Do you want to discuss boring politics? (71 Viewers)

[fatso]

Pay for it all plus the train like any ordinary functioning rich nation would

Pay for it how? Borrow more or raise taxes even more?

 

---

[clint van damme]

Pay for it how? Borrow more or raise taxes even more?

As far as waters concerned about time the leeches and their shareholders who've bled us dry for years stumped up.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Pay for it how? Borrow more or raise taxes even more?

The government is a sovereign currency issuer - it does not need to 'pay for' anything paid for in £ via taxes or borrowing.

It chooses to raise taxes for other reasons but they are not to pay for anything. Likewise, it chooses to 'borrow' or, more accurately, sell rock solid financial investments to the private sector.

The self-financing state: An institutional analysis

This paper is an institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom.

www.ucl.ac.uk

 

[Brighton Sky Blue]

Cool. Same. If a project ever comes up where that’s the point we’ll both be against it.

And how exactly do we build infrastructure without damaging fields?

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but phase one is building a massive fuckoff line from Birmingham to London.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Pay for it how? Borrow more or raise taxes even more?

Raising taxes is not in itself bad. It can generate work, money put into the economy through spending, and of course increased spending from those now with work, and also a corresponding reduction in welfare bill and increase in tax take.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

Forgive me if I’m wrong, but phase one is building a massive fuckoff line from Birmingham to London.

NotquiteLondon*

 

[Deleted member 5849]

If it must be done, it should have been all or nothing.

Only good thing I can say about HS2 is it allowed us a chance to be able to afford a house we wouldn't otherwise have been able to! Shame about the hour trip to the doctor's from next week mind...

 

[Terry Gibson's perm]

What I don't understand is why he's now closed the door for Starmer to build HS2?

I would have thought he'd have been better leaving the door open and using the high costs as a stick to beat Labour with if they went ahead?

Once he has lost he will clear off to America he won’t fight in opposition.

 

[clint van damme]

Once he has lost he will clear off to America he won’t fight in opposition.

I don't think he'll have much choice!

 

[Deleted member 5849]

I don't think he'll have much choice!

Not once Liz Truss is back, anyway!

 

[David O'Day]

The government is a sovereign currency issuer - it does not need to 'pay for' anything paid for in £ via taxes or borrowing.

It chooses to raise taxes for other reasons but they are not to pay for anything. Likewise, it chooses to 'borrow' or, more accurately, sell rock solid financial investments to the private sector.

The self-financing state: An institutional analysis

This paper is an institutional analysis of government expenditure, revenue collection and debt issuance operations in the United Kingdom.

www.ucl.ac.uk

to be fair it chooses to tax and sell bonds because for a central bank to endlessly issue new currency to pay for things both devalues the currency and is inflationary.

 

[fernandopartridge]

to be fair it chooses to tax and sell bonds because for a central bank to endlessly issue new currency to pay for things both devalues the currency and is inflationary.

Yes, I've not said otherwise. It is true though that tax does not pay for spending and neither does borrowing. Both bonds and tax are used to manage inflation. They are not to finance any spending.

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[skybluetony176]

I don't know how many times I need to say that I've no objection to infrastructure spending, until it sinks home. Who is saying cancel all infrastructure projects?

The cost of HS2 isn't "high", it's massive.

100 billion pounds.

I don't think people get how big that number is.

Over twenty years that is almost fourteen million pounds per day.

Over half-a-million pounds per hour!

Every day, every hour, for twenty years.

HS2 would get people from a few cities, into London faster. Other cities will lose some of their direct services to London (notably, Coventry).

HS2 would likely improve capacity on local railway services, though investment beyond the 100bn would be required to see the full benefit.

Similarly with freight, of which it might take a small proportion off the motorways, but again further investment still required to see even that full benefit. So just the 100bn doesn't get you all of this, there's still more needed after that.

You've got no answer to how that 100 billion, were we to spend it elsewhere, might benefit the rest of the country.

It’s less than 3 Boris not fit for purpose track and trace systems that were dumped barely after a year. On that basis HS2 is a bargain.

 

[skybluetony176]

What I don't understand is why he's now closed the door for Starmer to build HS2?

I would have thought he'd have been better leaving the door open and using the high costs as a stick to beat Labour with if they went ahead?

I heard on the radio that on Tuesday (two days after Sunak recorded his video confirming the cancellation and a day before he officially announced the cancellation) that the government completed the compulsory purchase of a property in Staffordshire for £1.5M for the development of phase 2.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Government spending was £1.189trillion last tax year. A £100bn long term investment project (which has already been going for 15 years) is not really that much, is it? In the last report to parliament it had only actually spent £20bn of the projected phase 1 budget anyway.

 

[shmmeee]

Government spending was £1.189trillion last tax year. A £100bn long term investment project (which has already been going for 15 years) is not really that much, is it? In the last report to parliament it had only actually spent £20bn of the projected phase 1 budget anyway.

Exactly. Either we need high speed rail or we don’t. If we don’t then we need to explain why every other country seems to. If we do then we need to finish it and if shit planning and bad decisions cost us tens of billions then when it’s finished have an enquiry and roll some heads. We didn’t stop spending on COVID just because we found some fraud and it cost a lot overall.

 

[duffer]

Government spending was £1.189trillion last tax year. A £100bn long term investment project (which has already been going for 15 years) is not really that much, is it? In the last report to parliament it had only actually spent £20bn of the projected phase 1 budget anyway.

Let's compare apples with apples, eh. How much of that 1.18 trillion went on infrastructure investment?

The actual spend so far, is £24.7bn. And in case you'd missed it, it's nowhere near finished and everyone accepts that even when it is, it's not coming in anywhere near the original estimate.

