Bolitics The New Condem Government

[snowychap]

Sorry, I missed this.

I am not a spokesman for, nor allied to, the Conservative party, but did this commitment include keeping the bulging public sector that became clinically obese under the last government?

The Tory party were committed to Labour's spending levels until November 2008, other than that, I don't think they had made any (public) decision on the details of their spending plans (I suppose it's possible that all of their spending plans revolved around filling the pockets of mates, investors and other worthies by way of large contracts for the 'efficient' private sector :winkold:).

[thetrees]

(I suppose it's possible that all of their spending plans revolved around filling the pockets of mates, investors and other worthies by way of large contracts for the 'efficient' private sector :winkold:).

So exactly the same policy as the previous government then :winkold:

[meregreen]

Having worked full time since I left school in 1972, I have been lucky enough to have been in full time employment for my entire working life. During those 38 years I have paid National Insurance to the tune of thousands of pounds, this on the understanding that if I ever was unfortunate enough to lose my job, I would be entitled to what used to be called unemployment benefit and which is now rather pathetically labeled job seekers allowance. Now, some Tory gobshite, who has probably been too busy screwing the taxpayer with his expenses for the last 20 years to have any comprehension of what a real days work is, is telling me that if I am unfortunate enough to lose my job, the benefits for which I have contributed so many thousands of pounds towardsi, will only be paid out if I agree to do his bidding with regards to so called voluntary work ie "do it or else". If I pay my house insurance and my house is damaged , I would not expect the insurance company to demand I clean the streets before my insurance is paid out. The principle is the same. Shame on them.

[tonyh29]

Now, some Tory gobshite,

sigh

knew it was pointless , even if i did rejoin this thread by mistake

[snowychap]

(I suppose it's possible that all of their spending plans revolved around filling the pockets of mates, investors and other worthies by way of large contracts for the 'efficient' private sector :winkold:).

So exactly the same policy as the previous government then :winkold:

Yep.

Plus ça change.

[thetrees]

(I suppose it's possible that all of their spending plans revolved around filling the pockets of mates, investors and other worthies by way of large contracts for the 'efficient' private sector :winkold:).

So exactly the same policy as the previous government then :winkold:

Yep.

Plus ça change.

Plus c'est la même chose :winkold:

[TrentVilla]

Later today Mr Gove will announce the government's education white paper giving the first solid indication of their plans for education beyond the mutterings of academies and the obvious tution fee's.

It should be an interesting insight to what is coming over the next few years, obviously some of the papers are full of information having been briefed and on the face of it some of the potential changes are positive. Others are far less so but I'll reserve judgement at this stage until the actual details are revealed.

[drat01]

So we can "loan" money to Ireland, but not to Forgemasters? - I wonder which one will payback?

[Awol]

So we can "loan" money to Ireland, but not to Forgemasters? - I wonder which one will payback?

The Irish loan is an(other) indirect bailout to our banks. If we are not going to let some of our banks go bust then the loan is absolutely necessary to maintain the stability of our banking sector. Loaning money to Forgemasters is not a critical issue to national stability, is it?

[TrentVilla]

So we can "loan" money to Ireland, but not to Forgemasters? - I wonder which one will payback?

The Irish loan is an(other) indirect bailout to our banks. If we are not going to let some of our banks go bust then the loan is absolutely necessary to maintain the stability of our banking sector. Loaning money to Forgemasters is not a critical issue to national stability, is it?

I agree with you there.

My question though remains (not directed at you I just happen to be responding to your post) that I was under the impression the current government were very much against the actions of the former government in bailing out the banks.

Yet here they are in effect, although not directly bailing out the banks. If as you say they have no choice thanks to the EU but to offer this bail out why are they not saying that?

They seem to be saying this is the right thing to do yet saying that it wasn't thing to do previously.

It might just be me but this stance just doesn't quite sit right.

[peterms]

So we can "loan" money to Ireland, but not to Forgemasters? - I wonder which one will payback?

The Irish loan is an(other) indirect bailout to our banks. If we are not going to let some of our banks go bust then the loan is absolutely necessary to maintain the stability of our banking sector. Loaning money to Forgemasters is not a critical issue to national stability, is it?

Perhaps we should let banks go bust.

An argument from the right would be that the market can't function properly if the possibility of failure and loss is removed; from the left, that we should not socialise losses while allowing profits to be privately retained.

