Starmer

Costero Poderoso said:
i dont think its just that Starmer is boring or lacks charisma - i dont think hes that much different form the Current Tories in charge. as head of the CPS he consistently came down on the side of government and government agencies when they were clearly in the wrong. He jumps on almost any bandwagon and will not make important decisons for fear of being unpopular. This current crop of Tories are possibly the most venal and self serving that have ever been in power, is Starmer as bad as that - no! but he is as out of touch and I'm not convinced that he has either the policies or the motivation to rectify or even possibly slow the grind of the social and economic policies of the last 50 years; wealth disparity and reduced opportunity, impossible living costs including housing, failing education system, crumbling health service, ecological crisis etc etc.
Click to expand...
Everyone who knows Starmer remarks at how ruthless he is. In our 'winner takes all' electoral system the only important thing is to win, there are no political prizes for being principled. I hope that he is positioning himself to win the election with his current Blairite blandness. before becoming leader he was considered to be on the centre left of the party, as leader he now looks more to the centre right or beyond.
A large majority should give him at least two terms and the platform to make changes. The British way is pragmatic incremental change, to reverse the current malaise will take more than four years. It would take decades. I would love to see utilities bought back into public ownership, more social housing, less profit taking and more service providing. The first step is getting elected.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
.... and I'm not convinced that he has either the policies or the motivation to rectify or even possibly slow the grind of the social and economic policies of the last 50 years; wealth disparity and reduced opportunity, impossible living costs including housing, failing education system, crumbling health service, ecological crisis etc etc.
Click to expand...

Yep, but realistically who has?

Unfortunately we have only two options, and the Conservative option is only for masochists.

And to answer the question you posed to EBSN: centre politics doesn`t scare the horses at the moment. It`s not ideal but it is sensible and hopefully leads to stability in the short to medium term...
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Why do you want labour to be centrist? genuine question.

A centrist position in these times is a capital biased, supply side economic model with an acceptance of large corporate and government hegemony, and people just have to live within that - they are a resource to those corporate and government interests
Click to expand...
I would prefer them to be further to the left but out of government good intention is completely pointless. As the Tories knew until fairly recently, it's all about winning.
 
Lala said:
The problem is though that voting for a party just because they aren’t as corrupt as another party, is a pretty lame vote.

I don’t think many are pushing for the Tories now.

But maybe the electorate need to be bold and strike out for something other than the 2 main parties if there are others that suit our individual needs and beliefs more.
We are enabling the 2 party rule by not being brave enough ourselves to vote for real changes. And it may take time for any other party to break through enough to make a difference, but is that a good reason to not try to effect change ?
Click to expand...
I think it is valid. If Labour get in, there needs to be full investigation of the flagrant abuse of the system for personal enrichment, and if proved, criminal charges brought. Ethical Government, something Sunak promised then took the piss.

If this lot get in again, it will be stripping the country completely.
 
Wizaard said:
I think it is valid. If Labour get in, there needs to be full investigation of the flagrant abuse of the system for personal enrichment, and if proved, criminal charges brought. Ethical Government, something Sunak promised then took the piss.

If this lot get in again, it will be stripping the country completely.
Click to expand...
They won’t get in again Wiz. I’d stake a fair wedge on that.
I still think we need to open up the floor to alternatives though, And only by changing our voting habits can we do that. We say Starmer needs to be bolder, and he does. But failing that maybe it’s us, the electorate, that need to be.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Everyone who knows Starmer remarks at how ruthless he is. In our 'winner takes all' electoral system the only important thing is to win, there are no political prizes for being principled. I hope that he is positioning himself to win the election with his current Blairite blandness. before becoming leader he was considered to be on the centre left of the party, as leader he now looks more to the centre right or beyond.
A large majority should give him at least two terms and the platform to make changes. The British way is pragmatic incremental change, to reverse the current malaise will take more than four years. It would take decades. I would love to see utilities bought back into public ownership, more social housing, less profit taking and more service providing. The first step is getting elected.
Click to expand...
Maybe im just a bit too idealistic in my old age, but setting out policies that are not scary (for the right wing media and the big corp backers) simply to win seems problematic: when does Starmer after this win start to implement his "real" policies, the changes required to reverse or even halt 50 years of problematic social and economic policy is going to be a multi decade project as you suggest, he wont get two terms because if he changes tack (from his pre-election promises) in office he will get slaughtered in the media, which will put him under personal pressure in his pursuit of popularity with the public, maintain his credibility with the markets and in most respects maintain credibility in the centrist parts of the Labour party. The hard left dont have much in the way of policy either other than traditional clause four socialism, which isnt appropriate today. Tinkering at the edges will be the order of the day.

