The Labour Government - 2025

LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
edited January 14 in Purgatory
It's not often I go full 'Are we doomed?' but I'm certainly leaning that way.

One of the reasons I was glad to be in Scotland and not feel I had to vote Labour at the recent election was because their whole 'we will pay for better public services out of economic growth' pitch looked like obvious snake oil.

If you wanted any decent chance of significant economic growth, the realistic thing to do would be to start reversing Brexit. Brexit is such a clear and colossal case of self-harm that any politicians who start from the position that it's fine or beneficial or we should keep it are right out of the gate the political equivalent of anti-vaxxers and anti-maskers or the kind of grifter who adopts that colouration as advantageous never minding the harm it does.

Now it looks to me like they've gone full snake-oil on economic growth over AI. There's a current thread on AI itself. Some AI applications do specialist things well but the kind being pushed by the big corporate firms at the moment tend not to be of that sort and have many issues.

But two people I know who are professional IT experts both basically said the same thing to me - I give the pithier version- "Nothing makes me sweat like the three words "Government IT Project". There's a huge history of getting government IT projects disastrously and incredibly expensively wrong with a big side-order of corruption and deals for mates and donors.

Starmer himself has been quoted in the Financial Times saying
I don't think it's going to take five or ten years to double productivity, not for a moment", adding that he was "absolutely confident that the timeframes we're talking about are much, much shorter.

And while he pours money into this mirage, Rachel Reeves is basically going to be telling people who need public help 'Let them eat AI!' as she looks for cuts to benefits and public services, and the magic economic growth fairy promised by Starmer fails to appear.

There have been lots of posts previously tallking about how and where Labour use scapegoating to attack minorities. This is another more toxic form of snake oil and magical thinking: attacking migrants and immigration doesn't improve public services. It's immoral and acts as a distraction and a false solution to real problems when people are encouraged to blame real hardship on imaginary causes.

It also has the well-known harm seen in many other countries that if you accept the far-right framing and analysis behind scapegoating and offer a 'lite' version of that which fails to improve people's lives (because the whole framing was false in the first place), then it positions the far right with their full-fat version to win. You admitted they were right in their analysis of the problem but you just didn't go far enough. And your opponents have the advantage of not just having failed for all to see to improve anything.


The latest You Gov poll is now

LAB: 26% (-9)

RFM: 25% (+10)

CON: 22% (-2)

LDM: 14% (+1)

GRN: 8% (+1)

SNP: 3% (=)

Labour are only 1% ahead of Reform.


I honestly think this economic snake oil and social scapegoating approach is going to be catastrophic. It's the definition of a Right Wing party to me. And I simply don't know how it can be turned round by the next election because the flaws in this way of thinking go so deep.

(In depth discussion of the scapegoating side would belong in Epiphanies unless this thread is placed under dual rules)


«13456712

Comments

  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited January 14
    Louise wrote: »
    Starmer himself has been quoted in the Financial Times saying
    I don't think it's going to take five or ten years to double productivity, not for a moment", adding that he was "absolutely confident that the timeframes we're talking about are much, much shorter.

    And while he pours money into this mirage, Rachel Reeves is basically going to be telling people who need public help 'Let them eat AI!' as she looks for cuts to benefits and public services, and the magic economic growth fairy promised by Starmer fails to appear.

    Starmer's claim is delusional. Doubling productivity in five years or less equates to a 14% annualized growth rate. Hyper-accelerated countries emerging from war don't do that.

    I suspect he actually means 'productivity growth' (so much for being 'forensic'), and even then it's unclear what this maps to as productivity growth has flatlined for a couple of years (double 0% and you still get 0%).

    The sums being talked about are paltry (they are fractions of the amounts that the large cloud providers are spending), AI is very energy and water hungry, and the UK has very high energy prices and issues with water supply [Plus a third of energy comes from Gas with associated supply issues]
    It also has the well-known harm seen in many other countries that if you accept the far-right framing and analysis behind scapegoating and offer a 'lite' version of that which fails to improve people's lives (because the whole framing was false in the first place)

    Well, so much for the McSweeney strategy of relying on 'hero voters' (Tory -> Labour swing voters which 'count double').
    I honestly think this economic snake oil and social scapegoating approach is going to be catastrophic. It's the definition of a Right Wing party to me.