You guys seem to think that 4.7bn isn't much money - it's a big part of the problem.

 

[Grendel]

Let's compare apples with apples, eh. How much of that 1.18 trillion went on infrastructure investment?

The actual spend so far, is £24.7bn. And in case you'd missed it, it's nowhere near finished and everyone accepts that even when it is, it's not coming in anywhere near the original estimate.

You guys seem to think that 4.7bn isn't much money - it's a big part of the problem.

You don't as we have spent that so far in Ukraine

 

[shmmeee]

Let's compare apples with apples, eh. How much of that 1.18 trillion went on infrastructure investment?

The actual spend so far, is £24.7bn. And in case you'd missed it, it's nowhere near finished and everyone accepts that even when it is, it's not coming in anywhere near the original estimate.

You guys seem to think that 4.7bn isn't much money - it's a big part of the problem.

It’s really not. If you scale it down to the average household income of £34k it’s about £150. People just have issues with big numbers. But in a state scale over the lifetime of these projects it’s peanuts.

 

[duffer]

Exactly. Either we need high speed rail or we don’t. If we don’t then we need to explain why every other country seems to. If we do then we need to finish it and if shit planning and bad decisions cost us tens of billions then when it’s finished have an enquiry and roll some heads. We didn’t stop spending on COVID just because we found some fraud and it cost a lot overall.

We didn't stop spending on COVID because a lot people were dying or at risk of death or serious illness. HS2, is not Brexit, and cannot resolve a pandemic.

Your basic argument now seems to be that we need HS2 no matter what the cost. I don't agree, surely we've done this to death now?

 

[wingy]

Let's compare apples with apples, eh. How much of that 1.18 trillion went on infrastructure investment?

The actual spend so far, is £24.7bn. And in case you'd missed it, it's nowhere near finished and everyone accepts that even when it is, it's not coming in anywhere near the original estimate.

You guys seem to think that 4.7bn isn't much money - it's a big part of the problem.

That's about 2yrs Brexit losses, another blockbusting idea.

 

[duffer]

It’s really not. If you scale it down to the average household income of £34k it’s about £150. People just have issues with big numbers. But in a state scale over the lifetime of these projects it’s peanuts.

That's just the 4.7bn overspend that you didn't count, if you divide it by 31million households.

The full cost, per household, using your analysis, £3200. Three grand, from every household in the UK just for HS2. Hmm.

Back to the original question then, is 100bn good value for money or could that be spent more effectively elsewhere?

Or given everything is seemingly so cheap when you calculate it this way, should we just build everything?

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

SNP's troubles are an opportunity, for sure

Both SNP and Conservatives being massive fuck ups at the same time, Starmer must think all his Christmases have come at once.

 

[dutchman]

Both SNP and Conservatives being massive fuck ups at the same time, Starmer must think all his Christmases have come at once.

I think he would have preferred it happening much closer to the election?

 

[SBAndy]

That's just the 4.7bn overspend that you didn't count, if you divide it by 31million households.

The full cost, per household, using your analysis, £3200. Three grand, from every household in the UK just for HS2. Hmm.

Back to the original question then, is 100bn good value for money or could that be spent more effectively elsewhere?

Or given everything is seemingly so cheap when you calculate it this way, should we just build everything?

Or £160 per household per year over the 20 years. It’s relatively insignificant.

 

[fernandopartridge]

Let's compare apples with apples, eh. How much of that 1.18 trillion went on infrastructure investment?

The actual spend so far, is £24.7bn. And in case you'd missed it, it's nowhere near finished and everyone accepts that even when it is, it's not coming in anywhere near the original estimate.

You guys seem to think that 4.7bn isn't much money - it's a big part of the problem.

It's irrelevant

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[fernandopartridge]

Or £160 per household per year over the 20 years. It’s relatively insignificant.

Not that it costs households anything but yes, it's absolutely insignificant

Sent from my Pixel 7 using Tapatalk

 

[shmmeee]

That's just the 4.7bn overspend that you didn't count, if you divide it by 31million households.

The full cost, per household, using your analysis, £3200. Three grand, from every household in the UK just for HS2. Hmm.

Back to the original question then, is 100bn good value for money or could that be spent more effectively elsewhere?

Or given everything is seemingly so cheap when you calculate it this way, should we just build everything?

Everything with a positive cost benefit. Yes. Countries aren’t humans. The same economic rules don’t apply. The numbers you are talking about for a national infrastructure project that will last decades if not centuries are absolute peanuts and will only get more expensive thanks to inflation.

 

[shmmeee]

This sort of thinking would have cancelled Rishi Sunaks private education in Year 9 because it was too expensive and not showing results.

 

[Deleted member 5849]

This sort of thinking would have cancelled Rishi Sunaks private education in Year 9 because it was too expensive and not showing results.

tbf given his performance as PM, that example isn't helping you!

 

[shmmeee]

tbf given his performance as PM, that example isn't helping you!

Hes done OK economically though! I doubt his parents are thinking they should have cancelled Winchester and spent the money on 83 different after school clubs.

 

[Sky_Blue_Dreamer]

Hes done OK economically though! I doubt his parents are thinking they should have cancelled Winchester and spent the money on 83 different after school clubs.

So are you suggesting we get into bed with a much richer country, like...I dunno...Saudi Arabia for example?

 

[shmmeee]

So are you suggesting we get into bed with a much richer country, like...I dunno...Saudi Arabia for example?

At this point marrying an old country that’s about to die is probably our best bet

 

[CCFCSteve]

At this point marrying an old country that’s about to die is probably our best bet

Sounds like my dating tactics

 

[Grendel]

Starmers the new Liz Truss - growth growth growth