This is why im so cynical about Starmer, he will not change anything because it isnt in his personal interest and the party's interest in terms of staying in power to change anything. If all it means is to stay in power and keep the conservatives out then I can see a majority (of voters) voting for the conservatives, or not voting at all, which is the same thing.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Everyone who knows Starmer remarks at how ruthless he is. In our 'winner takes all' electoral system the only important thing is to win, there are no political prizes for being principled. I hope that he is positioning himself to win the election with his current Blairite blandness. before becoming leader he was considered to be on the centre left of the party, as leader he now looks more to the centre right or beyond.
A large majority should give him at least two terms and the platform to make changes. The British way is pragmatic incremental change, to reverse the current malaise will take more than four years. It would take decades. I would love to see utilities bought back into public ownership, more social housing, less profit taking and more service providing. The first step is getting elected.
Click to expand...
My view is that Starmer is aiming to make it difficult for the Right wing media to attack Labour in the run up to the election. That never works. If they can't say that Labour's plan is unaffordable then they can just as easily say that there is no plan, that Starmer is unprincipled. It is the case that Labour's pledges have taken a knock with the worsening state of the economy. However, in 1945 the country really was on its knees and Labour secured a landslide victory with a radical programme of nationalisation and building welfare for all. Of course, Britain at that time had a massive workforce returning from the War and an electorate that was ready for change.

The more I write about this the more I am inclined to want Starmer to stay radical; to stick with his green plan for Britain and yes, to cut Banker's bonuses. The time for caution has gone. The Tories have ruined this country and no desperate wailing from the Express, Mail and Telegraph is going to convince the voters otherwise.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
JJ a possibility for me too. I despise the Tories at the mo, but we have an excellent Tory MP where I live so I have a difficult decision.

One thing for sure is that I will never vote for that t@@@ Starmer and therefore not Labour.
Click to expand...
Reform and GB News. Two sides of the same coin. Funded by Dubai, owned by Australians.

If you want to own the media you really should live and pay taxes here.
 
EPM46 said:
Would you prefer Sunak instead? No other choice!
Click to expand...
Thats the problem.

Lib dems are not really a choice, the green party has no policies outside of stopping human activity. The various right wing nut job parties (reform, UKIP,etc) are all pushing a kind of corporate authoritarianism, from a position of being limited companies and not even having internal democracy.

as i said before the two choices are both a shit sandwich with varying degrees of presentation.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Maybe im just a bit too idealistic in my old age, but setting out policies that are not scary (for the right wing media and the big corp backers) simply to win seems problematic: when does Starmer after this win start to implement his "real" policies, the changes required to reverse or even halt 50 years of problematic social and economic policy is going to be a multi decade project as you suggest, he wont get two terms because if he changes tack (from his pre-election promises) in office he will get slaughtered in the media, which will put him under personal pressure in his pursuit of popularity with the public, maintain his credibility with the markets and in most respects maintain credibility in the centrist parts of the Labour party. The hard left dont have much in the way of policy either other than traditional clause four socialism, which isnt appropriate today. Tinkering at the edges will be the order of the day.

This is why im so cynical about Starmer, he will not change anything because it isnt in his personal interest and the party's interest in terms of staying in power to change anything. If all it means is to stay in power and keep the conservatives out then I can see a majority (of voters) voting for the conservatives, or not voting at all, which is the same thing.
Click to expand...
If he has a strategy I would say that his first term would / should be about establishing credibility as a stable, competent government - something that we haven't had for a long time. Regaining respect on the international stage, building alliances, getting business onboard, stopping the culture wars etc. Stability and a clear direction should attract investment which may give him some money to spend. We don't know much about him apart from that he is fairly clean (increasingly desperate attempts by the press to smear him come to nothing) and that his father was a toolmaker! Once he has this economic credibility and a bit of growth perhaps we will see something more radical. There is no point in being right about everything if you can never change anything. Don't doubt the right's stranglehold of the news agenda - it's a difficult job for the left to get elected in the UK and even harder to stay in power.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
My view is that Starmer is aiming to make it difficult for the Right wing media to attack Labour in the run up to the election. That never works. If they can't say that Labour's plan is unaffordable then they can just as easily say that there is no plan, that Starmer is unprincipled. It is the case that Labour's pledges have taken a knock with the worsening state of the economy. However, in 1945 the country really was on its knees and Labour secured a landslide victory with a radical programme of nationalisation and building welfare for all. Of course, Britain at that time had a massive workforce returning from the War and an electorate that was ready for change.

