Brighton Sky Blue
Well-Known Member
Not quite Malcolm, the programmes would have similar overall cost. Point being we should have both while phasing out the WFP in favour of insulating the homes of the elderly.
Not quite Malcolm, the programmes would have similar overall cost. Point being we should have both while phasing out the WFP in favour of insulating the homes of the elderly.And the winter fuel payment was half that and yet keeping it would have crashed the economy.
Shmmeee posted a paper showing the cost for universal free school meals at £2.5bn to which would have to be added some cost for the breakfasts. The winter fuel payment was £1.5bn.Not quite Malcolm, the programmes would have similar overall cost. Point being we should have both while phasing out the WFP in favour of insulating the homes of the elderly.
The government spends over £2 billion on the WFP programme each year. The £1.4 billion represents the saving from going to a means tested programme, not the total cost.Shmmeee posted a paper showing the cost for universal free school meals at £2.5bn to which would have to be added some cost for the breakfasts. The winter fuel payment was £1.5bn.
I am happy to agree with your last sentence.
So universal free lunches and breakfast clubs would cost twice what has been saved from the winter fuel allowance.The government spends over £2 billion on the WFP programme each year. The £1.4 billion represents the saving from going to a means tested programme, not the total cost.
It would amount to under 0.25% of government spending.
The last part of this I agree entirely. They painted themselves into a corner on this when really they would have won a majority anyway.It is tiny in the grand scheme of things, so is the WFP, so’s removing two child benefit cap which many wanted, so’a pay rises for docs and train drivers (which has opened a can of worms elsewhere - see nurses, who out of all of them deserved the better rises), so’s continuing to support Ukraine, so’s housing tens of thousands of migrants in hotels, so is sorting out the massive social care issue in the country etc etc They all add up though
What isn’t such a small share is the cost of servicing the government debt which will continue to be a larger proportion of GDP unless we get some more substantial growth into the economy
These are all tough political decisions/ choices with their own pros and cons in terms of costs and benefit. Said it before and I’ll say it again, the governments biggest mistake was ruling out rises to the main tax generators….should’ve just undone NIC cut, said it’s needed for social care and blamed the Tories for it being unfunded, however, would’ve taken balls and probably politically unpalatable
Government debt is just as large as GDP which is a trend that just can’t continue to keep growing.It would amount to under 0.25% of government spending.
How many countries worldwide operate a balanced budget or a surplus?Government debt is just as large as GDP which is a trend that just can’t continue to keep growing.
This is day to day government spending. Around 7 countries (8 including UK) have a GDP to debt ratio above 100%. This impacts the cost of borrowing money so all of these spending commitments come with a hidden cost of servicing debt. For context, in 2023 the Government spent £110bn on servicing debt (interest) alone.How many countries worldwide operate a balanced budget or a surplus?
I don’t think school meals will send the market spiralling like Trussonomics did.This is day to day government spending. Around 7 countries (8 including UK) have a GDP to debt ratio above 100%. This impacts the cost of borrowing money so all of these spending commitments come with a hidden cost of servicing debt. For context, in 2023 the Government spent £110bn on servicing debt (interest) alone.
Either way, we seen how markets can react when a government announces plenty of unfunded spending commitments under Liz Truss. The energy cap coupled with tax cuts shook confidence. It showed that the next Government cannot just commit to loads of spending plans willy nilly without retribution from the markets.
In isolation, no of course not. That wasn’t the point and you know full well it wasn’t.I don’t think school meals will send the market spiralling like Trussonomics did.
Nah that’s one of the problems we all have a perspective that working together we can solve so much more than apartI would humbly invite you to take responsibility for your own problems and don’t blame a previous generation.
It’s exactly the same for men for very similar reasonsPrison isn’t working for women, Labour says, as it unveils plans for alternatives
Shabana Mahmood tells conference she wants more help in community for offenders and fewer cases going to courtwww.theguardian.com
I wonder how this will be abused.
View attachment 38628
Reeves and latterly Starmer reckoned continuing with the winter fuel payments would have.I don’t think school meals will send the market spiralling like Trussonomics did.
TBH that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. As an aside, apparently trans women are already skewing female crime statistics.It’s exactly the same for men for very similar reasons
I’m sureTBH that wasn’t the point I was trying to make. As an aside, apparently trans women are already skewing female crime statistics.
