The Labour Government

[bluenova]

In other news .... another round of PFI anyone?

Did you read the Times article? It suggests that we're looking at something very different to the PFI deals of the past. Even has a quote from the National Audit Office, saying the newer style deals include 'good practice to help new schemes avoid these problems [i.e. the old style PFI deals]'.

Obviously Prem Sikka is someone who knows a bit more about these things than any of us, and I agree that there are better solutions (if politics didn't trump economics), but there is a little bit of apples and oranges comparison going on.

 

[ganganvince]

I'm not quibbling over the mess of the WFA - but thousands will not die of hypothermia. Deaths where hypothermia is given as a cause of death are in tens, not thousands. However, "cold" is not usually given as a cause of death, but will be contributory.

There will be "excess winter deaths" which in reality just means more people die in the winter months than in other seasons. The key question is how many of those deaths are attributable to living in a cold and/or damp home (estimates vary around 20-30%). Then how many of those deaths could be attributed to getting only £221 a week rather than £225? (It was a difference in 1999 of £66 and £68.)

I'm sure you're right about the headlines though.

Xs winter deaths are deaths this winter v historical einters not v summer. Due to Covid not a very good measure.

 

[metalblue]

I'm not quibbling over the mess of the WFA - but thousands will not die of hypothermia. Deaths where hypothermia is given as a cause of death are in tens, not thousands. However, "cold" is not usually given as a cause of death, but will be contributory.

There will be "excess winter deaths" which in reality just means more people die in the winter months than in other seasons. The key question is how many of those deaths are attributable to living in a cold and/or damp home (estimates vary around 20-30%). Then how many of those deaths could be attributed to getting only £221 a week rather than £225? (It was a difference in 1999 of £66 and £68.)

I'm sure you're right about the headlines though.

I thought I read recently about ~7000 die each year from hyperthermia but didn’t check it prior to posting, you’ve obviously done a bit of digging so appreciate the clarity.

 

[bluenova]

I'm not quibbling over the mess of the WFA - but thousands will not die of hypothermia. Deaths where hypothermia is given as a cause of death are in tens, not thousands. However, "cold" is not usually given as a cause of death, but will be contributory.

There will be "excess winter deaths" which in reality just means more people die in the winter months than in other seasons. The key question is how many of those deaths are attributable to living in a cold and/or damp home (estimates vary around 20-30%). Then how many of those deaths could be attributed to getting only £221 a week rather than £225? (It was a difference in 1999 of £66 and £68.)

I'm sure you're right about the headlines though.

I can imagine everyone who dies this winter being blamed on Labour.

Whether more pensioners struggle may well mostly depend on the weather, but given that the energy cap was £3549 last October, and is now £1923, it's clearly a lot more complicated than just not getting an extra £300.

 

[metalblue]

Did you read the Times article? It suggests that we're looking at something very different to the PFI deals of the past. Even has a quote from the National Audit Office, saying the newer style deals include 'good practice to help new schemes avoid these problems [i.e. the old style PFI deals]'.

Obviously Prem Sikka is someone who knows a bit more about these things than any of us, and I agree that there are better solutions (if politics didn't trump economics), but there is a little bit of apples and oranges comparison going on.

They’ve stripped out the soft services from the original PFIs and I would agree they are significantly better than the originals although these are projects that are still returning nearly 200-300% to the private sector on original build costs.

The government wouldn’t pay anything like that to borrow the money. What they give is a 10x multiplier, certainty in ongoing costs and transfer of risk but it comes at significant cost that far outweighs those risks IMHO.

Reeves wants to see us build £300bn worth of infrastructure- that would cost around £30-33bn per year once all completed and an overall cost to taxpayer of close to £1 trillion paid over 30 years. Money erodes in value so it would probably be around £650bn in today’s money.

It’s certainly better but good value for money? I’m less convinced.

It will tick that growth box however it’s paid.

 

[inbetween]

I disagree on many levels. All sorts of people have £1m homes but very little income, so I am sure even some of these - the notionally very richest - will sorely miss the £300. (you keep saying £200 but often it is £300).

And all sorts of people will NOT qualify for pension credit. If you have an income of more than £11,400, then you do not qualify. No-one on £11,500 can afford a £200 or £300 loss of income. And all sorts of people on LESS than £11,400 wlll not even APPLY for pension credit due to a variety of reasons. They will be even more badly hit.

It's mind boggling that you are even trying to defend this, it really is. If this was a Tory policy, you'd be up in arms over it. You know that, I know that, we all know that.