The more I write about this the more I am inclined to want Starmer to stay radical; to stick with his green plan for Britain and yes, to cut Banker's bonuses. The time for caution has gone. The Tories have ruined this country and no desperate wailing from the Express, Mail and Telegraph is going to convince the voters otherwise.
Click to expand...
starmer isnt really a radical, but radicalism is what is needed.

For example what is looked at as the hideous and unsustainable cost for the green plan - should really be seen as an advantageous trillion pound decades long economic boost, which could create hundreds of thousands of jobs.

Its not just banker's bonuses that are problematic the whole model of banking needs to be re-organised, and most of corporate endeavour is parasitical and very possibly self destructive.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
If he has a strategy I would say that his first term would / should be about establishing credibility as a stable, competent government - something that we haven't had for a long time. Regaining respect on the international stage, building alliances, getting business onboard, stopping the culture wars etc. Stability and a clear direction should attract investment which may give him some money to spend. We don't know much about him apart from that he is fairly clean (increasingly desperate attempts by the press to smear him come to nothing) and that his father was a toolmaker! Once he has this economic credibility and a bit of growth perhaps we will see something more radical. There is no point in being right about everything if you can never change anything. Don't doubt the right's stranglehold of the news agenda - it's a difficult job for the left to get elected in the UK and even harder to stay in power.
Click to expand...
All fine and dandy but by that accord you are into the third term with no real change, and still heading towards the same cliff edge as when you started, the populace is now getting itchy voting fingers, the party itself is under pressure, party activists (in opposition) are gaining more ground, and any succession runs the risk of complete and knee jerk reactive turn around on policy, and in that time the right has shifted the overton window even further and nothing is off the agenda.

The basic discussions have to change - why do we have to get business on line (and by default align political and social policy with business needs, it should be the other way around)? business should fit into social and economic policy, we as a populace have to fit in and adapt, why do corporates have this privileged position. Why continue to pursue growth? it (pursuit of growth) is most likely the underlying cause of every economic and social problem globally. Attract investment from where? Why not build internally, get away from the rentier economy that is decimating the UK.

I'm well aware of the right's stranglehold on the media and wider political discussion and activism, ive got some personal experience of it.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
If he has a strategy I would say that his first term would / should be about establishing credibility as a stable, competent government - something that we haven't had for a long time. Regaining respect on the international stage, building alliances, getting business onboard, stopping the culture wars etc. Stability and a clear direction should attract investment which may give him some money to spend. We don't know much about him apart from that he is fairly clean (increasingly desperate attempts by the press to smear him come to nothing) and that his father was a toolmaker! Once he has this economic credibility and a bit of growth perhaps we will see something more radical. There is no point in being right about everything if you can never change anything. Don't doubt the right's stranglehold of the news agenda - it's a difficult job for the left to get elected in the UK and even harder to stay in power.
Click to expand...
I used to think the same about first term competence but I now believe that Costero has a point. The Government shouldn't be pussy-footing around business as if pleasing the Gods of Mammon is the only way to succeed. Big business has done nothing to improve this country. It has used low interest rates to clear up on buying building assets whilst failing to invest anything like enough in R&D and manufacturing.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I used to think the same about first term competence but I now believe that Costero has a point. The Government shouldn't be pussy-footing around business as if pleasing the Gods of Mammon is the only way to succeed. Big business has done nothing to improve this country. It has used low interest rates to clear up on buying building assets whilst failing to invest anything like enough in R&D and manufacturing.
Click to expand...
Our local politics show yesterday morning did a piece on PFI. Yorkshire Councils now have assets worth £7.5 billion in the form of new schools etc, but have paid out £145 billion in fees and interest and are still tied into contracts until 2040. Working with the private sector has worked really well. For the overseas investors were still paying.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I used to think the same about first term competence but I now believe that Costero has a point. The Government shouldn't be pussy-footing around business as if pleasing the Gods of Mammon is the only way to succeed. Big business has done nothing to improve this country. It has used low interest rates to clear up on buying building assets whilst failing to invest anything like enough in R&D and manufacturing.
Click to expand...
I used to think similarly as well, having a sensible centrist-ish model and then building on it, but it cant work because the centrist (or even sensible) model constantly shifts towards either right leaning, or capital leaning, or authoritarian leaning or a mix of all those, and as that centrist model shifts we accept things such as, economic growth as the ultimate goal, market pressures to drive competition, even the definition of competition changes. That means that things such as: low inflation as a necessity of economic growth becomes a presuppositional norm which no one is prepared or able to question, when both growth as an ultimate goal is problematic and maintaining low inflation means a) at least 4 to 6 % unemployment and b) another twenty to 25% of the workforce in low paid and insecure work as a necessity.

