How can Labour defeat UKIP?

Left Foot Forward asked a number of leading progressives what they think Labour needs to do to defeat UKIP.

Marcusj

Such is the impact of UKIP’s victory in the European elections that even Tony Blair has waded into the debate with advice on what Labout needs to do to beat UKIP at the polls.

If it’s good enough for Blair it’s good enough for us, so with that in mind we asked a number of leading progressives what they think Labour needs to do to beat the Kippers.

Marcus Roberts, deputy general secretary of the Fabian Society

1) Dive deep into the data

Look at UKIP’s results not just in wards where they won, but where they lost and either secured second place or cost Labour a council seat to the Tories. The work of analysts like Ian Warren is invaluable to this.

2) Understand the different kinds of UKIP voters

As Sunder Katwala cheekily calls it, there is BlueKip (likely 2015 Tory voters), FUKIP (the Farage faithful) and WhoKip (up for grabs, often former Labour or Labour-identifying non-voters). Target messaging, policy and organisation at the latter who can be won over with proven methods.

3) Look at policy and culture

Ed Miliband has a host of policy that should be attractive for Labour/UKIP considerers (managing rent rises, increasing social housing supply, year on year increases in the minimum wage). And Labour councils from Newham to Southampton have imposed residency duration tests for access to social housing which plays well on the doorstep. But smart policy isn’t enough. The cultural anxieties of Labour/UKIP considerers need to be assuaged as well. John Denham and Jon Cruddas’s embrace of Englishness for Labour is important here.

4) Put the Arnie Graf community organising model at the heart of Labour

UKIP are attracting blue collar voters as they tap into anger, insecurity and fear of change. To answer this Labour must be present in communities and demonstrate that change isn’t something to be feared because it’s done to you, but celebrated when it’s done with you – be it through living wage campaigns or action against pay day loan shops. All of this helps grow leaders rooted in their own community who will have the respect they need in their areas to persuade people to back Labour. As the Labour party’s top organiser Caroline Badley told me: “you counter the politics of protest with a politics that’s personal.”

5) Understand how UKIP attracts women

As the British Election Survey’s  Caitlin Milazzo notes, UKIP is male-dominated but female voters tend to be especially loyal to UKIP. This emphasizes the need to prevent female Labour/UKIP considerers from breaking for UKIP now as they’re harder to win back later. Thankfully, the work of Gloria De Piero on both her ‘What Women Want‘ and ‘Why do they hate me‘ projects to engage both women and non-voters alike should be greatly expanded by Labour.

Anthony PainterjAnthony Painter, previously director of the Independent Review of the Police Federation

Labour has a perfectly sound immigration and European policy. It is in the national interest. The problem it has is that it doesn’t have the courage of its convictions; it’s scared of its own shadow.

If it accommodates UKIP then what? It’s quite simple. Labour will further reinforce policy positions that are not in the national interest and will, at best, gain no support. It will probably lose support. How is this a sensible approach?

There’s one further thing: the reputation of politicians. If you listen, Nigel Farage speaks, acts, thinks like the ‘political elite’. This should be pointed out relentlessly.

But there are also deep systemic problems: the Labour Party is an insider’s club. That is not going to change over night but after the next election, Labour will require fundamental change – much like the Police Federation has been through.

However, to start to desperately chase support of those inclined towards UKIP by becoming UKIP-lite   will only compound the problem. Leadership in the national interest is what is needed instead of desperate and destructive measures.

EmmajEmma Burnell, Labour List columnist

The lie that UKIP are only a threat to the Tories has been well and truly exposed. Who they appeal to is the swath of voters who feel they have been left behind by politics over the last few decades. Those who don’t fit the Worcester Woman/Mondeo Man ‘aspirational’ middle class that mainstream politicians have been fighting over since the inception of New Labour.

Labour cannot and must not try to outflank UKIP on immigration. It won’t work practically, it won’t be right morally and it won’t even work politically – the voters simply wouldn’t believe us. But neither can we simply ignore the concerns about immigration.