Given that the collapse of banks would create massive disruption, there is clearly an issue about how the situation could be managed, and unavoidably the state would need to step in to control the situation. Having stepped in, as we have already done, the issue is whether we should sweep up the mess, resupply the bankers with more of our resources and let the party resume, or clean out the incompetence and corruption, and establish institutions which do what banks are supposed to do like mediate savers and investors, not gamble like halfwits in a casino using someone else's chips.

The whole edifice looks beyond salvation without further massive disruption. It's a shell, like a plywood theatre set masquerading as a castle.

In other news, the FBI are investigating possible corrupt insider dealing among hedge funds and other players in the farce.

[drat01]

More disgusting actions from this Gvmt.

Cameron's own council will see a RISE in its budget along with many Tory councils, while poorer areas (typically Labour areas) will see massive cutbacks. Hand your heads in shame !!!

Council cuts: the rich get richer, while the poor get poorer

Communities secretary Eric Pickles is desperately trying to head off a political row after analysis shows the most deprived areas will suffer most from local authority cuts - while the richest areas will benefit

Here's an extraordinary story. It appears that not only are councils in the most deprived parts of England (generally Labour run) going to be hit hardest and fastest by local government spending cuts, but that the largely Tory-run authorities in some of the very wealthiest parts of the country may even find themselves better off.

Or put another way: the likes of Liverpool, Burnley and Hartlepool (to name but three) face a reduction in their budget of almost a third as result of the comprehensive spending review (CSR), while the leafy shires of Tunbridge Wells and West Oxfordshire will see their budget increase by over a third over the same period.

So staggering is the imbalance, according to the Local Government Chronicle (LGC), that the normally implacable communities secretary Eric Pickles - who delivered his department cuts package to the Treasury in September with such gusto - has been forced to go back to the Treasury to plead for extra money to mitigate the impact on the poorest areas. According to LGC, he has been unsucccesful.

LGC chief reporter Allister Hayman's report (which is sadly behind a paywall) claims:

• Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) officials have described the situation as "desperate" and are exploring ways of tearing up their CSR settlement and re-profiling the DCLG budget. This would require Treasury approval.

• Cabinet secretary Gus O'Donnell has commissioned a review into the effects of the spending review cuts on employment levels in different parts of the country, "a tacit acknowledgement that public sector cuts could lead to higher unemployment in very deprived areas".

• Some northern metropolitan councils have warned that the "frontloading" of the cuts means they will not be able to set a legal budget next year if finance directors believe the proposed cost savings are unachievable. Councils say they are getting no steer from DCLG, and are being kept in the dark.

The revelation clearly unravels both the government's general commitment to fairness and its specific CSR promise to dampen the impact of cuts on the poorest areas. LGC quotes Mike Bennett, assistant director general of the Society of Local Authority Chief Executives & Senior Managers (Solace) sas saying:

"In its spending review framework the government committed itself to limiting the impact of reductions on areas heavily dependent on the public sector. It is not, therefore, a political observation to suggest that to meet its stated commitment to fairness the government will need to apply the same logic to the local government settlement."

But the consequences nonethelss, say some commentators, will be bitterly political row. Reports LGC:

"Hugh Grover, London Councils' director of fair funding, said that to reconcile the extremes produced by the spending review would require 'politically difficult' choices of taking big cuts out of the grant to councils at the top end - largely Conservative-led councils in the south-east. 'If some authorities see that they are potentially forgoing 37% increases they will be leaping about saying they've been unfairly penalised. The politics is going to be awful,' he said."

DCLG it seems, is playing a straight bat. LGC quotes a spokesperson:

"The local government finance settlement is due shortly and will be announced in a statement to Parliament. Any commentary ahead of formal publication is pure speculation."

Here's LGC's table of selected winners and losers:

Impact of CSR cuts on selected councils

In brackets = 2007 Indices of Multiple Deprivation Rank, where 1= most deprived and 354= least deprived.

25-37% increase:

South Cambridgeshire DC (350); West Oxfordshire DC (349); Tunbridge Wells DC (273); Uttlesford DC (347); Reigate & Banstead DC (322); Dartford DC (186);Harborough DC (344)

25-29% reduction:

Burnley BC (21); Bolsover DC (55); South Tyneside MBC (38); Hartlepool BC (23); Blackburn with Darwen BC (17); Copeland BC (78); Liverpool City Council (1); Sefton MBC (83); Doncaster MBC (41); North East Lincolnshire Council (49); Sunderland City Council (35); Hull City Council (11);Blackpool BC (12); Wolverhampton City Council (28)

30-38% reduction:

Barrow-in-Furness BC (29); Lancaster City Council (117); Hastings BC (31); Great Yarmouth BC (58); Pendle BC (44); Hyndburn BC (40)

Source: DCLG figures seen by LGC

So, we are all in it together: but some are in it more than others.