without the questions of why these things are taken as reasonable goals we cant change any of the outcomes.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
I used to think similarly as well, having a sensible centrist-ish model and then building on it, but it cant work because the centrist (or even sensible) model constantly shifts towards either right leaning, or capital leaning, or authoritarian leaning or a mix of all those, and as that centrist model shifts we accept things such as, economic growth as the ultimate goal, market pressures to drive competition, even the definition of competition changes. That means that things such as: low inflation as a necessity of economic growth becomes a presuppositional norm which no one is prepared or able to question, when both growth as an ultimate goal is problematic and maintaining low inflation means a) at least 4 to 6 % unemployment and b) another twenty to 25% of the workforce in low paid and insecure work as a necessity.

without the questions of why these things are taken as reasonable goals we cant change any of the outcomes.
Click to expand...
Fair points although I can't see any party (except the Greens), going for the seismic changes implicit in your analysis. Even Corbyn in 2017/19 was far less radical than the changes you imply and he was roundly dumped by the electorate.

No, we have to accept, for now, the growth model as the foundation of Western economies, albeit conversations around alternate green models should be encouraged. Even so, despite the limitations of that model there is no reason why Starmer should not be building a socialistic programme to address Beveridge's 5 evils whilst being centered on our existential requirement for a green economy.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Fair points although I can't see any party (except the Greens), going for the seismic changes implicit in your analysis. Even Corbyn in 2017/19 was far less radical than the changes you imply and he was roundly dumped by the electorate.

No, we have to accept, for now, the growth model as the foundation of Western economies, albeit conversations around alternate green models should be encouraged. Even so, despite the limitations of that model there is no reason why Starmer should not be building a socialistic programme to address Beveridge's 5 evils whilst being centered on our existential requirement for a green economy.
Click to expand...
Corbyns policies were only radical in that they were reverting to traditional socialism from the recognised position of a free-market, privatised capital biased supply side economy. Reverting to traditional socialism is a radical move in that scenario but its falling back on what people understand - and to a lesser or greater extent something that a majority of people have rejected, which is why I think it fails(ed). You could try and re-package socialism, or more correctly the image of socialism, which I think Blair was trying to do and Starmer might be trying to do but continuing with a pursuit of growth and capital bias is I think fundamentally contrary to any core principles of socialism.

Accepting the growth model is the error we make over and over; the more we continue with it the more that we have to adjust in a negative way to keep it going. I dont think we need to talk about "alternative" economies such as green or high tech etc, thoe aspects should just fall into the economy as need requires but they dont because of vested interests. There is a dichotomy for me in saying Starmer can build an economy to address the B5 whilst still pursuing growth. The B5 are largely humanistic needs, the pursuit of growth is almost entirely system and entity driven, and very specifically requires that some of those evils are ever present in the society in order to persuade / cajole people into certain types of activity or behaviour, or deter other behaviours or ensure that the system isnt given thorough evaluation.

i know im being pedantic and very few people are really interested in this, I have these conversations in professional settings amongst those vested interests, which most see as just additional ways to leverage or extract additional earnings out of customers / people.
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Corbyns policies were only radical in that they were reverting to traditional socialism from the recognised position of a free-market, privatised capital biased supply side economy. Reverting to traditional socialism is a radical move in that scenario but its falling back on what people understand - and to a lesser or greater extent something that a majority of people have rejected, which is why I think it fails(ed). You could try and re-package socialism, or more correctly the image of socialism, which I think Blair was trying to do and Starmer might be trying to do but continuing with a pursuit of growth and capital bias is I think fundamentally contrary to any core principles of socialism.