What we can do is take these concerns seriously and think about their implications. What we must do is put forward a positive alternative that goes some way to assuaging voters insecurity and offering an appealing vision for the future

This does not necessarily mean a change of policies – many of those announced during the campaign (on housing, wages and the NHS) should – when pitched as a coherent package – do this job. But we need to frame less as a response to current circumstances (using only the negative cost of living frame) and more about ensuring and stronger and more secure future.

Annie PowelljAnnie Powell, contributing editor to Left Foot Forward

Less than 40 per cent of the UK electorate voted last week. Contempt for mainstream politics enables UKIP to thrive and is the issue that Labour must address.

In doing so, Labour MPs should – dare I say it – be more like Nigel Farage.

Farage is a ‘conviction politician’. That this phrase even exists is an indictment of our politics. The freedom with which he speaks stands in such marked contrast to the near-paralysis of MPs so afraid of alienating this or that social group that they use pre-prepared soundbites and avoid questions.

By trying to court all voters they inspire none.

It’s human nature not to respect someone who is desperate to please and is too insecure to express their own views. Those are certainly not the qualities we want in our leaders.

So Miliband needs to speak more freely: who does he stand for? What exactly is his vision for Britain?

49 Responses to “How can Labour defeat UKIP?”

  1. Kathleen Nicholson

    Nigel Farage only talked about immigration,and leaving the EU, he was allowed to do it.We must discuss not only the cost of living crisis but the NHS, Education,and the feelings of an awful lot of people who think they are ignored

  2. Kryten2k35

    lol, UKIP didn’t win anything, though.

  3. failquail

    Basically labour need to stop being scared of the media and move back to the left (or even just the centre) of the political spectrum. They will get a lot of flack for it, but it’ll give a party that vast amounts of people can actually support.

    Some of the things Milliband have been saying are good, but not merely enough. It’s still just tinkering at the edges rather real change from the failed rightwing policies of the past three decades…

  4. MissAnneThrope007

    Labour seem to be under the impression that to win voters they need to take a step to the right to win over the middle ground. Well middle ground voters are more than adequately represented by the tories and lib dems. Labour need to go back to their roots and re-establish a left wing ideology. The disintegration of the NHS, the sale of state owned commodities and services, the capitalist infiltration of our education system, the demonisation of the poor and disabled – these are all things that people wish to see addressed. The only party currently looking at these issues with any degree of seriousness are the greens, but while their vote share has increased, they are not going to form the next government. The labour party has been losing voters ever since Blairite policies, and the seduction of suburbia became their priority. Labour needs a new message, and it needs that message to be heard. The homogeneous mass off self-serving politics and politicians have had a pernicious effect, and have allowed the likes of UKIP to manipulate the way the public think. We want a new socialism, not a re-hashed capitalism.

  5. robertcp

    Quite. UKIP will be lucky to get double figures in the General Election and anybody vaguely Labour will be put off by UKIP’s policies.

  6. Selohesra

    If Labour match Cameron’s commitment to in/out referendum in next Parliament then there would be little point in any further UKIP votes – voters could return to their natural homes with politics returned to two-horse race. (The Libdems having been humanely destroyed having fallen at the first fence)

  7. Selohesra

    Farage wasn’t ‘allowed’ to talk about immigration he was ‘made’ to by the media who would not discus anything else – all parties seemed to think controlled immigration is good thing – only UKIP had the honesty to point out the membership of EU was incompatible with having control

  8. MissAnneThrope007

    The problem is that many of the electorate are so ill-informed that people who wanted a more left-wing approach actually voted for UKIP. I’ve lost count of how many times I came across arguments from disillusioned labour voters who truly believed that UKIP offered them a socialist alternative. Here’s just one example:

    http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/apr/29/10-good-reasons-not-vote-ukip-nigel-farage-europe#comment-34978484

    “I’ve had enough of all this anti-UKIP tripe now.