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

I'm in total shock.

[drat01]

I'm in total shock.

fibber :-)

[robojoel]

Jesus Christ Labour were like a slow dull toothache, these Tory scumbags are like instant cock cancer

Sick of the **** selfish greedy bank-feltching toffs already

To quote Ace Ventura 'I hope they all die of gonorrhea'

[TrentVilla]

I'm in total shock.

And me.

[PauloBarnesi]

So they are going to invest 8 billion on the railways, new carriages, electrification, etc.

Railways to get £8bn investment

Click to play

Click to play

The Transport Secretary Philip Hammond explained the plansContinue reading the main story

Related stories

London-Swansea plans stall

Thameslink rail delay criticised

Delay over train carriage scheme

Plans for £8bn of investment in Britain's railways have been announced by the government.

The government is buying about 2,000 new carriages to tackle overcrowding, electrifying some lines, and pressing ahead with the Thameslink programme.

Yet only 650 of the new carriages will be available by 2014 - less than the 1,300 announced by the last government, while Thameslink is delayed two years.

Labour has called the plans "nothing more than one long series of delays".

Meanwhile, proposals to modernise the London-Swansea line are still on hold and it will be the end of the decade before the investment is complete.

Passengers also face above-inflation rises in ticket prices to help pay for the investments.

Commons spat

"Commuters will see their fares rise by 3% above inflation next year and they now face waits of up to a decade for the new trains that will ease overcrowding and speed up journeys," said the shadow transport secretary, Maria Eagle.

Shadow transport secretary Maria Eagle tells the BBC commuters "should not be forced to pay"

She also accused the government of delaying Crossrail and the Thameslink upgrade, as well as the replacement of the old Intercity 125 long distance trains.

Her comments came in response to the official announcement of the plans in the House of Commons by Transport Secretary Philip Hammond.

Defending the plans, Mr Hammond said the last government's promise of new rolling stock amounted to "not so much a plan as a press release".

The minister acknowledged that the decision to raise the regulatory cap on fare increases was bad news for commuters.

"But this is one of the tough decisions that we have had to make in order to protect the investment programme in our railways," he said.

Details of the plans include:

delivering 2,100 new rail carriages by May 2019, increasing capacity by 17%, creating space for an extra 185,000 passengers

650 of these carriages will be delivered by 2014; the previous Labour government had promised 1,300

up to 1,200 carriages for the Thameslink programme (Bedford to Brighton through London) although the programme will be completed two years later than planned

600 carriages for the Crossrail project (east to west through London)

electrification of commuter services on the Great Western route between London and Didcot, Oxford and Newbury over the next six years

electrification of the lines between Liverpool, Manchester, Preston and Blackpool

but electrification of the London-Swansea line has been delayed.

'Smoke and mirrors'

Patrick Butcher, finance director at Network Rail, which owns all of Britain's rail infrastructure, was pleased with the announcement.

"We welcome the fact that the government recognises that the railway plays an important role in driving economic growth and this investment proves that," he said, after Network Rail announced half-yearly profits of £299m - more than double the amount it made in the same period last year.

Continue reading the main story

Analysis

Richard Scott

Transport correspondent, BBC News

The rail industry is an odd beast. Although train companies can introduce new carriages at their own expense, they're under no obligation to tackle overcrowding (apart from the Chiltern franchise).

And with franchises generally lasting seven or eight years, the companies argue they don't have time to recoup the cost of their investment.

So at the moment, ministers decide where extra carriages go.

And in a slightly perverse twist, although train companies will welcome the extra carriages, they'll also want more money from government to run them.

That's why the government hasn't announced exactly which franchises will benefit - because it wants to negotiate the price.

A review of the franchising system is underway at the moment - and it might well lead to what the train companies want: longer franchises, with more freedom to decide where and when to run trains.

As for today's announcement, passengers know they're going to be helping to pay for it with higher fares.

And while fares will go up in January, the improvements will take much longer. On top of that, while every passenger will see fares rise, not everyone will see the direct benefits of investments.

Bob Crow, general secretary of the RMT union, called the plans "classic political smoke and mirrors".

"The reality is that the inflation-busting fare increases kick in within weeks while the infrastructure and upgrade works we need to drag the UK's railways out of the slow lane are light years away," he said.

