the first-principle that government spending should be as low as possible and demonstrate a least-damaging effect to wealth-creation, and i apply an arbitrary limit of 40% of GDP whereupon i start to rant and scream demands at government, and the quislings that support it, that they justify their gross indecency in urinating my money up the wall via excess taxation.

Really, it is quite a simple principle and i fail to understand why you find it so confusing.........?

Well, maybe instead of disclaiming waste in public expenditure, you should be clear that it's any public expenditure, above a contextualy irrelevant figure that you are opposed to.

That kind of incoherence is pretty low for you mate.

[Furunculus]

3)Public net debt as % of GDP:

1980 - 42,11%
1997 - 41,92
2008 - 36,38

That's right. The Tories are the party of public debt, Labour is the party of fiscal discipline. Not unlike the US*, blunt fact simply does not manage to overcome perception of a spendthrifty left, and a disciplined right.

Massive public debt is what you get for describing taxes as daylight robbery. It leads to a refusal to maintain taxes at a realistic level. Public debt is what you get for neo-liberalism and its demand that governments sell the geese with the golden eggs. That is, to privatise directly profitable government sectors so the profits are for the few, and maintaining non-profitable government sectors, so these costs are socialised.

lol, that's funny, you're telling me that the year after the tories inherited a shattered economy they still had a massive deficit to deal with, no kidding. lol.

[Furunculus]

Well, maybe instead of disclaiming waste in public expenditure, you should be clear that it's any public expenditure, above a contextualy irrelevant figure that you are opposed to.

That kind of incoherence is pretty low for you mate.

don't get your knickers in a twist, i already said i wasn't an extreme libertarian anarchist, and that i recognised a role for government.

[Myrddraal]

Is the conservative proposal to remove funding for teacher training for those with third class degrees or lower still in their manifesto?

For reference:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8464916.stm

[Banquo's Ghost]

Well, it's official. The Prime Minister has asked Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and the general election will be held on the 6th May.

[InsaneApache]

Well, it's official. The Prime Minister has asked Her Majesty to dissolve Parliament, and the general election will be held on the 6th May.

You mean no-one is in charge! No more Great Leader! I feel a panic attack coming on.

But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother.

[Banquo's Ghost]

You mean no-one is in charge! No more Great Leader! I feel a panic attack coming on.

Don't celebrate too quickly. Her Majesty has accepted the dissolution, but Parliament stays until Monday. They are rushing through some really badly designed legislation to remove your intertubes, and you know how important botched laws are to this government. Monday, you get your wish - no more MPs! (Sadly, ministers get to continue in their jobs until replaced by a Prime Minister).

[Furunculus]

How a Tory gov will be the most tech-savvy in history
Election 2010: A brave new twittocracy
By Grant Shapps MP • Get more from this author
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...ry_tech_savvy/

[al Roumi]

How a Tory gov will be the most tech-savvy in history
Election 2010: A brave new twittocracy
By Grant Shapps MP • Get more from this author
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/04...ry_tech_savvy/

twitocracy? Does that mean a tory Govt would be composed of twits?

Or do you think they'll go further than cutting edge "policy delivery by You Tube", as pioneered by Brown (see Expenses scandal).

Twiter aside, does this actually do anything to show they will have the first clue about how to run a damn country?

Apparently that won't matter anyway, the news this morning was all about how this election would be new in its focus on individuals and not policies... I have to ask: have the same journalists been around for the last 20 years?

[InsaneApache]

Twiter aside, does this actually do anything to show they will have the first clue about how to run a damn country?

That's Labour well and truly on the hook.

[Beskar]

I think you should elect me. I'll make the real changes this country needs.

[al Roumi]

I think you should elect me. I'll make the real changes this country needs.

What's your party & constituency? Found yourself a suitable rotten borough?