    I am going to vote UKIP for the Euro elections because I hope it will bring about the end of Labour’s Tory-lite rubbish.

    Either Miliband wakes up and makes the public a proper socialist offer or he can get stuffed and I will wait for the unions to set up a genuine socialist party. Then I’ll have a party worth voting for. Until then I may as well vote UKIP for the Euro elections but not vote for them at any election that really matters.” (The Guardian – 29/4/14 – “10 good reasons not to vote for Ukip”)

    And over 2000 people supported that comment…

  9. dave244

    You talk at great length at what Milliband and Labour need to do you even say “If it’s good enough for Blair it’s good enough for us” I’m sorry but what hell does that mean but the one thing you don’t talk about is trust that is the one thing that none of you seem to understand what is needed is honesty and the truth with the voters and to be honest Blair is the last politician to look too on this because he’s not part of the solution he’s part of the problem with his dodgy dossier on the which the Iraq war based.
    No matter how much you listen to the electorate you still have the
    problem of understanding what you are being told you think in the
    terms of party policies what you don’t understand is what electorate
    want above all else is honesty and as soon as we start to hear things
    like “we need to educate people” you know automatically the politicians are classing us the electorate as idiots who need to be treated like children

  10. rosie

    Farage is a ‘conviction politician’. That this phrase even exists is an indictment of our politics. The freedom with which he speaks stands in such marked contrast to the near-paralysis of MPs so afraid of alienating this or that social group that they use pre-prepared soundbites and avoid questions.

    By trying to court all voters they inspire none.

    It’s human nature not to respect someone who is desperate to please and is too insecure to express their own views. Those are certainly not the qualities we want in our leaders.

    So Miliband needs to speak more freely: who does he stand for? What exactly is his vision for Britain?
    THIS IS WHAT MANY PEOPLE ARE FEELING ! PLEASE TAKE NOTE…

  11. blarg1987

    Trouble with the media is that they will scream socilist, or communist if they get the chance. Labour has to be smarter, they have plenty of ammunition they can use for example if the media scream socilists they can say we are going pay to EDF for the nuclear power stations etc, and you do not mind By that logic we are all socilists etc.

    If the media are made to look silly they will be less scaremongering.

  12. LB

    (managing rent rises, increasing social housing supply, year on year increases in the minimum wage).

    =============

    Yep. All caused by unfettered migration. Nothing like treating the symptoms. Putting some gloss on and spinning your way out.

    =============
    Target messaging, policy and organisation at the latter who can be won over with proven methods.
    =============

    They got the message. They are racist scum. It’s what Labours being banging on about. Brits aren’t as good as migrants, look, more Brits are on welfare. And migrants have saved you from inbreeding.

    =============
    It won’t work practically, it won’t be right morally and it won’t even work politically

    =============

    Spin.

    1. It will work. SImple test. Do you pay more tax than 11.5K a year per migrant? Yes, you can come and you can stay. No then you can’t and you have to go.
    Of course, if Emma wants to make up the short fall for migrants who don’t, she can sponsor them out of her own pocket. However, she won’t.

    So practically it can work.

    2. Morally, it does work. Why should the poor have to pay for an option, the migrant, to be in the UK? It’s immoral to force the poor to pay tax because you want to gerrymander elections.

    It’s completely immoral of you to tax people for something that isn’t needed.

    What’s moral about allowing in 5 million and creating homelessness and poverty?

  13. LB

    You mean they need to be deceitful to get into power.

    Just like no tuition fees.

  14. LB

    Your missing the bit about running up a 9 trillion debt. That’s also the welfare state. Why not put that down as a major achievement.

  15. LB

    That’s because they are connected.

    High rents – migration

    NHS – too many people.

    Education – too many people.

    As for the feelings part, they are racist scum aren’t they. That’s what Labour have told them. They have got the message.

