Wednesday 27th September 2017

Post by **refitman** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 7:11 am

Morning all.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 7:45 am

Good morfternoon.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 7:50 am

Northern Ireland jobs at risk as Bombardier jets hit by huge US trade tariff

Canadian aircraft maker, which employs 4,000 in region, suffers major blow after US imposes punitive 219% levy (Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/20 ... rn-ireland

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 7:54 am

"by anybody"

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rather good by Jon Snow in identifying that Corbyn's usual rhetorical device of blaming violence "on all sides" or "all form of racism by anybody" is the same one that Trump uses when he doesn't want to condemn something on his "side".

Venezuela itself doesn't matter much of course.

Looking at the clips from yesterday's round of interviews (eg Corbyn refusing to say he'd defend a Nato ally if attacked, indeed implicitly saying he wouldn't). I wonder if this is going to work. The Economist says Corbyn is likely to be PM, and the bookies say the same. Brexit is a disaster and that should, in ordinary times, hand government to the main opposition.

But last time people could vote for Labour confident it wouldn't actually win. Corbyn is well outside the tradition of Attlee and Bevin in foreign policy terms.

But hey, lots of people didn't care in 2017, so perhaps they won't care in 2022 either.

All that Channel 4 interview is worth watching.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What he says about PFIs is wrong. He says that it would be cheaper to buy back as government debt has a lower rate of interest than the PFI debt. That isn't right as it isn't the case that Labour is proposing swapping £1 of PFI debt for £1 of new bonds, but rather buying out at market the SPVs, so no net saving at all.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:34 am

https://www.ft.com/content/4c52dde0-a2c ... ad0b93926b" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

PFI discredited by cost, complexity and inflexibility

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:36 am

HindleA wrote:https://www.ft.com/content/4c52dde0-a2c ... ad0b93926b

PFI discredited by cost, complexity and inflexibility

It was known it was a terrible deal at the time. It was just a scam to keep debt off balance sheet.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:40 am

SpinningHugo wrote:"by anybody"

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Rather good by Jon Snow in identifying that Corbyn's usual rhetorical device of blaming violence "on all sides" or "all form of racism by anybody" is the same one that Trump uses when he doesn't want to condemn something on his "side".

Venezuela itself doesn't matter much of course.

Looking at the clips from yesterday's round of interviews (eg Corbyn refusing to say he'd defend a Nato ally if attacked, indeed implicitly saying he wouldn't). I wonder if this is going to work. The Economist says Corbyn is likely to be PM, and the bookies say the same. Brexit is a disaster and that should, in ordinary times, hand government to the main opposition.

But last time people could vote for Labour confident it wouldn't actually win. Corbyn is well outside the tradition of Attlee and Bevin in foreign policy terms.

But hey, lots of people didn't care in 2017, so perhaps they won't care in 2022 either.

All that Channel 4 interview is worth watching.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

What he says about PFIs is wrong. He says that it would be cheaper to buy back as government debt has a lower rate of interest than the PFI debt. That isn't right as it isn't the case that Labour is proposing swapping £1 of PFI debt for £1 of new bonds, but rather buying out at market the SPVs, so no net saving at all.

You're forgetting that most people's voting intention is not based on foreign policy.

Why would you ever vote Tory if you want better public services and working conditions? Which, surprisingly enough, quite a lot of folk do!

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:45 am

PaulfromYorkshire wrote: You're forgetting that most people's voting intention is not based on foreign policy.

Why would you ever vote Tory if you want better public services and working conditions? Which, surprisingly enough, quite a lot of folk do!

I am not sure I am, indeed as I said it may be that people just don't care. A low salience issue, much like Europe. People generally are, in my opinion, mistaken as to the relative importance of these things.

That Corbyn is not in the tradition of Attlee and Bevin, was an apologist for the IRA,and is for Putin is a big problem for me, but clearly wasn't in 2017 for many millions of people.

Post by **PaulfromYorkshire** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:47 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
PaulfromYorkshire wrote: You're forgetting that most people's voting intention is not based on foreign policy.

Why would you ever vote Tory if you want better public services and working conditions? Which, surprisingly enough, quite a lot of folk do!
I am not sure I am, indeed as I said it may be that people just don't care. A low salience issue, much like Europe. People generally are, in my opinion, mistaken as to the relative importance of these things.

That Corbyn is not in the tradition of Attlee and Bevin, was an apologist for the IRA,and is for Putin is a big problem for me, but clearly wasn't in 2017 for many millions of people.