    As I've said before, I don't think they had any real ideas other than believing that they were magically competent and there'd be a reversion to mean growth once they were in charge.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited January 14
    He isn't pouring money in to this mirage. He's not that stupid. It's a billion. Nothing.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    He isn't pouring money in to this mirage. He's not that stupid.

    He gives the impression of not knowing what he is talking about and at the very least his government is being misleading about data privacy.

    https://x.com/silkiecarlo/status/1878857740220842102
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    I don't use Shitter. He can't possibly know what he's talking about. And neither does anyone else. Let AI rip. America and China have. We're behind the curve as it is. Unproductive before Brexit. And I'm an NHS patient. What's data privacy? We've got H-bombs, so we can be as mediocre as we like.

    The Labour Government have the moral high ground and nothing else.
  • I've been feeling disappointed in Labour for 60 years! Every time they come into government, hopes rise, but are dashed. In 1966 I wrote to 'Arold to encourage him, fool that I was. Why did anyone ever think they were left wing? But then I'm not sure that a left govt is possible.
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    By the government's own figures it's £14 billion

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-sets-out-blueprint-to-turbocharge-ai

    And that's before anything starts going wrong or overbudget. By comparison the government's cuts to winter fuel allowance were meant to save £1.4 billion a tenth of that.

    And Reeves has been eyeing truly nasty hits on disability benefits - especially likely to affect people with mental ill health - because she is £10 billion short on her figures.

    https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/dwp-plan-cut-benefits-including-30769616?

    But Starmer can splurge more than that on AI - pretending it will solve things- when he refuses to do things that would actually have a very solid likelihood of helping to grow the economy because he's chasing Tory and Reform voters and actually going the worst possible way about it - making a Reform victory more likely through his poor framing and mismanagement.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Louise wrote: »
    By the government's own figures it's £14 billion

    https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-sets-out-blueprint-to-turbocharge-ai

    And that's before anything starts going wrong or overbudget. By comparison the government's cuts to winter fuel allowance were meant to save £1.4 billion a tenth of that.

    And Reeves has been eyeing truly nasty hits on disability benefits - especially likely to affect people with mental ill health - because she is £10 billion short on her figures.

    https://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/news/cost-of-living/dwp-plan-cut-benefits-including-30769616?

    But Starmer can splurge more than that on AI - pretending it will solve things- when he refuses to do things that would actually have a very solid likelihood of helping to grow the economy because he's chasing Tory and Reform voters and actually going the worst possible way about it - making a Reform victory more likely through his poor framing and mismanagement.

    "£14 billion and 13,250 jobs committed by private leading tech firms following AI Action Plan"

    That's not taxpayers' money. ChatGPT says £1bn.
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    21: Use of AI Sources

    We haven’t previously had a policy on referencing AI such as ChatGP. However, as an interim ruling (we will further discuss this further) AI programs should not be used as a source for serious discussion such as Purgatory or Epiphanies. (Used on any other forum for entertainment, please clearly indicate its use and ideally what you told it to get the output you are posting.)

    The reason for this, is that the AI is simply using an algorithm to scrape the internet for content - there is no guarantee anything posted is factually accurate and we would prefer not to potentially spread misinformation.

    Doublethink, Admin

    Original thread.
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Well, so much for the McSweeney strategy of relying on 'hero voters' (Tory -> Labour swing voters which 'count double').

    May I ask, what's the reference here?
  • LouiseLouise Epiphanies Host
    edited January 15
    Apologies for the old fashioned artisanal human-made mistake from hasty misreading.

    It still looks hugely dubious and The Register has questions about it - sorry about the long link I keep bodging my code on this phone -

    https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/13/uk_government_ai_plans/ [ ETA revised link ]

    How much it'll cost in public spending when 'unleashed' AI projects in public services start causing chaos like previous big government IT projects remains to be seen.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    21: Use of AI Sources

    We haven’t previously had a policy on referencing AI such as ChatGP. However, as an interim ruling (we will further discuss this further) AI programs should not be used as a source for serious discussion such as Purgatory or Epiphanies. (Used on any other forum for entertainment, please clearly indicate its use and ideally what you told it to get the output you are posting.)