Accepting the growth model is the error we make over and over; the more we continue with it the more that we have to adjust in a negative way to keep it going. I dont think we need to talk about "alternative" economies such as green or high tech etc, thoe aspects should just fall into the economy as need requires but they dont because of vested interests. There is a dichotomy for me in saying Starmer can build an economy to address the B5 whilst still pursuing growth. The B5 are largely humanistic needs, the pursuit of growth is almost entirely system and entity driven, and very specifically requires that some of those evils are ever present in the society in order to persuade / cajole people into certain types of activity or behaviour, or deter other behaviours or ensure that the system isnt given thorough evaluation.

i know im being pedantic and very few people are really interested in this, I have these conversations in professional settings amongst those vested interests, which most see as just additional ways to leverage or extract additional earnings out of customers / people.
Click to expand...
I referenced the B5 deliberately because under the last 14 years of Tory Government they have resurfaced massively. As for growth, there is still room for a Keynesian model in which growth is tailored by the Government towards a rebuilding of the public infrastructure. It is central to Labour's plan for Great British Energy and the creation of half a million jobs to rebuild our infrastructure with the environment at its core. Long term, well paid jobs must be at the centre of our recovery. They are the basis of family stability, local economic success educational achievement and a harmonious society. To this end Government must put British businesses first, together with those overseas companies that maintain significant interests in this country: Nissan and Ford spring to mind. Opportunistic asset-strippers should be ignored and encouraged to 'off-shore' their operations.
 
Lala said:
The problem is though that voting for a party just because they aren’t as corrupt as another party, is a pretty lame vote.

I don’t think many are pushing for the Tories now.

But maybe the electorate need to be bold and strike out for something other than the 2 main parties if there are others that suit our individual needs and beliefs more.
We are enabling the 2 party rule by not being brave enough ourselves to vote for real changes. And it may take time for any other party to break through enough to make a difference, but is that a good reason to not try to effect change ?
Click to expand...
Trouble is what kind of alternative party could break through?
 
1966_and_all_that said:
I referenced the B5 deliberately because under the last 14 years of Tory Government they have resurfaced massively. As for growth, there is still room for a Keynesian model in which growth is tailored by the Government towards a rebuilding of the public infrastructure. It is central to Labour's plan for Great British Energy and the creation of half a million jobs to rebuild our infrastructure with the environment at its core. Long term, well paid jobs must be at the centre of our recovery. They are the basis of family stability, local economic success educational achievement and a harmonious society. To this end Government must put British businesses first, together with those overseas companies that maintain significant interests in this country: Nissan and Ford spring to mind. Opportunistic asset-strippers should be ignored and encouraged to 'off-shore' their operations.
Click to expand...
Agree with almost all of the plans in principle, building infrastructure, family stability, educational success etc etc; but i just cannot see how it happens without a fundamental change to waht is being pursued. If growth is the pursuit and there isnt growth then plans can get shelved until we are in a more optimal situation. Even a Keynesian model is fundamentally system biased, i that you maintain the system . If you were to say that educational standards, or national infrastructure, were the goals then to some extent you can ignore growth (but in those cases in isolation im not sure), the post war period the economic goal was full employment, along with a bunch of social provisions. But the moment we hit inflationary pressures in the early seventies that was abandoned, and there may not have been any need to revert away from that full employment model, other than the capitalists saw their traditional wealth being eaten away.

The goal I advocate for is maximal participation, whether that be economic, social, political, educational, health provision etc and to make it humanistically biased and humanistically sustainable.

Also if you have a sustainable agenda you have to abandon growth as a pursuit as well, it just doesnt add up.
pie in the sky i know
 
Costero Poderoso said:
Agree with almost all of the plans in principle, building infrastructure, family stability, educational success etc etc; but i just cannot see how it happens without a fundamental change to waht is being pursued. If growth is the pursuit and there isnt growth then plans can get shelved until we are in a more optimal situation. Even a Keynesian model is fundamentally system biased, i that you maintain the system . If you were to say that educational standards, or national infrastructure, were the goals then to some extent you can ignore growth (but in those cases in isolation im not sure), the post war period the economic goal was full employment, along with a bunch of social provisions. But the moment we hit inflationary pressures in the early seventies that was abandoned, and there may not have been any need to revert away from that full employment model, other than the capitalists saw their traditional wealth being eaten away.

