Quite. I expect the integrity of the author of this below will drive them to make some scathing remarks...
You are right, I was looking over the proposed figures for the entire parliament which are supposed to break even if the assumptions pan out.
How substantial is it, and how substantial was Labour's proposed increase in spending? (That may not be who you were referring to when you said some but I'd like to know how they compare, I've not had the time to look up any details).It's not as substantial as advocated by some....
How substantial is it, and how substantial was Labour's proposed increase in spending? (That may not be who you were referring to when you said some but I'd like to know how they compare, I've not had the time to look up any details).
Just waiting for all the pre election spending plan doom mongers to decry this budget.
That's about as clear as mud.This is where it gets interesting. The spending packages announced in the budget, as per the ifs link, amount to an increase of £76bn by 2024. On paper, this compares with labour's spending plan of an increase of £80bn that was in their manifesto. However, labour's figures didn't include the waspi commitment (another £56bn) or costings for nationalisation, which was estimated between £50bn and nearly £200bn depending on source.
The tories have gone way beyond their manifesto commitments, but not broadly against them, mostly because their manifesto was light on details.
That's about as clear as mud.
It does seem slightly at odds with all the different numbers bandied around by the media though, that daily fail article garnett posted bellow your post says the budget included £30bn to fight coronavirus, £175bn on infrastructure, and an extra £5bn for hostpitals so your figure of £76bn seems way off.
So Labour intended to increase spending by £76bn in their manifesto, the Tories increase spending by £80bn in this budget, and you make the claim...£76bn is the per annum figure.
I see...The [Tory] spending increase, while substantial, is still significantly less than labour were planning. Makes any criticism based on affordability clearly nonsensical.
Beg your pardon - that's right. Not that it changes the point.Shouldn't that be the other way around? Aren't the conservatives saying they'll increase borrowing by £76b PA and Labour intended to increase it by £80bn PA, not that I've checked those figures or know if the Labour £80bn PA includes the WASPI pledge and renationalisation.
The Budget shows an expected £55bn shortfall between tax receipts and managed expenditure for 2020/21.
Implement a 3% surcharge for overseas buyers of English homes - Broken in 2020(2)
Is that noise I hear people complaining about Tories spending money again? What strange times we live in.
Could you link to an article specifically stating this, please. I'll updated pledge 32 when received.
As previously, I'm directly using the Budget document itself:
Specifically Charts 1 and 2 in the Executive Report, immediately before "Section 1. Budget Report", show total income and managed expenditure.
Edit: although the stated calculated difference was mental arithmetic by me