Pension credit is worth infinitely more than WFA so if pensioners are poor and struggling but still not eligible for pension credit then there's a clear problem with pension credit. Labour have been in power for 2 months but the last government were in power for 10+ years, why didn't the Tories do something about it?

Instead you're arguing about £300 taken away by a government that has existed for 2 months. Where are the tears for everything that the last government took away over 10+ years? The reason working families and pensioners are on their arse in other ways is because everything such as childcare and social care has been ground down to the bone.

I'm willing to give Labour a shot for the next 5 years and we'll see what happens but let's not pretend that there was a better alternative. With the Tories yeah pensioners would be £300 or whatever richer great but every single other aspect of their lives would continue to be left rotting in a ditch.

 

[bluenova]

They’ve stripped out the soft services from the original PFIs and I would agree they are significantly better than the originals although these are projects that are still returning nearly 200-300% to the private sector on original build costs.

The government wouldn’t pay anything like that to borrow the money. What they give is a 10x multiplier, certainty in ongoing costs and transfer of risk but it comes at significant cost that far outweighs those risks IMHO.

Reeves wants to see us build £300bn worth of infrastructure- that would cost around £30-33bn per year once all completed and an overall cost to taxpayer of close to £1 trillion paid over 30 years. Money erodes in value so it would probably be around £650bn in today’s money.

It’s certainly better but good value for money? I’m less convinced.

It will tick that growth box however it’s paid.

So far, we've had this, wealth taxes, "redefining" down of the borrowing rules, plus the potential to borrow via the Crown Estate hookup for the energy stuff, all floated.

Given that Reeves and others have been talking about transformational change, which is going to be difficult in the current economy, it does sound like they're exploring most avenues for getting around the restrictions they think they needed to self-impose.

As with you, I'm not hugely convinced by this, but with politics the way it is at the moment, they need to make some big changes across the country to actually cut through.

 

[metalblue]

I can imagine everyone who dies this winter being blamed on Labour.

Whether more pensioners struggle may well mostly depend on the weather, but given that the energy cap was £3549 last October, and is now £1923, it's clearly a lot more complicated than just not getting an extra £300.

Bills were capped at £2,380 in Oct 22 and were capped at £1,834 in Oct 23. Oct 24 it’s £1,717. Pensioners also got cost of living payments on top of the WFA last year.

So, accounting for the difference in cap, they had between £250 and £500 extra last winter to heat their homes than they will this winter.

Not sure it’s much more complicated than that really.

 

[metalblue]

So far, we've had this, wealth taxes, "redefining" down of the borrowing rules, plus the potential to borrow via the Crown Estate hookup for the energy stuff, all floated.

Given that Reeves and others have been talking about transformational change, which is going to be difficult in the current economy, it does sound like they're exploring most avenues for getting around the restrictions they think they needed to self-impose.

As with you, I'm not hugely convinced by this, but with politics the way it is at the moment, they need to make some big changes across the country to actually cut through.

Personally I’d like to see Reeves remove the shackles on her self imposed fiscal rules and borrow to invest. Be a little less orthodox. I can see why she would prefer to not do it differently and go down a more PFI style approach. Overall my main concern is growth so I don’t really care how she does it so long as it’s reasonable value for taxpayers.

I do think (hope) she will actually do a pretty decent job. Forever more remembered for the WFA but like Thatcher and her milk snatching it doesn’t have to define her - although it forever will in the eyes of plenty.

 

[bluenova]

Bills were capped at £2,380 in Oct 22 and were capped at £1,834 in Oct 23. Oct 24 it’s £1,717. Pensioners also got cost of living payments on top of the WFA last year.

So, accounting for the difference in cap, they had between £250 and £500 extra last winter to heat their homes than they will this winter.

Not sure it’s much more complicated than that really.

You're right - I was reading Oct 22 instead of last year, but yeah, had been looking at a chart without the extra Government cap.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Pension credit is worth infinitely more than WFA so if pensioners are poor and struggling but still not eligible for pension credit then there's a clear problem with pension credit. Labour have been in power for 2 months but the last government were in power for 10+ years, why didn't the Tories do something about it?

Instead you're arguing about £300 taken away by a government that has existed for 2 months. Where are the tears for everything that the last government took away over 10+ years? The reason working families and pensioners are on their arse in other ways is because everything such as childcare and social care has been ground down to the bone.