    The reason for this, is that the AI is simply using an algorithm to scrape the internet for content - there is no guarantee anything posted is factually accurate and we would prefer not to potentially spread misinformation.

    Doublethink, Admin

    Original thread.

    Sorry.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited January 14
    stetson wrote: »
    Well, so much for the McSweeney strategy of relying on 'hero voters' (Tory -> Labour swing voters which 'count double').

    May I ask, what's the reference here?

    Morgan McSweeney who lead the Labour electoral campaign was fixated on 'Hero Voters' in marginal seats - i.e Labour / Tory swing voters which he termed 'Hero Voters'. In reality when they did the analysis, even their own report had to admit that these people comprised only 10% of Labour's 2024 vote (at very best), but then consoled themselves by saying they counted as 20%.

    He had previously led a losing leadership campaign in 2015 that had got 4% of the vote (in the US context, imagine putting the campaign leader for the stapler lady in charge of the general).

    But both him and the his deputy weren't big on policy, and neither was Starmer, so this is the result. The AI policy is the kind of thing you launch in the dying days of an administration when you no longer have any other ideas.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited January 15
    Louise wrote: »
    Apologies for the old fashioned artisanal human-made mistake from hasty misreading.

    It still looks hugely dubious and The Register has questions about it - sorry about the long link I keep bodging my code on this phone -

    https://www.theregister.com/2025/01/13/uk_government_ai_plans/ [ ETA revised link ]

    How much it'll cost in public spending when 'unleashed' AI projects in public services start causing chaos like previous big government IT projects remains to be seen.
    How much has government invested in IT, without which we'd be in Second Sleep territory, and how much chaos is there?

    Birmingham City Labour Council's bankrupting of themselves by customizing an Oracle enterprise system notwithstanding.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    They have to be seen as using AI well and preparing for whatever brave new AI world come in the future. They need to be serious ok it now not in 4 years time.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Birmingham City Labour Council's bankrupting of themselves by customizing an Oracle enterprise system notwithstanding.

    While the buggered up Oracle implementation cost them a hundred million quid to fix, the real culprit in their bankruptcy is the nearly 800 million quid they’re still struggling to pay in compensation after losing a massive equal pay lawsuit some years ago.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    stetson wrote: »
    Well, so much for the McSweeney strategy of relying on 'hero voters' (Tory -> Labour swing voters which 'count double').

    May I ask, what's the reference here?

    Morgan McSweeney who lead the Labour electoral campaign was fixated on 'Hero Voters' in marginal seats - i.e Labour / Tory swing voters which he termed 'Hero Voters'. In reality when they did the analysis, even their own report had to admit that these people comprised only 10% of Labour's 2024 vote (at very best), but then consoled themselves by saying they counted as 20%.

    He had previously led a losing leadership campaign in 2015 that had got 4% of the vote (in the US context, imagine putting the campaign leader for the stapler lady in charge of the general).

    But both him and the his deputy weren't big on policy, and neither was Starmer, so this is the result. The AI policy is the kind of thing you launch in the dying days of an administration when you no longer have any other ideas.

    Four years of Zombie government then. But they mean well.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    Re the OP and starting to reverse Brexit they are. Labour are looking at a better relationship with the EU. There is no other way to do it. Labour say they don’t want to start arguments in families again, I don’t think it is as bad as they make out. Also Labour know the EU will not let us back in until there is a majority for doing so. It has to be taken slowly. While there is a strong resistance the EU will be reticent. What is the point of letting us back in only to have another government seek to bring us out. I find the pace frustrating but that is how it has to be.

