The Labour Party under Andy Burnham

[styles]

Agreed. HS2 is a case in point, as would be a "proper" Northern Powerhouse Rail and other significant public transport improvements. Plus say a brace of new nuclear power stations.

Borrowing to fund capex of this nature makes sense, as the cost can be paid back from the tax receipts from the growth delivered.

Yeah although on many infrastructure projects I do think the UK just doesn't do them very well. Costs balloon, whether it's a railway line or a hospital or an IT system.

I've never worked in government procurement, but as an outsider the whole thing seems messed up. I know on 'on the ground' projects, planning laws can get in the way and Labour is rightly trying to reform these, but I don't believe they're the only significant cost. We just seem really bad at major projects.

Otherwise yes, HS2 and Northern Powerhouse Rail are 100% the things we should be investing in to grow the economy and improve the lives of people in this country.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Yeah although on many infrastructure projects I do think the UK just doesn't do them very well. Costs balloon, whether it's a railway line or a hospital or an IT system.

I've never worked in government procurement, but as an outsider the whole thing seems messed up.

I think the way we do these things encourage contractors to underbid to get the work. If it were delivered as an entirely public project (e.g. GBR was delivering HS2 internally) and thus there was no such tendering, or if we were strict that if costs escalate then the contractor is liable even to the point that it causes them to collapse, then I think we'd have less of that. But it does seem to pervade pretty much all tenders in all areas of Government business because we accept that by and large the bid figure is meaningless and just gives an indication of relative cost between offerings.

In the case of HS2 we have also allowed higher costs by way of gold plating - it's difficult to see what *isn't* gold plated in HS2 compared to just building a French style LGV exactly as the French would build it. That isn't unusual in other public projects, either.

 

[styles]

I think the way we do these things encourage contractors to underbid to get the work. If it were delivered as an entirely public project (e.g. GBR was delivering HS2 internally) and thus there was no such tendering, or if we were strict that if costs escalate then the contractor is liable even to the point that it causes them to collapse, then I think we'd have less of that. But it does seem to pervade pretty much all tenders in all areas of Government business because we accept that by and large the bid figure is meaningless and just gives an indication of relative cost between offerings.

Yes I suspect this is part of the problem. The likes of G4S, ATOS, Camgemini continue to get contracts even though they regularly run over budget or blunder the whole thing; simply because they put in a low bid and can boast of previous contracts. They get new contracts and then manage to find ways to justify contract amendments or extensions due to new unforeseen work. But when it comes to the initial procurement, one party is saying £1m and another is saying £1.5m, we go with the £1m option, which ends up costing us £2m.

 

[jfollows]

As someone who has run a public sector procurement, albeit 10+ years ago now, it’s about defining the criterion on which the procurement is to be judged - “most economically advantageous”, for example - and ensuring that the tender asks for what you really want rather than what you think you ought to ask for.
Not going for “cheapest” was always an option, and one I didn’t use, but it’s easier to justify a selection on price alone.
It’s not at all impossible to do a good job in a public sector procurement, but it requires clear goals, competent execution and protection from meddling by higher management.

The failing, when it exists, is by the procurer, not the supplier, who generally bids to win the business on the criteria defined.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's dishonest. This is a vote-loser from me. Tax needs to increase, and it should be done honestly, forthrightly and with explanations as to why the situation has changed since the original promise.

I cannot abide dishonesty. It is the absolute worst attribute possible in any person.

Agreed. The public are probably bright enough to be told directly. I really do think Britain needs a better, more direct way of politicians communicating with them. What happens now is days of leaking and briefing and chat online and in pubs before the piece of bad news is actually released, and it is all just so toxic.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. The public are probably bright enough to be told directly. I really do think Britain needs a better, more direct way of politicians communicating with them. What happens now is days of leaking and briefing and chat online and in pubs before the piece of bad news is actually released, and it is all just so toxic.

While it was contrived and not everyone agreed with the message (nor was the conduct of those involved always appropriate, one could say), we managed that during COVID, yet we lost it again afterwards....