  16. johnny fly

    Labour are not a left wing party your a damm fool if you think so. Then only thing that has changed about them is their rhetoric. The last labor government was such a disaster and over half their mps are the same people from blair’s government. For the love of god don’t vote for them.

  17. swatnan

    You have to put the question: What if there were no immigration.
    Answer: Why the Health and Social Services would collapse You would have to queue and queue to get care and assistance. transport would suffer, Education would suffer. Business would suffer; Practically everything would cost twice as much and you’d wait twice as long for service. In other words you quailty of life would suffer. Do you anti immigration people really really want that?

  18. blarg1987

    No I mean point out the fact that we are already socilist as a country so to brand anyone as socilist is stupid.

  19. Frankie D.

    Bollocks. He’s on the BBC almost every week. He could talk about anything he wants to. He just doesn’t want to.

  20. MissAnneThrope007

    I’m not totally sure what your point is. Do you mean the current deficit, or the debt after the last Labour government? I understood the figure to be around 1 trillion, but please correct me if I’m wrong. I do know that the tories have borrowed more in under four years than the Labour Party borrowed over 13 years, and according to the CBI, the debt is growing by £3000 every second. The other thing the Tories have done is promote a very successful ‘divide and conquer’ method of politics, where the public sector workers have been devalued and used as scapegoats for decreasing pay and rights within the private sector. Labour needs to redress the balance and deal with issues such as low pay, decent working conditions and pensions across both sectors.

    Re the deficit, this link makes interesting reading:

    http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/ramesh-patel/growth-cameron-austerity_b_2007552.html

  21. LB

    And you’ve been conned.

    First what does the state owe? The figure you quote is just one of the things the state owes. The numbers you’re pushing are the borrowing numbers.

    Let me educate you.

    The deficit is the difference between spend and income. If you were a company, that’s your annual loss. It it were a surplus, the profit.

    Debts or liabilities, there is no difference, its just a synonym, is what you owe for the things you have undertaken in the past, but have to pay in the future.. For example, if you borrow money in the past, to be paid in the future its a debt. If you borrowed money in the past, and repaid in the past, its not a debt. If you might borrow money in the future, its also not a debt.

    So if you take money from people in the past, and agree to repay it in the future its a debt. There’s an accounting standard called FRS17 that is 100% clear on this. The state decides, we’re not going to use it. So pensions, both for work and for payment, are debts. That’s both the state pension and the civil service pensions.

    Why have you left those debts (or liabilities) off your numbers?

    To give you a hint, the current borrowing is way more than your 1 trillion. It’s pushing 1.3 trillion. Just the borrowing. The pensions? Well that’s another 7.1 trillion. You’re in favour of more pay for the privileged civil service. Currently they are paid by spending pension contributions. What happens when people what their pensions? Explain. How do you repay 9 trillion (pensions and borrowing are just the two biggest debts)?

    Numbers. You quoted some (out of date ones)> and you’ve missed off the biggest. Tell us with numbers how you are going to make good, and who pays and how much?

  22. RSchelt

    Why is every one reading so much into it. Maybe the people voted UKIP because they want out of the EU. Why don’t we agree across parties to have a vote in/out/reform. Get the unknown known. Ask the people – that is democracy right? Then we move on from where ever we have landed.

  23. Kryten2k35

    The problem I find is that people are bought in by the UKIP anti-EU hogwash. Seemingly reasonable people knee jerking at the mention of Immigrants taking jobs, benefits and wives. They’ll vote UKIP because they’re bought in by their propaganda, but don’t think about the highly negative ramifications.

  24. Kryten2k35

    But Labour don’t want an in-out vote, and personally, given how stupid people are, neither do I.

  25. MissAnneThrope007

    You’ll have to forgive me for getting my
    information from sources such as the CBI, IMF, OECD, OBR, HM Treasury and respected economists – and not from random, obnoxious ‘educators’ on the internet. Additionally, I use the same rules for internet use as I do in real life – meaning I treat other people politely and with respect. I expect the same in return. If people don’t behave that way then I choose not to converse with them. I suggest you find someone else to tussle with.