Not much point discussing with this level of demonstrably incorrect, juvenile, CCHQ-style propaganda. I'll chat to the others instead. Have a good day

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:56 am

https://www.theguardian.com/environment ... -key-steps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

UK could rescue energy efficient homes policy with few key steps
‘Clean growth’ report steps into scrapping of green deal void and reinstates all new homes be zero carbon by 2020

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:58 am

[youtube]KnbQFVxiSmk[/youtube]

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 8:59 am

Theresa May 'bitterly disappointed' as Bombardier jets hit by huge US trade tariff - business live (Business Live, Guardian)

https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... iness-live

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:07 am

https://reaction.life/time-running-time ... g-no-deal/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Time is running out: we need to start preparing for No Deal

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:18 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://www.ft.com/content/4c52dde0-a2c ... ad0b93926b

PFI discredited by cost, complexity and inflexibility

It was known it was a terrible deal at the time. It was just a scam to keep debt off balance sheet.

Any evidence for that assertion?

Both parties have campaigned against PFI but both have caved in because it's always been a Treasury-initiated policy.

And unless you've actually read the contracts - which I doubt - you probably wouldn't know whether they were a bad deal or not.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:19 am

Anyway, morning all. I'm off to the library soon so will check in again tonight.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:39 am

RogerOThornhill wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
HindleA wrote:https://www.ft.com/content/4c52dde0-a2c ... ad0b93926b

PFI discredited by cost, complexity and inflexibility

It was known it was a terrible deal at the time. It was just a scam to keep debt off balance sheet.
Any evidence for that assertion?

Both parties have campaigned against PFI but both have caved in because it's always been a Treasury-initiated policy.

And unless you've actually read the contracts - which I doubt - you probably wouldn't know whether they were a bad deal or not.

Lots and lots. That was the first item on google. Lots more from the 90s.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1116138/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just a way of getting stuff built off balance sheet. As national debt has ballooned in a way inconceivable at the time, it looks completely daft now.

The government can borrow cheaply. Do that. The supposed bonus of putting the risk on to the counterparty was silly, as you could achieve that goal with more straightforward contracting methods. All governments should undertake not to use it ever again.

It is more than somewhat alarming that it still seems popular in Wales, presumably because of borrowing constraints.

[Some more

https://www.theguardian.com/business/19 ... columnists" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

https://www.allysonpollock.com/wp-conte ... icCase.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.david-morrison.org.uk/pfi/pfi.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

]

If I could have the government of 1997-2010 back tomorrow I'd vote for that. But PFI was awful, and was well known to be.

Labour's policy of ending it is the right one (though it isn't used much now). The policy of reversing it looks valueless to me. If it is done at market it saves nothing. If it is done at below market through expropriation it trashes the UK's reputation (and indeed respect for the rule of law).

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:43 am

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... ion-market" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Research and analysis
Hidden value: A study of the UK IP valuation market

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:50 am

http://www.eif.org.uk/publication/langu ... indicator/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

LANGUAGE AS A CHILD WELLBEING INDICATOR

Early intervention Foundation

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 9:54 am

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/us/p ... share&_r=0" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Dismayed by Trump, Head of Drug Enforcement Administration to leave.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:00 am

http://ap.ohchr.org/documents/dpage_e.aspx?si=A/72/128" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
UNHRC

Adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and the right to non-discrimination in this context - Report of the Special Rapporteur on adequate housing as a component of the right to an adequate standard of living, and on the right to non-discrimination in this context

(Link to document on right)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:05 am

The government may be able to borrow cheaply, but it has shown itself time and time again to be pretty rubbish at getting value for money when contracting for building projects. PFI could be seen as an attempt to solve this as well as other things. True it hasn't proved successful, but dogma over PFI, good or bad, is really missing the point. The point is outcomes, not how you reach them. Is the real problem for NHS trusts actually PFI or is it being treated as a series of separate "businesses" that have to "balance the books"? Seems to me, if the cost of poor PFI was spread throughout the entire national health service, it's impact would be less severe, even before you start thinking about buying out poor contracts. Why are individual hospitals carrying the individual burden of new buildings? I don't even begin to understand the complexities of how the NHS works, but leaving some hospitals to run up massive debts over new building costs, like they are some kind of stand alone company doesn't seem to me to be taking full advantage of the economies of scale that having a national health service provides.

Post by **adam** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:05 am

HindleA wrote:https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/26/us/p ... share&_r=0

Dismayed by Trump, Head of Drug Enforcement Administration to leave.