 

[edwin_m]

I think the way we do these things encourage contractors to underbid to get the work. If it were delivered as an entirely public project (e.g. GBR was delivering HS2 internally) and thus there was no such tendering, or if we were strict that if costs escalate then the contractor is liable even to the point that it causes them to collapse, then I think we'd have less of that. But it does seem to pervade pretty much all tenders in all areas of Government business because we accept that by and large the bid figure is meaningless and just gives an indication of relative cost between offerings.

If a commercial entity is asked to price for major risks it can't control, then one of three things happens:

• They decline to bid for the contract.
• They include a hefty premium on the price to cover the risk if it arises, and pocket the profits if it doesn't.
• They don't include a premium, the risk arises and the company goes bust leaving the public sector to pick up the pieces. Even if the public sector may prefer to do that, any bidder would be very stupid to play along.

So for best value it's likely that the public sector will still have to bear some of the uncontrolled risks. These include obvious ones like legislative risks where the public sector can mostly control, but may also include others so the public sector pays for them only if they arise. If the public sector conducts the entire project in-house (which has probably never been the case in history for major construction works) then by definition they bear all the risks.

 

[AlterEgo]

Jacob Rees-Mogg has a video giving his opinions on the current Labour infighting. I dislike Mogg's politics but always found him intellectually honest and perceptive, and he really does enjoy the game of politics, and I think he is quite good value on YouTube:

He accurately describes how Burnham's position is a non starter, but I am not sure any candidate seen to be on the right of the party will be as hampered as he thinks.

 

[oldman]

Jacob Rees-Mogg has a video giving his opinions on the current Labour infighting. I dislike Mogg's politics but always found him intellectually honest and perceptive,

It's a class act but intellectually honest, really? Take what he says about Miliband - he would be a disaster because of his green energy policies: 'he's a very decent man [not at all condescending, is our Jake], but ... green policy would be fanatical, ...we would be cold and we would be poor." And then he mentions David Lammy - all he says is 'heaven help us' because he knows his right-wing audience - he doesn't have to say any more to them.

First and last he wants to damage Labour. He does it in his elegant tones of sweet reason and objectivity but the message is: Starmer is doomed, anyone on the left would be a disaster, anyone on the right wouldn't command support in the party.

 

[Broucek]

If a commercial entity is asked to price for major risks it can't control, then one of three things happens:

• They decline to bid for the contract.
• They include a hefty premium on the price to cover the risk if it arises, and pocket the profits if it doesn't.
• They don't include a premium, the risk arises and the company goes bust leaving the public sector to pick up the pieces. Even if the public sector may prefer to do that, any bidder would be very stupid to play along.

So for best value it's likely that the public sector will still have to bear some of the uncontrolled risks. These include obvious ones like legislative risks where the public sector can mostly control, but may also include others so the public sector pays for them only if they arise. If the public sector conducts the entire project in-house (which has probably never been the case in history for major construction works) then by definition they bear all the risks.

Wise words. HS2 is a perfect example of your #2 and the Aberdeen Ring Road your #3. The latter led to the bankrupcy of Carillion and nearly did for Galliford Try as well. Sure, Carillion and Galliford are to blame for poor risk management but these were pretty serious companies and there we significant impacts on the workforce, suppliers and other customers, not just the shareholders...

In reality, there are some risks that it's better for the UK and/or devolved governments to accept since all of options 1-3 above are less than ideal.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a class act but intellectually honest, really? Take what he says about Miliband - he would be a disaster because of his green energy policies: 'he's a very decent man [not at all condescending, is our Jake], but ... green policy would be fanatical, ...we would be cold and we would be poor."

It is intellectually honest from him. He disagrees, he has consistent views, he does not suggest ill intent on the behalf of his opponents, and openly acknowledges his own personal bias in the video.

I'd rather have Miliband's policies than his but to say Mogg is intellectually dishonest would be wrong. He was one of very few true conviction politicians during his time, despite being a sort of anti-Bennite. We could do with a few more politicians like this.