  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    re: Brexit. We've had several discussions in recent years which show the practical difficulties of reversing Brexit - not least the lack of any desire within the EU-27 to put effort into bringing the UK back in. It's a classic example of how it's very easy to break something, but very difficult to mend it. Before we can make moves from the UK side we need to get our broken democratic system fixed, otherwise we face a decision to return (or stay out) based on another seriously democratically deficient glorified opinion poll. Repeating the 2016 bulldozer through democracy exercise helps no one, not least those who want to see democracy in the UK.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited January 15
    If Scotland had assurances of EU membership, should it go independent, that would help? Scotland in the EU must be better off than in the UK?
  • DoublethinkDoublethink Admin, 8th Day Host
    I think they’d now end up with similar issues to the Irish border. At the time of the independence referendum the UK was still in the EU so border crossing wasn’t going to be an issue.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited January 16
    re: Brexit. We've had several discussions in recent years which show the practical difficulties of reversing Brexit - not least the lack of any desire within the EU-27 to put effort into bringing the UK back in. It's a classic example of how it's very easy to break something, but very difficult to mend it. Before we can make moves from the UK side we need to get our broken democratic system fixed, otherwise we face a decision to return (or stay out) based on another seriously democratically deficient glorified opinion poll. Repeating the 2016 bulldozer through democracy exercise helps no one, not least those who want to see democracy in the UK.
    So we stay out as nothing can fix our democracy. Except the whole ruling class becoming radicalized in its own dismantling in favour of the freedom of the people. As has happened since the Bronze Age. When? Where? (And it has actually, but I bet no one here, except some readers of the relevant book, can say).
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited January 18
    Hugal wrote: »
    They have to be seen as using AI well and preparing for whatever brave new AI world come in the future. They need to be serious ok it now not in 4 years time.

    But fundamentally they aren't being serious about it, or rather they aren't thinking seriously about it.

    They are positioning it as a means of solving the productivity gap in the UK economy, but there are a number of reasons why this doesn't follow.

    The productivity gap is a result of the composition of the businesses UK economy (low productivity, low margin service industries) and the inability of businesses to take up new techniques, technologies and processes. If you want to be serious about AI take up then you need to address those issues.

    Additionally, the productivity gap already exists, so for AI to solve it, the UK would need to take it up solely or to a greater extent than elsewhere, which again is unlikely both for the reasons above and the fact that AI is being driven by global companies who are going to push it into as many markets as they can (and those markets are already better at adopting new technologies)

    So de-risking a few private enterprises by offering grants and guarantees isn't actually likely to achieve much. There's no inherent good in building more data centres here as opposed to anywhere else, they don't create many jobs (which is how Starmer tried to sell them).

    Finally, and on a lighter note, the Labour Party is very far from being 'seen as using AI well':

    https://news.sky.com/story/labour-apologise-after-posting-tiktok-video-featuring-explicit-song-13284944
  • Never mind the productivity gap between British business and industry and other countries, the gap is much wider between public and private sector. Over the past 5 years productivity in the UK public sector has fallen off a cliff.
  • chrisstileschrisstiles Hell Host
    edited January 19
    Never mind the productivity gap between British business and industry and other countries, the gap is much wider between public and private sector.

    You've asserted this before. Is your evidence any better than the last time?


    https://forums.shipoffools.com/discussion/5619/the-uk-budget-hell-edition#Comment_646618
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    Never mind the productivity gap between British business and industry and other countries, the gap is much wider between public and private sector. Over the past 5 years productivity in the UK public sector has fallen off a cliff.

    How would you describe productivity in the UK public sector ?
  • PuzzledChristianPuzzledChristian Shipmate Posts: 34
    Telford knowing you reside in the UK why you (and anyone apart from on night shifts) would post at 4.25AM. Just curious.
  • betjemaniacbetjemaniac Shipmate
    edited January 19
    Telford knowing you reside in the UK why you (and anyone apart from on night shifts) would post at 4.25AM. Just curious.

    I can think of a few reasons, not many of them cheerful. I’m not sure it matters but Telford is far from the only UK shipmate who posts occasionally (some post regularly) in the early hours of the UK morning.