The goal I advocate for is maximal participation, whether that be economic, social, political, educational, health provision etc and to make it humanistically biased and humanistically sustainable.

Also if you have a sustainable agenda you have to abandon growth as a pursuit as well, it just doesnt add up.
pie in the sky i know
Click to expand...
Sorry Costero butyou're busking now. If Government use economic growth as a kick start for local communities then it's not the private, profit motive that is the focus. It may well be a by product but people would be at the centre of decision making. People and the environment.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Sorry Costero butyou're busking now. If Government use economic growth as a kick start for local communities then it's not the private, profit motive that is the focus. It may well be a by product but people would be at the centre of decision making. People and the environment.
Click to expand...
we'll have to agree to disagree,
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
Everyone who knows Starmer remarks at how ruthless he is. In our 'winner takes all' electoral system the only important thing is to win, there are no political prizes for being principled. I hope that he is positioning himself to win the election with his current Blairite blandness. before becoming leader he was considered to be on the centre left of the party, as leader he now looks more to the centre right or beyond.
A large majority should give him at least two terms and the platform to make changes. The British way is pragmatic incremental change, to reverse the current malaise will take more than four years. It would take decades. I would love to see utilities bought back into public ownership, more social housing, less profit taking and more service providing. The first step is getting elected.
Click to expand...
Slowly slowly is the British way, except the Attlee government who had a post war mandate, I honestly think this isn't a long way from that after Covid etc.
 
poolseasider said:
Only other country that has our voting system in Europe is Belarus says it all really.

So we've a choice between Gonorreah or Syphylis as choice for our next leader.

Sunak and Starmer you'd be confused which one was left or right both utterly shite.

We need PR in this country but like America who are going to end up with two old farts slogging it out it won't happen.
Click to expand...

I'm not disagreeing with you but just on being confused on which is left or right.

There are plenty on here who think that Sunak has moved the Conservatives too far to the right !!!!!!!!!!!

You really couldn't make it up.
 
Bend it like Suddick said:
To be fair EBSN, my post was a little dig at Wiz who's one of the most blanketed political opinions on this Forum.

He consistently posts negatives about the Tories without seemingly EVER posting something negative about the Labour Party.
Click to expand...

You are not wrong Bendit, Wiz is one of the finest posters on here but you will find rocking horse sh1t before you find him posting negatively about the Labour Party or BFC - the club itself not supporters and other b0110x, etc.
 
Apologies folks.

I've been ranting and moaning on here for about 20 minutes before realising it's a fortnight out of date and I'd already contributed.

Please ignore everything I've said and put me down for Guy Fawkes if he happens to be standing in Blackpool South.
 
1000010747.jpg
This is why Starmer has to be careful of not seeming to be too radical. This is what's lined up against him.
 
Wizaard said:
Our local politics show yesterday morning did a piece on PFI. Yorkshire Councils now have assets worth £7.5 billion in the form of new schools etc, but have paid out £145 billion in fees and interest and are still tied into contracts until 2040. Working with the private sector has worked really well. For the overseas investors were still paying.
Click to expand...
THERE was a programme on Radio 4 about PFI . Must be on the i player. Two schools on Merseyside . they cant even go for a s..te without breaking these punitive contracts. Well worth a listen.
 
So who is to blame for PFI? Both Conservative and Labour parties.

Initially launched in1992 by the then Prime Minister John Major, it was than expanded considerably by the Blair Government.
 
Curryman said:
So who is to blame for PFI? Both Conservative and Labour parties.

Initially launched in1992 by the then Prime Minister John Major, it was than expanded considerably by the Blair Government.
Click to expand...
Yes.
Blair and Brown really promoted PFI - it was a way of keeping government borrowing for infrastructure off the books, the equivalent of buying badly needed infrastructure using a credit card.
It usually involved signing away stupid amounts of (future) money to rent buildings used as things like hospitals and schools. The buildings were built and managed by the private sector.
Surely it would have been better to borrow from the markets at the time and for government to build and own the asset. I have never understood why a Labour government would promote this way of doing things. It is such a waste of public money and also has allowed profiteering at the taxpayers expense. Labour actually inherited an economy running a small surplus from Major and had long periods of very low interest rates. They had the money to spend.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top