  26. robertcp

    Interesting but the writer makes clear she will not be voting UKIP in an election that matters. She might also want to read books by Miliband’s father about Labour not being a socialist party.

  27. Tom

    Ed Milliband killed any chances of stopping the flow of Labour supporters to UKIP yesterday with one simple sentence, the UK will never leave the EU under Labour.

  28. Selohesra

    Testes – he may have been on BBC every week (which you would expect from the leader of the party that took the biggest share of the vote – Camoron & Miliblank were also on each week) but if he answers question on immigration with answer on education you would accuse him of being evasive. You need to have a word with Labour’s broadcasting arm at BBC and complain about the agenda they set

  29. SemiPartisanSam

    Data, understanding, talk their language, yada yada yada. Labour has started losing votes to UKIP because it oscillates between viewing their supporters with barely disguised contempt as borderline racists, and patronising them with insincere “we need to start talking their language” platitudes:

    http://semipartisansam.com/2014/05/24/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-nigel-farage/

    The uncomfortable truth is that a solid proportion of the UKIP vote was not a protest vote, it was a positive vote in favour of some of UKIP’s policies. This is what Labour will need to mull over and digest as they plan their reaction.

  30. sarntcrip

    PARLIAMENTARY LABOUR WITH A COUPLE OF EXCEPTIONS ARE AGAIN DISCONNECTED FROM THE MEMBERSHIP THEY DON’T WANT LIB STYLE POWER AT ANY ANY PRICE OR A TORY/BLAIRITE FUDGE THEY WANT REAL LABOUR, NOT TO GO LOONEY LEFT BUT TO BRING THE CURRENT UNFETTERED OUT OF CONTROL CAPITALISM BACK UNDER CONTROL FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE MAJORITY NOT THE FEW LABOUR’S WILLINGNESS TO SACRIFICE THEIR SUPPORT OF THE WEAKEST IN SOCIETY IS NOT POPULAR AND REMINDS US OF HOW WELL DUMPING PRINCIPLE WORKED FOR NICK CLEGG

  31. Frankie D.

    Are you claiming the BBC can see through time?

    He’s been on question time more than any other mp. Are you saying they only ever talk about immigration, or does it just sound that way to a kipper?

    Also, are you really that thick that you think the BBC have anything to do with Labour?

  32. sarntcrip

    THWE WHOLE MEDIA WRITTEN OR BROADCAST IS MADE BY THE MIDDLECLASS FOR THE MIDDLE CLASS WE’VE NEVER HAD A COCKNEY PRESENT THE NEWS THE MEDIA AS A WHOLE ARE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE SCARE STORIES ON IMMIGRATION AND FOR BLAMING LABOUR RATHER THAN BLAME FOR THE BANKING CRISIS LED RECESSION
    ED MUST STOP AGREEING WITH NICK AND DAVE TAKE OFF THE GLOVES AND FIGHT THE BASTARDS

  33. sarntcrip

    RUBBISH IT’S BEEN FARAGE-FEST FOR WEEKS YOU SHOULD HAVE GONE TO SPECSAVERS

  34. LB

    I get mine from the ONS for the pensions.

    For the debts. http://www.dmo.gov.uk is the official source.

    So perhaps you can answer the one simple question, and you’re experts you list no doubt will tell you.

    We can decide who is right, and who is wrong, if you can answer this simple question.

    How much does the government owe for its pensions? Pounds. Not a percentage, not a GDP or Dollar.

    Over to you. Looking forward for your answer.

    PS. If you get struck.

    http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/dcp171766_263808.pdf bottom of page four for an out of date number.

  35. LB

    PPS.

    You did say “I understood the figure to be around 1 trillion, but please correct me if I’m wrong.”

    I was just doing as you asked, being corrected. I took that as being a bit you have no choice in the matter. Education, information is a better way.