    I’ll leave it there.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    edited January 19
    Never mind the productivity gap between British business and industry and other countries, the gap is much wider between public and private sector. Over the past 5 years productivity in the UK public sector has fallen off a cliff.
    the main branches of industry within the UK public sector include:

    education, including early years settings, primary schools, secondary schools, colleges and academies, universities and higher education institutions, and other public education providers

    emergency services, including fire departments, ambulance trusts and police services healthcare, including the NHS and hospital trusts, GP surgeries, dentists, state-funded

    health services and clinical commissioning groups (CCGs)

    social care and social services, including food banks, financial aid, probation, housing and other care services

    public utilities, including gas, water, electricity and waste management services

    law enforcement, including police services, prisons and public sector legal services

    armed forces, including national defence services such as the British Army, Royal Navy and Royal Air Force

    local government, including local authorities, councils and other service providers

    finance, such as the Bank of England

    transit infrastructure, including the development, maintenance and expansion of roads, bridges, airports and public transportation networks

    culture and heritage, including institutions such as the British Museum.

    https://online.york.ac.uk/what-is-the-public-sector/

    So where are the objective productivity figures for these services over the past 5 years of Tory government. Since Covid? And the previous 5. Of Tory government.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    https://online.york.ac.uk/what-is-the-public-sector/

    So where are the objective productivity figures for these services over the past 5 years of Tory government. Since Covid? And the previous 5. Of Tory government.

    It is irrelevant to the comparison, the measures are completely different. From my previous post:
    For much of the public sector output value is assumed to be equal to input costs, see the ONS guidance here:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/publicservicesproductivity/methodologies/sourcesandmethodsforpublicserviceproductivityestimates (section on Quantity Output)

    Taking into account the exclusions public sector productivity cannot increase at a comparable rate to the private sector's because for 40% of public sector output, the ONS methodology holds the productivity constant.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    https://online.york.ac.uk/what-is-the-public-sector/

    So where are the objective productivity figures for these services over the past 5 years of Tory government. Since Covid? And the previous 5. Of Tory government.

    It is irrelevant to the comparison, the measures are completely different. From my previous post:
    For much of the public sector output value is assumed to be equal to input costs, see the ONS guidance here:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/publicservicesproductivity/methodologies/sourcesandmethodsforpublicserviceproductivityestimates (section on Quantity Output)

    Taking into account the exclusions public sector productivity cannot increase at a comparable rate to the private sector's because for 40% of public sector output, the ONS methodology holds the productivity constant.

    What comparison? The gov link is for 2021. I fully understand that we get what we vote for.
  • Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    https://online.york.ac.uk/what-is-the-public-sector/

    So where are the objective productivity figures for these services over the past 5 years of Tory government. Since Covid? And the previous 5. Of Tory government.

    It is irrelevant to the comparison, the measures are completely different. From my previous post:
    For much of the public sector output value is assumed to be equal to input costs, see the ONS guidance here:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/publicservicesproductivity/methodologies/sourcesandmethodsforpublicserviceproductivityestimates (section on Quantity Output)

    Taking into account the exclusions public sector productivity cannot increase at a comparable rate to the private sector's because for 40% of public sector output, the ONS methodology holds the productivity constant.

    What comparison? The gov link is for 2021. I fully understand that we get what we vote for.

    The statistics don't show public sector productivity 'falling off the cliff'
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    Telford knowing you reside in the UK why you (and anyone apart from on night shifts) would post at 4.25AM. Just curious.

    I can think of a few reasons, not many of them cheerful. I’m not sure it matters but Telford is far from the only UK shipmate who posts occasionally (some post regularly) in the early hours of the UK morning.

    I’ll leave it there.

    I'm an erratic sleeper, so I'll post anywhere from about 9 AM to 2 AM EST.
  • Never mind the productivity gap between British business and industry and other countries, the gap is much wider between public and private sector.

    You've asserted this before. Is your evidence any better than the last time?

    You can find some figures and commentary here, but in case youdon't want to wade through it all, here are some highlights:
    • In the second quarter of 2024, public sector productivity was estimated to be 1.2% lower than the previous quarter. This was due to inputs growing faster than output.
    • In the second quarter of 2024, public sector productivity was estimated to be 8.5% lower than its pre-pandemic peak in the fourth quarter of 2019.
    • Between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the fourth quarter of 2023, public sector productivity decreased by 6.4%

  • Never mind the productivity gap between British business and industry and other countries, the gap is much wider between public and private sector.

    You've asserted this before. Is your evidence any better than the last time?

    You can find some figures and commentary here, but in case youdon't want to wade through it all, here are some highlights:

    That doesn't really support your contention that "Over the past 5 years productivity in the UK public sector has fallen off a cliff.".