I'm willing to give Labour a shot for the next 5 years and we'll see what happens but let's not pretend that there was a better alternative. With the Tories yeah pensioners would be £300 or whatever richer great but every single other aspect of their lives would continue to be left rotting in a ditch.

Pathetic. Defending the indefensible, just because the indefensible is from the party you support.

Just how shallow are you.

Here’s what OBJECTIVITY is like, for your reference. I am devout Tory supporter and freely admit that the last lot got a lot wrong and were a shambles. Many things they did were disgraceful.

See, it doesn’t hurt to not be a tosser. You cannot POSSIBLY defend taking up to £300 off people on £10k per year. No-one can. It’s outrageous and everyone knows it. Defending it, or trying to deflect the conversation away to criticism of the last lot, just makes anyone doing so look, well, words fail me.

 

[Chippy_boy]

But they didn’t. Majority of the people getting this benefit removed voted for other parties, overwhelming for the Tories.

https://www.ipsos.com/en-uk/how-britain-voted-in-the-2024-election

Labour can afford to piss these people off, because they aren't likely to vote for them anyway.

Dear God, is this what it’s come to? How about they just shoot them and then they will cost even less.

FFS, how on earth can you suggest that shafting people because they don’t vote for you is OK? My mind is boggled that anyone without a lobotomy would say such a thing.

 

[Chippy_boy]

£300 only for the over 80s,don't let the facts get in the way.Also your lot when in power did a job on the over 80s remember covid no care,Boris and his crooks.

Great reasoned argument there. Well done.

 

[Chippy_boy]

Agreed mate. I’ve said before on these hallowed pages that public sector pay rises are good for private sector pay as well.

Funny how the left rarely mention public sector pension contributions. I (in the private sector) am obiged to contribute 5% of my pay so that the company puts in 5% - it used to be 4%.


This is what the government puts in to civil servants’ pensions. 29% per year of their salary. No wonder they all retire at 50 with £1m+ pension pots. Who on earth manages that in the private sector, other than a few company bosses?

 

[Chippy_boy]

I can imagine everyone who dies this winter being blamed on Labour.

Whether more pensioners struggle may well mostly depend on the weather, but given that the energy cap was £3549 last October, and is now £1923, it's clearly a lot more complicated than just not getting an extra £300.

Martin Lewis - not known to be much of a Tory supporter, reckons pensioners are £400 to £500 worse off this winter, compared to last.

 

[metalblue]

Funny how the left rarely mention public sector pension contributions. I (in the private sector) am obiged to contribute 5% of my pay so that the company puts in 5% - it used to be 4%.

View attachment 132023
This is what the government puts in to civil servants’ pensions. 29% per year of their salary. No wonder they all retire at 50 with £1m+ pension pots. Who on earth manages that in the private sector, other than a few company bosses?

I know roughly what Mrs MB will get at retirement (oh er) and what that would size pot that would be to receive equivalent from a private pension. It works out at roughly 22% contribution however she pays 9.8% so net it’s a 12.2% employer contribution - it’s not widely different from private sector I’ve worked in where I have received 10% employer contribution for a couple of decades (they’ll match anything else I put in up to 5% but I’m not obligated to) and in my current role am getting 15% employer contribution.

Obviously Mrs MB is NHS and other parts of the public sector will have different deals. I’m sure some are potentially very generous but I’d say if you look at teachers, fire, dibble and nurses it’ll be much a muchness and not all that different to what can be found in private sector.

 

[denislawsbackheel]

Funny how the left rarely mention public sector pension contributions. I (in the private sector) am obiged to contribute 5% of my pay so that the company puts in 5% - it used to be 4%.

View attachment 132023
This is what the government puts in to civil servants’ pensions. 29% per year of their salary. No wonder they all retire at 50 with £1m+ pension pots. Who on earth manages that in the private sector, other than a few company bosses?

5% is pathetic.
Teachers pay between 7.4% and 10.2% depending on salary.

 

[kaz7]

He’s both.

Ha, says you

 

[city2]

Can’t wait for the budget in October when there will be a lot more people pissed off apart from the politicians, more misery on its way, but don’t forget we are in this together says Starmer who gets free clothes as does his wife. The multi millionaire must be really struggling the shit house.

 

[Quad]

5% is pathetic.
Teachers pay between 7.4% and 10.2% depending on salary.

But the government puts in a huge amount , 2 of my friends get 27% roughly put in , 1 works for council and another for Hmrc , I get the basic from my company, most workers get that I known