You linked the story a couple of nights ago when it broke, but it's worth repeating that as soon as they took office, half a dozen people involved in the Trump administration, including Ivanka, Bannon, Preibus and Miller were all using private emails for government business. I know the whole thing is a very bad joke, and isn't at all funny, but there is still something about it that really is a joke.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:15 am

PorFavor wrote:
Theresa May 'bitterly disappointed' as Bombardier jets hit by huge US trade tariff - business live (Business Live, Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... iness-live

Impeccable timing, just before the Tory conference. Can't wait to hear about all the amazing opportunities that await us outside the single market trying to strike lucrative trade deals as an individual economy with protectionist America and state aided Chinese companies. Full blown, unrestricted global free trade is clearly just around the corner. The UK, after all, is so very like Australia and Canada with our vasts tracks of uninhabited land full of valuable natural resources that we can exploit for the benefit of our relatively small population. If they can hold their own in the world, we can too, seeing as everywhere else is so much easier to trade with given Europe is right on our doorstep while the US and the Far East are so far away. It's just common sense, really.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:19 am

Willow904 wrote:The government may be able to borrow cheaply, but it has shown itself time and time again to be pretty rubbish at getting value for money when contracting for building projects. PFI could be seen as an attempt to solve this as well as other things. True it hasn't proved successful, but dogma over PFI, good or bad, is really missing the point. The point is outcomes, not how you reach them. Is the real problem for NHS trusts actually PFI or is it being treated as a series of separate "businesses" that have to "balance the books"? Seems to me, if the cost of poor PFI was spread throughout the entire national health service, it's impact would be less severe, even before you start thinking about buying out poor contracts. Why are individual hospitals carrying the individual burden of new buildings? I don't even begin to understand the complexities of how the NHS works, but leaving some hospitals to run up massive debts over new building costs, like they are some kind of stand alone company doesn't seem to me to be taking full advantage of the economies of scale that having a national health service provides.

I've yet to see an explanation as to why the supposed procurement and risk transfer objectives of PFI were not achievable through other more traditional kinds of contracts (with penalties, bank guarantess etc). Just looks like a clever clever wheeze to me.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:26 am

Willow904 wrote:The government may be able to borrow cheaply, but it has shown itself time and time again to be pretty rubbish at getting value for money when contracting for building projects. PFI could be seen as an attempt to solve this as well as other things

The trouble was, it was just as rubbish at getting value for money from the PFI contracts, so it actually made things worse as there was a massive tranche of services outsourcing attached to each PFI contract to get rubbish VfM from as well.
It was originally sold as transferring 'risk' to the private sector, but I could never see what risk was attached to building a hospital anyway, and of course the private sector made sure that didn't happen.

gilsey · Post by **gilsey** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:32 am

HindleA wrote:https://reaction.life/time-running-time ... g-no-deal/

Time is running out: we need to start preparing for No Deal

Dearie me. I'm actually relieved that I can't read the full article.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:32 am

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... d#comments" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Women have the right to know about injuries of vaginal birth beforehand
Healthcare professionals have the duty to fully inform about risks and benefits before childbirth. Medical paternalism has to stop

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:50 am

SpinningHugo wrote:
Willow904 wrote:The government may be able to borrow cheaply, but it has shown itself time and time again to be pretty rubbish at getting value for money when contracting for building projects. PFI could be seen as an attempt to solve this as well as other things. True it hasn't proved successful, but dogma over PFI, good or bad, is really missing the point. The point is outcomes, not how you reach them. Is the real problem for NHS trusts actually PFI or is it being treated as a series of separate "businesses" that have to "balance the books"? Seems to me, if the cost of poor PFI was spread throughout the entire national health service, it's impact would be less severe, even before you start thinking about buying out poor contracts. Why are individual hospitals carrying the individual burden of new buildings? I don't even begin to understand the complexities of how the NHS works, but leaving some hospitals to run up massive debts over new building costs, like they are some kind of stand alone company doesn't seem to me to be taking full advantage of the economies of scale that having a national health service provides.
I've yet to see an explanation as to why the supposed procurement and risk transfer objectives of PFI were not achievable through other more traditional kinds of contracts (with penalties, bank guarantess etc). Just looks like a clever clever wheeze to me.

I really fail to see the point of your posts on this. You are disagreeing with everyone for the sake of it as far as I can tell because if you think there's little point buying out all PFI contracts I can't see why you would take the time to disagree with my comment which focuses not on buying them out but on how the impact on the NHS can best be mitigated.

As you must quibble, however, I will address your point. When building work is substandard and not as contracted it can take a lot of time and money to assert contractual rights through the courts to get these problems sorted out. Time being the operative word. I'm not aware of there being problems with PFI builds regularly going over schedule, although this can be a common problem with public sector development. The lure of earning substantial amounts of cash certainly focused minds on getting builds completed quickly as far as I can tell and the sheer scale of new building and refurbishment necessary to make up for the woeful lack of maintenance of schools and hospitals throughout the Thatcher and Major years made getting on with it a priority. It's interesting how much we talk about Labour's use of PFI and how little we talk of the modern, purpose built buildings we now have as a result of it.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 10:56 am

SH, what do you think of Blair saying that Sanders is a bigger problem than Trump?