    If you look at most of the graphs there are spikes where input and output are mismatched. that track the start and end of Covid. These are consistent with departments drawing down emergency capability during the pandemic and then rebuilding it afterwards. Indeed as the report says:

    "The coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic had a large impact on public services. In 2020, inputs rose, reflecting the extra resources provided to public services to deal with the pandemic. Conversely, output fell in 2020, as many services were delivered in a different way than in 2019, with additional costs and mandatory restrictions present for certain services."
    • In the second quarter of 2024, public sector productivity was estimated to be 1.2% lower than the previous quarter. This was due to inputs growing faster than output.

    A small change like this from quarter to quarter is to be expected and is essentially noise, both as there's likely to be an annual cycle affecting demand on government services, and because spend in one quarter is not likely to show up as improved output until later on.

    As military defence, central government, and local government services are going to be excluded from this kind of calculation because they adopt the output-equals-input approach, this figure will be dominated by health and education both of which have seasonal and cyclical demand patterns.
    [*] In the second quarter of 2024, public sector productivity was estimated to be 8.5% lower than its pre-pandemic peak in the fourth quarter of 2019.
    [*] Between the fourth quarter of 2019 and the fourth quarter of 2023, public sector productivity decreased by 6.4%

    Both these points are addressed in the report:

    "Productivity was 8.5% lower in Quarter 2 2024 than in Quarter 4 2019. This reflects changes in the severity of the cases being addressed by public services, as well as the delivery of these services."

    "These are official statistics in development, and we advise caution when comparing the latest estimates with those published before the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, as the structure of inputs and outputs changed in response to the pandemic. The method is also under development which means the estimates are subject to revision as more up-to-date data become available. Read more in Section 10: Data sources and quality. "

    i.e they changed what they measure over the period being considered and so it's hard to draw the comparisons you want to draw.

    It's perfectly possible to construct a set of explanations around the changes in report, for instance, just think of the impact of recruitment when unfilled vacancies in the NHS goes from a low point of 80K to over 110K (an increase of nearly 40%):

    https://www.kingsfund.org.uk/insight-and-analysis/data-and-charts/nhs-workforce-nutshell#vacancy-rates

    Teaching vacancies went up by a similar percentage over the same period (though in smaller absolute numbers).

    Suddenly you are paying more to recruit and then more on stop gaps like temporary agency staff, indeed from the report:

    "This is the largest increase in inputs since Quarter 1 (Jan to Mar) 2023. It is primarily a result of increased healthcare inputs, but inputs increased for all service areas. Similarly, output increased for all service areas, except for justice and fire. "
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    Martin54 wrote: »
    Martin54 wrote: »
    https://online.york.ac.uk/what-is-the-public-sector/

    So where are the objective productivity figures for these services over the past 5 years of Tory government. Since Covid? And the previous 5. Of Tory government.

    It is irrelevant to the comparison, the measures are completely different. From my previous post:
    For much of the public sector output value is assumed to be equal to input costs, see the ONS guidance here:

    https://www.ons.gov.uk/economy/economicoutputandproductivity/publicservicesproductivity/methodologies/sourcesandmethodsforpublicserviceproductivityestimates (section on Quantity Output)

    Taking into account the exclusions public sector productivity cannot increase at a comparable rate to the private sector's because for 40% of public sector output, the ONS methodology holds the productivity constant.

    What comparison? The gov link is for 2021. I fully understand that we get what we vote for.

    The statistics don't show public sector productivity 'falling off the cliff'

    Of course they don't do.
  • Just Wes Streeting saying that Trump, Vance et al have a point:

    https://x.com/Peston/status/1883251462559437158

    Perhaps Peston should have pressed Streeting on exactly what he meant by 'anti-whiteness' rather than doing a court stenographer act.
  • KarlLBKarlLB Shipmate
    Just Wes Streeting saying that Trump, Vance et al have a point:

    https://x.com/Peston/status/1883251462559437158

    Perhaps Peston should have pressed Streeting on exactly what he meant by 'anti-whiteness' rather than doing a court stenographer act.