 

[styles]

It's a class act but intellectually honest, really?

Yes, really.

I don't agree with his views but filibustering in the Commons aside he is a pretty genuine politician in that he says what he believes, he has strong convictions, and he sticks to them.

In fact it's really frustrating that many such example of politicians with genuine conviction come from 'the right'. Hopefully Zack Polanski will counteract that.

Labour is very much lacking in this regard. The only consistent policy Starmer seems to have is that his father was a toolmaker.

 

[oldman]

I was judging Mogg by his video which was not very honest propaganda for a right-wing audience, dressed up in his cleverly-cultivated presentational style.

He may be sincere and consistent in his beliefs about climate change, inherited privilege, Brexit, reactionary social policies etc. but so what? If the beliefs are bad so is the believer.

On the whole I don't much like 'conviction' politicians; usually their first conviction is that they should have power, what they do if they get it comes second.

 

[styles]

On the whole I don't much like 'conviction' politicians; usually their first conviction is that they should have power, what they do if they get it comes second.

Might as well do away with elections and run the country by opinion polls then?

 

[BAFRA77]

He was one of very few true conviction politicians during his time, despite being a sort of anti-Bennite. We could do with a few more politicians like this.

Are you including when he lied to the Queen to get Parliament prorogued in that?

 

[Razorblades]

Are you including when he lied to the Queen to get Parliament prorogued in that?

I don't recall Jacob Rees-Mogg doing that.

 

[jfollows]

I don't recall Jacob Rees-Mogg doing that.

He went to Balmoral, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_prorogation_controversy matches my recollection. I think he was caught by reporters going through Edinburgh Airport en route.

In the week ending 24 August 2019, it was reported that within the previous 10 days Johnson had asked the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, for legal advice on the matter of prorogation, tentatively scheduled for between the return of Parliament on 3 September and the European Council meeting on 17 October.[23] On 28 August, Jacob Rees-Mogg, in the role of Lord President of the Council, convened a small Privy Councilmeeting with Mark Spencer as Chief Whip, Baroness Evans of Bowes Park as Leader of the House of Lords and the Queen whilst she was in residence at Balmoral Castle.[1][notes 4] The Queen gave her consent to prorogation, to start on the week beginning 9 September, and end with the State Opening of Parliament on 14 October.[22]

 

[Razorblades]

He went to Balmoral, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_prorogation_controversy matches my recollection. I think he was caught by reporters going through Edinburgh Airport en route.

Wow! And Johnson is the one commonly tagged with the deed!!!

 

[edwin_m]

Wow! And Johnson is the one commonly tagged with the deed!!!

Sounds like they all had a hand in it. I can't imagine Johnson having the original idea (too lazy to involve himself with arcane details) but he would have pushed to have it done and it sounds like Rees-Mogg was instrumental in doing so. He may be a conviction politician but his conviction apparently extends to breaking the rules.

 

[ChrisC]

He went to Balmoral, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_prorogation_controversy matches my recollection. I think he was caught by reporters going through Edinburgh Airport en route.

My local MP was Mark Spencer, who accompanied Rees-Mogg to Balmoral.

He was a local farmer, and I’d always thought he was a very good constituency MP and had voted for him because of that.

However, quite a few things he did after became Chief Whip resulted in me not voting for him in the 2024 election.

In the 2024 election I voted Lib Dem, which is totally a wasted vote here, but even though by then I wanted the Tories out I couldn’t vote for Labour. I just had the feeling that Labour could be just as bad.

 

[AlterEgo]

He went to Balmoral, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_United_Kingdom_prorogation_controversy matches my recollection. I think he was caught by reporters going through Edinburgh Airport en route.

That would be Mogg doing his job as he was constitutionally bound to do, as Lord President of the Council then. About as intellectually honest as blaming the Speaker of the Commons for chairing parliament when badly conceived laws are made.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

That would be Mogg doing his job as he was constitutionally bound to do, as Lord President of the Council then. About as intellectually honest as blaming the Speaker of the Commons for chairing parliament when badly conceived laws are made.