Two can play this game, you see

tinyclanger2 · Post by **tinyclanger2** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:01 am

Is there any way we could collectively resist the temptation to fall for SH's stirring?

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:05 am

Willow904 wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
Theresa May 'bitterly disappointed' as Bombardier jets hit by huge US trade tariff - business live (Business Live, Guardian)
https://www.theguardian.com/business/li ... iness-live
Impeccable timing, just before the Tory conference. Can't wait to hear about all the amazing opportunities that await us outside the single market trying to strike lucrative trade deals as an individual economy with protectionist America and state aided Chinese companies. Full blown, unrestricted global free trade is clearly just around the corner. The UK, after all, is so very like Australia and Canada with our vasts tracks of uninhabited land full of valuable natural resources that we can exploit for the benefit of our relatively small population. If they can hold their own in the world, we can too, seeing as everywhere else is so much easier to trade with given Europe is right on our doorstep while the US and the Far East are so far away. It's just common sense, really.

I wonder if there'll be any mention of this (and the general ramifications) at the Labour conference.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:06 am

Yes.Emergency motion.

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:07 am

HindleA wrote:https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... d#comments

Women have the right to know about injuries of vaginal birth beforehand
Healthcare professionals have the duty to fully inform about risks and benefits before childbirth. Medical paternalism has to stop

They should just not use forceps.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:10 am

@tc2

I hope you have slept.I reference back to my (possibly irrecoverable)dishevelled zombie self descriptive comments.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:16 am

AnatolyKasparov wrote:SH, what do you think of Blair saying that Sanders is a bigger problem than Trump?

Two can play this game, you see

Did he? When and where did he say that?

Utterly ridiculous if so.

But again, I fear you're seeing politics as like football, where you have to support your 'side' right or wrong. Corbyn does too, though his 'team'' is not yours.

Quite happy to condemn Blair saying that, just never seen it anywhere.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:18 am

We couldn't have children,or at least an additional one.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:20 am

Paper plane competition at the w/end which I am looking forward to.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:25 am

Again, SH doubting the veracity of something that has been widely reported. As if I would just make such a thing up.

You do know about this thing called Google, right. Try using it?

Post by **adam** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:31 am

HindleA wrote:Paper plane competition at the w/end which I am looking forward to.

https://flyawaysimulation.com/news/2013/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:31 am

I'm in a cave and have no internet connection,apart from this.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:33 am

I like to help where I can -

Bernie Sanders Is Just as Bad as Donald Trump, Former British PM Tony Blair Suggests
By Jason Le Miere On 9/25/17 at 12:23 PM (Newsweek)

http://www.newsweek.com/trump-bernie-sa ... ent-670543

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:45 am

PorFavor wrote:I like to help where I can -

Bernie Sanders Is Just as Bad as Donald Trump, Former British PM Tony Blair Suggests
By Jason Le Miere On 9/25/17 at 12:23 PM (Newsweek)
http://www.newsweek.com/trump-bernie-sa ... ent-670543

Thanks. Nothing Blair actually said in that interview remotely supports that inference (needless to say, he never expressly said any such thing.)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 11:59 am

HindleA wrote:We couldn't have children,or at least an additional one.

I feel like that comment requires a response, but I'm not sure what.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 12:04 pm

He explicitly said Democrats should be "more worried" about Sanders than Trump.

And having seen the actual piece now, he seems to think The Donald is going to bring peace to the Middle East.

Even worse than I thought.

The man - once widely admired amongst the Labour family - is now a deranged ghoulish loon, the plaything of plutocrats and dictators.

And never mind Corbyn, his remaining admirers are probably the creepiest cult going.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 12:09 pm

I was/am enough of a child.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 12:17 pm

http://www.labour.org.uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 12:29 pm

Jez is speaking.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 12:30 pm

Not every part,Jeremy.

SpinningHugo · Post by **SpinningHugo** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 12:34 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:He explicitly said Democrats should be "more worried" about Sanders than Trump.

And having seen the actual piece now, he seems to think The Donald is going to bring peace to the Middle East.

Even worse than I thought.

The man - once widely admired amongst the Labour family - is now a deranged ghoulish loon, the plaything of plutocrats and dictators.

And never mind Corbyn, his remaining admirers are probably the creepiest cult going.

I am sure he did, but where? Not in the Politico interview from which that Newsweek story comes

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ipt-215637" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In that, the only bit about Sanders is

"Glasser: You’re not a Bernie Sanders liberal.

Blair: Look, I admire what he has done, and actually"

I have said before that you have a tendency towards attributing to people things you *think* they ought to say. I hope this isn't another occasion.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Wed 27 Sep, 2017 12:35 pm

My comments about Blair above are made much more in sorrow than anger btw. Just saying, before anybody is tempted to say otherwise.