Starmers conferance keynote is going well, this definitely won't be the only part anyone shares and remembers
And the winter fuel payment was half that and yet keeping it would have crashed the economy.
I explained why I’m angry about the way they have done it in the same post as saying it is not a particular financial problem to me personally.We get it, you’re annoyed at the WFP going- despite saying you didn’t really need it. Always service to self.
We get it, you’re annoyed at the WFP going- despite saying you didn’t really need it. Always service to self.
I’m not sure some people understand the concept of taking a stand on principle despite the issue not having a significant personal impact.I can’t see how that’s a service to self. Who is “we”? Are they two of you logging in?
I’m not sure some people understand the concept of taking a stand on principle despite the issue not having a significant personal impact.
My argument for FSM is that, for the modest cost, it is a high impact policy that would have a good number of benefits.In isolation, no of course not. That wasn’t the point and you know full well it wasn’t.
It is clear that you don’t really see a limit to government spending so every issue be it the NHS, public sector pay rises, pensions, winter fuel allowance, education, free school meals can be done away with just more government spending.
What’s the explanation for the shorter American kids?
It is tiny in the grand scheme of things, so is the WFP, so’s removing two child benefit cap which many wanted, so’a pay rises for docs and train drivers (which has opened a can of worms elsewhere - see nurses, who out of all of them deserved the better rises), so’s continuing to support Ukraine, so’s housing tens of thousands of migrants in hotels, so is sorting out the massive social care issue in the country etc etc They all add up though
What isn’t such a small share is the cost of servicing the government debt which will continue to be a larger proportion of GDP unless we get some more substantial growth into the economy
These are all tough political decisions/ choices with their own pros and cons in terms of costs and benefit. Said it before and I’ll say it again, the governments biggest mistake was ruling out rises to the main tax generators….should’ve just undone NIC cut, said it’s needed for social care and blamed the Tories for it being unfunded, however, would’ve taken balls and probably politically unpalatable
Noted, but you more or less make the same argument for many issues and the costs tally up. You either accept there’s a limit to public spending or not.My argument for FSM is that, for the modest cost, it is a high impact policy that would have a good number of benefits.
How very, very true your last sentence is. If only there had been a proper impact assessment carried out.'Servicing debt' = giving value to private sector investments like pension funds. Spending on improving services does grow the economy? Every penny spent by the government is money paid into the private sector. Where is the growth going to come from if not the government? Credit creation by private banks?
Anyway, the costing of FSM and WFP is very simplistic, it doesn't account for the savings made elsewhere, particularly in relation to the latter. For any elderly person that has a hospital stay that might have been avoided had they been in a properly heated home, the costs of that will have paid their WFP many many times over.
I have not said that the government has infinite funds, but many spending decisions are a political choice rather than a financial necessity. There is also the case that some spending decisions could have an up front hit, but make financial sense in the longer term-see house insulation as one such example.Noted, but you more or less make the same argument for many issues and the costs tally up. You either accept there’s a limit to public spending or not.
£110bn in servicing debt and that will only increase with an increased deficit fueled by borrowing. The NHS budget, just to contrast, was £181.7bn in 2022/23.
That’s massive and with little economic growth it’s an unsustainable settlement.
I have not said that the government has infinite funds, but many spending decisions are a political choice rather than a financial necessity. There is also the case that some spending decisions could have an up front hit, but make financial sense in the longer term-see house insulation as one such example.
In my view education and healthcare should be the top national priorities and my views on spending are pretty consistent with that.
If it had infinite funds wouldn’t it just clear its debts overnight?The government does have infinite funds. It just needs to control inflation risk resulting from spending it.
If it had infinite funds wouldn’t it just clear its debts overnight?
Like paying down the mortgage or clearing it completely?It can do that if it wishes to yes, nobody in their right mind would want no goverment debt mind you as it represents private sector savings.
So it doesn’t have infinite funds then. Inflation, economic confidence, debt burden are all limitations and you know this.The government does have infinite funds. It just needs to control inflation risk resulting from spending it.
One of the many reasons our inflation is stickier than our counterparts is our public spending and debt.
Like paying down the mortgage or clearing it completely?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?