    Now I accept you take it without question that the debt is 1 trillion. You’ve been told. I don’t work that way. I ask question for example, what’s in that 1 trillion? Is the 1 trillion correct? And more importantly, what’s not included. The last bit is the key bit.

    Once you know what is in and what is ask, you have to ask why would they not tell people about the things that are out.

    Correct me if you think that’s a bonkers way of thinking, or if you think you should take what politicians tell you without questions.

  36. treborc1

    Ed Miliband has a host of policies well then tell us all what they are because all I can remember are a few caps and promise or two which we all know are like water to labour.

    A good one is we will get a referendum only if Brussels tries to bring in changes well lets me think is that not the same as Blair said and when the changes came in he refused us a vote, so I think that one is not going to work again.

    But if your in Labour today then obviously your middle class hard working or a working person as Miliband now says. If your disabled sick unemployed then in all honesty Labour or Tories are basically the same.

    I suspect come the next election if your labour and you voted UKIP why would you come back and if your Tory well your going to get a vote with the Tories.

    In the end working class or hard working they are not the same, Miliband is without doubt neither.

  37. Gordon BrownArse

    Basically Labour are and have been for years totally useless bastards!!

  38. Jasef Labourareshite

    If you vote labour you have to be subnormal in intelligence, FACT!!

  39. blarg1987

    To quote a paragraph from your link bottom of page 5:

    “However, as explained in the ONS, OBR and WGA reports described above, Government pensionobligations, because of their more contingent nature, and the extent to which they are extremelysensitive to discount rate assumptions, should not be simply added to public sector debt.”

    Page 6 also adds to this meaning that your figures for the public sector debt are null and void as the above paragraph says you can’t simply add it on as there are to many variables.

  40. dave244

    Labour is no more working class than Boris Johnson now it’s full of m.p’s that come from a middle class back grounds they are just the same as the other party’s in fact a large majority of the British public can’t see any difference between Cameron or Clegg or Miliband.
    They are professional politicians they have no idea what life is like outside of the Westminster village they are viewed as all the same out of touch, self centered, shallow and opportunistic.

  41. LB

    What’s contingent about the state pension? Or perhaps you think that the solution is not to pay it. What events is the state pension not being paid contingent on.

    Given we don’t know inflation in the future, the inflation linked debts are dependent on assumptions, and yet they are included. Why one and not the other.

    On your page 6 claim. Null and void means we won’t pay the debt. Is that what you mean?

    What discount rate? There are no assets, so no discounting applies on that side.

    On the liability side, the debts grow in line (or above inflation. At a minimum, there is no sensitivity to any discount rate. If your debt is a pound now, its 1 pound plus inflation in a years time if the debt is linked to inflation. You can therefore ignore inflation and assume a zero discount factor to get the lower bound.

    It’s back to the basic question. Either the debt is real, in which case its too large to pay it. Or the debt doesn’t exist, and the state pension can be cancelled immediately. Either are dire.

    Where I struggle to comprehend you is why you want the public to be kept in the dark about how much the state owes for its pensions? What’s your motivation?

  42. LB

    What if there were no immigration.
    Answer: Why the Health and Social Services would collapse

    It won’t collapse if the UK trains staff. It’s the lack of training that results in the shortfall, for which they plugged it with migration.

  43. Trofim

    Another popular one is – “get message across” – we haven’t, we’ve got to, we’ve got to try harder to etc. etc.
    No, you’ve got your message across, and the punters didn’t like it, to use a polite variant Try a different message.

  44. Trofim

    “the Health and Social Services would collapse”

    That argument is a condemnation of Britain, its education system and the readiness of 2.3 million unemployed to contribute to society. An absolute condemnation.

  45. blarg1987

    Well it is a report by the OBR why do you not ask them the qiestion directly?