    Too stunned to hear a Labour minister sounding like an editorial in The Sun, I expect.
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    It seems our beloved chancellor is listening to the expats who don’t pay much tax here even though they live here. It was a big promise of Labour to get these people to pay up. It seems she may be going easier on them than she promised. Odd how she is listening to rich expats but didn’t seem listen to pensioners and families with more than two children. They appear to get more Conservative every day.
  • Does anyone else in this idiot government think a third Heathrow runway a good idea?

    I despair ......
  • TelfordTelford Shipmate
    RockyRoger wrote: »
    Does anyone else in this idiot government think a third Heathrow runway a good idea?

    I despair ......

    I have heard that planes can cause a lot of polution circling the airports waiting to land
  • Yes, there is some truth in that, and the controllers are apparently scheduling their speed and course from hundreds of miles back to help alleviate the problem.

    But I am still absolutely horrified, and deeply disappointed, by the proposal. Is it worth having economic growth - especially in the overheated south-east - if we're going to be burning up the world with our emissions? Why do we need more capacity? Why do so many more people need to fly (and yes, I do realise that Heathrow handles freight as well as passengers)? Why will thousands of local people have to live under planning blight for the next decade? This is wrong, wrong, wrong.

    Our Labour Welsh Government got a lot of stick for declaring a Climate Emergency and declining to build the M4 relief road at Newport - what must they be thinking of their Westminster overlords?

    Words fail me.
  • Aside from rampant corruption, there is no difference between this shower and the last. I'm grateful not to have the rampant corruption, or the sense of being governed by overcaffeinated toddlers, but this is getting ridiculous.
  • But I am still absolutely horrified, and deeply disappointed, by the proposal. Is it worth having economic growth - especially in the overheated south-east

    It's pure Treasury brain, these places already generate economic activity, therefore they must be the most profitable areas to invest in.


  • I'm surprised that people are surprised or shocked. Surely, Labour's job is to keep capitalism going, patching it up etc. What else would they do?
  • HugalHugal Shipmate
    There was the idea of building a second runway at Gatwick. I don’t know the ins and outs but it might be better than a third runway at Heathrow
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    A significant proportion of flights in and out of Heathrow are short haul connections to other UK airports, with a significant proportion of passengers connecting to international flights from Heathrow. More international flights direct to other airports in the UK will therefore reduce the demand for the short haul flights, and bring more economic growth that extra flights are supposed to generate to those other parts of the UK.
  • I'm surprised that people are surprised or shocked. Surely, Labour's job is to keep capitalism going, patching it up etc. What else would they do?

    What Alan said. Some things have diminishing returns and finite scale.
  • Martin54Martin54 Suspended
    It's about being seen to be doing something. Building confidence. And they desperately needed that. Six months ago. And not to have talked down the economy. I'm as radically idealistic as anyone here. More than most. Much more. Rabid. And I live in the real, i.e. subjective, illusory, political world. If you won't tax wealth, then you must create it any way you can that 51% of the electorate can perceive. Can feel. Before 2029. Or Badenoch does a Starmer.
  • Alan Cresswell Alan Cresswell Admin, 8th Day Host
    Of course, expansion of air travel is incompatible with environmental protection. So, investment in realistic alternatives would be better - though in the short term shifting some air traffic to other airports would be better than continuing to concentrate things at Heathrow.

    Top of my list for alternative investment to replace air travel would be high speed rail. A collection of routes that connect multiple UK cities, through the Channel to the rest of Europe.
  • A significant proportion of flights in and out of Heathrow are short haul connections to other UK airports, with a significant proportion of passengers connecting to international flights from Heathrow. More international flights direct to other airports in the UK will therefore reduce the demand for the short haul flights, and bring more economic growth that extra flights are supposed to generate to those other parts of the UK.

    Also note that modern long-range narrow-body planes can safely fly across oceans (A321 XLR, Boeing 737 MAX etc.), and do so in an economical fuel-efficient (on the scale of aircraft) way: you don't necessarily need to be flying massive widebody jets to international hub airports any more.
    Top of my list for alternative investment to replace air travel would be high speed rail. A collection of routes that connect multiple UK cities, through the Channel to the rest of Europe.

    I haven't been on Eurostar in a while, but the last time I took it, there was as much horsing around for checkin as there is on a plane. If it behaved more like a train and less like a plane, it might look more attractive.
Sign In or Register to comment.