in the grand scheme of things it is pretty irrelevant - though I should point out that a sale of a public asset like that simply doesn't work unless it is undervalued a bit and frankly members of the public were free to participate...
Poll: Poll: Prime Minister Theresa May calls General Election on June 8th
- Thread starter Destination
- Start date
- Status
in the grand scheme of things it is pretty irrelevant - though I should point out that a sale of a public asset like that simply doesn't work unless it is undervalued a bit and frankly members of the public were free to participate...
The Labour manifesto isn't unfunded. You could say that there maths is optimistic but it's certainly not unfunded. There's about £48 billion of extra spending matched against £52 billion of extra revenue raised.
The real kicker with the Royal Mail sell-off was that the public took on £10 billion of pension liabilities. Selling off Royal Mail is going to end up costing money in the long run.
if the maths is ridiculously optimistic then it is essentially unfunded regardless of their intent to try and fund it... yes you can argue that may have funded some of it but actually some of their policies could be so counter productive that they actually lose revenue... not only the general effect of raising income tax usually not leading to the projected returns but also actively killing off a chunk of the economy with this financial transaction tax - that crazy plan alone is enough to say their plans are unfunded tbh..
A bit? I am all for slightly undervaluing it but it was by way more than a bit.
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
There hasn't been any "harsh austerity" though. At best there's been some very modest austerity, which is why government spending is up since 2010.
Exactly, it's at the level the previous Tory and Labour Govts ran the deficit through their terms, so no more proflagate than any other Govt since the 70's where we have had 5 years of surplus and 35 years of deficit.
It was only the economic crash of 2008 that necessitated the enormous rise in deficit to keep the wheels turning
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2013
- Posts
- 4,095
What an inane question. Any increase in the national debt means either more taxation or less spent on services.
the government doesn't have a crystal ball unfortunately and whether equities have later rallied in general isn't necessarily a valid criticism, not to mention that as far as criticism of debt/spending etc.. is concerned this is still pretty irrelevant to the bigger picture
Excellent, I await the 'less tax for everyone/more cash for services' Tory manifesto now we're doing so well.
Wouldn't more debt equate to more being spent on services in the first place?
Appreciate that they don't have a crystal ball but it was listed at bargain basement price. I am not suggesting they tried listing it at double which is what they went to after the sale but most independent analysis of the deal sates that it was sold at an undervalued price which cost the taxpayer up to a billion pounds. Okay, a billion pounds might not seem a lot to you but it does show that the Tories aren't always the safe pair of hands they claim to be.
ssssssshhhhhh
in the short term
in the long term more debt means more interest and more of your budget spent servicing it - basically getting your kids and grandkids to pay
not to mention that if you get to the point where others perceive you have 'too much' debt then further borrowing becomes rather more difficult and you may need to not just reduce the deficit but try to eliminate it and that really would lead to services being screwed...
had to laugh at Hammond this morning on the radio. He repeatedly looked at the Labour budget including all infrastructure spending and refused to use the figure on day to day spending and when tackled about the fact that the Tories don't include infrastructure spending in their budget figures either like the high speed rail, he still wouldnt back down.
He also refused to deny the swearing spat between him and May's team which was quite telling since he was asked three times to deny it. He almost fell back on the the "strong and stable" answer as well.
He also refused to deny the swearing spat between him and May's team which was quite telling since he was asked three times to deny it. He almost fell back on the the "strong and stable" answer as well.
It doesn't show anything of the sort - they sold an asset at a discount as they'd have to, equities continued to rally in general afterwards... it is irrelevant in the grand scheme of things... they'd not have been able to sell it at its current price in the first place
Last edited:
Well I made about £500 from it - but dont worry I spent it putting more taxes back into the system and supporting local businesses!
I never said about selling it at current price or the price it went to the first day, but they could have sold it for a lot more than the listed price and all independent financial analysts agree. The only thing they disagree slightly is whether it was £250m or a billion undervalued.
you do love to bang on about rather irrelevant points... they could have lost even more and it would still be utterly irrelevant to the point that labour would have put us in even more debt than we're in now
Hammond is a ****. I would assume the "tax lock" will be out of the window post election.
- Status