New carriages

The government had put many rail investment schemes on hold while it decided which it could afford in the face of budget cuts. It has now been announced that more than 2,000 new carriages are being bought, with 1,850 of them being used to provide extra capacity.

Those carriages will not arrive instantly though - they will not finish coming into service until 2019.

Transport Secretary Philip Hammond admitted that it was a "rolling programme" but said passengers would start to see the benefits "within the next few months".

Some 600 of the new carriages are for Crossrail - the new line being built east-west across London. There are also up to 1,200 for Thameslink, the north-south link across London, and 650 will be given to different franchises around the country.

Those 650 carriages will be used to serve commuters travelling into the big cities.

But the government cannot say precisely which franchises will get what.

Although the new carriages will be given to the franchises, and represent good news for passengers - the train companies will want extra money from the government to run them.

So ministers will now negotiate with franchises to get the best deal they can - and that will determine in part where the carriages go.

Those carriages will increase capacity on the network by 17%, enabling an extra 185,000 passengers to be carried at any one time.

Electric trains

The Thameslink project is also going to go ahead in full. This will eventually double capacity on the route from Brighton to Bedford, allowing up to 24 trains an hour.

Click to play

Click to play

Dave Garrett says ticket price hikes mean cutbacks in family life

Work on the scheme is already under way, but there had been question marks over whether the rest of the stages would go ahead.

It will not be completed though until 2018 - two years later than planned. That delay means the engineering work is easier, and cuts costs.

There is also news that lines in the north west from Manchester to Liverpool and Manchester to Blackpool are going to be electrified.

Electric trains have an operating cost roughly half that of their diesel equivalents. They are also more reliable and can fit more passengers on board.

Fare rises

But the long-awaited electrification of the London to Swansea Great Western route is still not happening.

The government is deciding whether to replace the intercity fleet with electric trains, or electric-diesel hybrids. Whatever it decides will determine what happens to the electrification of the route into south Wales.

Meanwhile, passengers face an average fare rise of 6.2% in the new year, with some commuters seeing their tickets go up by as much as 12.8%.

The government says these fare rises are necessary to safeguard the investment that has just been announced.

Rail customer watchdog Passenger Focus said passengers would welcome the investment plans.

"This is just what rail passengers want to see - long-term, sustained investment. It also gives passengers a clue where some of their fare rise money will be going," the watchdog's chief executive Anthony Smith said.

But he added the industry would have to continue to work hard to deliver "a value for money service".

But they are failing to electrify the route to Swansea? Half of these improvements won’t happen for ages, and fares will rise.

Ever since the railways were privatised use has massively increased, yet prices and services haven’t improved. The Tories, Labour and now the Tories again have failed the railways. Interesting that we are ordering all these new things for railways yet we can’t seem to build the things anymore, bar Bombadier in Derby.

I blame Beardie

[LondonLax]

I was listening to an Ed Milliband interview on radio 4 this morning and he was terrible!

He sounded really lost and didn't seem to cope well at all with any line of questioning.

He will need to grow a lot more into the role if he has a chance to win back the electoite but he has 5 years so perhaps he will?

[tonyh29]

yet prices and services haven’t improved.

I don't really use the trains since I stopped working in London , but I was under the impression trains had improved .. possibly not the over crowding issue but the trains I see now are a vast improvement on the ones I used to see

The issue for me is that the railways seem to be neither one thing or another ...I.e They were privatised and yet the government still contributes 50% towards the running of them ? surely they should be either 100% private or 100% state owned ? (though I believe the Japan rail network is 70/30 in favour of state owned so my point could be flawed)

Railways, like schools and hospitals should be accessible for all the country and all the people not just about profit .

Of course that doesn't come cheaply so the issue of funding is one that successive governments seem to have struggled with and with no easy option , we've seen in other areas that the Labour approach of chucking money at things doesn't always get results and also in the long run gets out of hand and creates a huge financial burden on the state

If we made them 100% private owned then only profitable areas and routes are going to see the investment

so what do we do ?

[markavfc40]

I was listening to an Ed Milliband interview on radio 4 this morning and he was terrible!

He sounded really lost and didn't seem to cope well at all with any line of questioning.

He will need to grow a lot more into the role if he has a chance to win back the electoite but he has 5 years so perhaps he will?

The way things are going come 2015 Eddie Large or Eddie Edwards could be Labour leader and they would win the next election.

He'll certainly grow into the role over the next few years and the fact he seems to have good core values is the important thing and bodes well for the future.