The only person who acted in accordance with the constitution was the Queen, she acted on the advice of her government. Rees Mogg could not have been forced to do anything, in extremis he could have resigned.
This was a government conniving to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and anyone taking part in the decision-making is equally blame worthy.

 

[AlterEgo]

The only person who acted in accordance with the constitution was the Queen, she acted on the advice of her government. Rees Mogg could not have been forced to do anything, in extremis he could have resigned.

Facile. "The Queen could have abdicated too" which would have been entirely constitutional but of course that is a daft argument.

This was a government conniving to avoid parliamentary scrutiny and anyone taking part in the decision-making is equally blame worthy.

Rees-Mogg was the chair of the meeting and as Lord President did not get to veto the sitting of any meeting between the Sovereign and their Prime Minister and Privy Councillors. It is an almost completely anonymous office and almost nobody here would be able to tell you who the current Lord President is without going onto Wikipedia.

It is also why all of the scrutiny afterwards was on the Prime Minister, especially by people who know their politics.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Facile. "The Queen could have abdicated too" which would have been entirely constitutional but of course that is a daft argument.


Rees-Mogg was the chair of the meeting and as Lord President did not get to veto the sitting of any meeting between the Sovereign and their Prime Minister and Privy Councillors. It is an almost completely anonymous office and almost nobody here would be able to tell you who the current Lord President is without going onto Wikipedia.

It is also why all of the scrutiny afterwards was on the Prime Minister, especially by people who know their politics.

Anonymous position or not he knew what the meeting was about and could have chosen to stand down from the position.

 

[AlterEgo]

Anonymous position or not he knew what the meeting was about and could have chosen to stand down from the position.

So could the Queen.

So could the Lord Chancellor when actually making the announcement proroguing parliament. Bet you don't know who that was at the time without going on Wiki.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

So could the Queen.

So could the Lord Chancellor when actually making the announcement proroguing parliament. Bet you don't know who that was at the time without going on Wiki.

David Lammy currently, don't know who it was then.
Not that it matters whether or not I know who holds or held various posts.

 

[AlterEgo]

David Lammy currently, don't know who it was then.
Not that it matters whether or not I know who holds or held various posts.

Good. So it doesn't matter who the Lord President was then, an arcane and largely anonymous role whose job it is to convene meetings between the Sovereign and their Privy Counsellors, and indeed, in those meetings, are constitutionally bound only to chair it and not advance their own business or opinions. So it is intellectually dishonest to claim that the Lord Chancellor "lied to the queen" when arranging a meeting during which the Prime Minister lied to the Queen.

Glad we've got that cleared up.

 

[OhNoAPacer]

Good. So it doesn't matter who the Lord President was then, an arcane and largely anonymous role whose job it is to convene meetings between the Sovereign and their Privy Counsellors, and indeed, in those meetings, are constitutionally bound only to chair it and not advance their own business or opinions. So it is intellectually dishonest to claim that the Lord Chancellor "lied to the queen" when arranging a meeting during which the Prime Minister lied to the Queen.

Glad we've got that cleared up.

You are determined to make out that he is some kind of impartial commentator who always acted with integrity and honesty.
Johnson deserves most of the blame, he was after all prime minister and could have stopped all the shenanigans. However everyone from government involved in this deserves at least some form of blame.

 

[jfollows]

So could the Queen.

So could the Lord Chancellor when actually making the announcement proroguing parliament. Bet you don't know who that was at the time without going on Wiki.

Robert Buckland, it would appear, but I had to look it up.
Boris Johnson was responsible for the travesty of proroguement, as well as other things. Others, not least Rees-Mogg, were complicit.

 

[p.d87]

Jacob Rees-Mogg has a video giving his opinions on the current Labour infighting. I dislike Mogg's politics but always found him intellectually honest and perceptive, and he really does enjoy the game of politics, and I think he is quite good value on YouTube:

He accurately describes how Burnham's position is a non starter, but I am not sure any candidate seen to be on the right of the party will be as hampered as he thinks.

Politics should never be seen as a game.