    I believe we should be honest about whatever debts we may have, however all the information should be included, the trouble is you are taking figures which are rough guesses at best and treating them as gospel when even the people who write these reports (who are probabaly more intelligent then either of us) don’t know what future figures wil be

    Now the question I can’t understand is why do you treat the worst case scenario as the only scenrio?

    If that was the case then correct me if I am wrong you would not have been able to afford a property and the insurence industry would not be able to pay out as the liablities exceed the income.

  46. LB

    which are rough guesses at best

    ==============

    No, having done what you’ve asked me to do, I accept they are pretty accurate bar one number, the use of AA corporate bonds as a discount rate. The end result is that the current figure is an underestimate.

    Future figures are an irrelevance. From the current figure, you know what the future figures will be. Broad the triple lock applied to the current figure.

    ==========
    Now the question I can’t understand is why do you treat the worst case scenario as the only scenrio?

    ==========

    It’s not. It’s the best case scenario. What makes you think its the worst case scenario?

    ==========
    If that was the case then correct me if I am wrong you would not have been able to afford a property and the insurence industry would not be able to pay out as the liablities exceed the income.

    ==========

    You’re argument is not clear, but I’ll make some assumptions about what you are trying to say.

    For an insurance company, payouts determined by events. The more events, the more certain you are as to what you will pay out. This is mathematically correct, its the basis of insurance. Its the central limit theorem if you want to look it up.

    You then need to make sure that income, from both premiums and returns on investments are less than the expected payouts. Otherwise you go bust. Given there will be some uncertainty in payouts, you also are required to have a safety margin. All absolutely standard.

    So how can the state pay out on its liabilities, when in real terms (inflation adjusted), they are known with a very high degree of certainty? You have income, but you have no investment return. None. Unfunded pensions means no assets.

    So for an insurance firm and the state, the liabilities are the present value of the expected payouts.

    For the state they haven’t got enough income to pay out.

    For that you need to know what the lower bound is on the liabilities. It’s more than the ONS estimate, and they can’t pay that.

    Of course you could always post the most likely PV, and some bounds. If you can’t you must have made up the worst case assumption.

  47. blarg1987

    Its the worst case scenario as you have admitted when moaning about the “debt” that you also include ALL goverment guarentees on the assumption that the state will have to pay out in full.
    Many of these said guarentees are funded such as pensions for privatised utilities so you are taking worse case scenario.

    Again on your last comment the point is they are not known, the OBR report you keep preaching admit that if you do not like it then why have you not taken up your argument with the OBR, also have you told the ONS this oinformation if it is true? And what has their response been if that is the case?

  48. LB

    hat you also include ALL goverment guarentees on the assumption that the state will have to pay out in full.

    ================

    They have to pay out in full on the losses. They don’t have to pay out in full on the amount guaranteed.

    ie. As I’ve said but you seem to ignore, if you run an insurance scheme, you are liable for the expected losses, not the sum insured. If you expect 1 in 1000 houses to burn down a year, and you insure 10,000, then your expected losses are 10 houses, not 10,000 houses.

    ===============
    Many of these said guarentees are funded such as pensions for privatised utilities so you are taking worse case scenario.

    ===============

    Correct. However, its small peanuts compared to the state’s pensions.

    I’m not talking worst case scenario either. The correct thing to do is to report the expected loss as it is now, present valued. So If the BT pension fund has 100 bn in assets, but owes 150 bn, the correct figure to report is a 50 bn liability on the guarantee. No worst case or best case.

    So back to the state pensions. You’ve claimed I’ve reported the ONS numbers and that’s a worst case scenario. However to come to that conclusion, you must have evidence as to the best case, or even the most likely, as well as evidence why its the worst case.

    So come on stump up the evidence.

    PS. It’s an underestimate because they assume they have AA corporate bonds in the bank, when they have none. Hence they have inflated the discount rate, and so made the debt look smaller.

  49. LB

    Like the current Labour position on the vote. London gets it, but the rest of the UK are racist scum. To paraphrase.

Leave a Reply