The way it is going, I don't think they will get two terms. When Labour got elected, my initial thought was, that was it for the Tories, a 3 term government. Even after such a short time in power, I'm now not so sure. The financial black hole in 59 months is going to be off the scale. Unless Labour can somehow magic year-on-year growth of the economy they are going to be in big, big trouble.How much did it cost for constant industrial action though? How much did cost over last few years and the subsequent knock on effects of millions on waiting lists when they could be back at work now rather than been on the sick, that will have cost the country billions as well. It’s going to take two terms to sort this shit show out and maybe then we might see some light at the end of the tunnel.
Whilst a pay rise was justified, I too am of the opinion that it does feel a bit like throwing money at them to just claim a quick win.Reeves’ remark after dishing out the 20%-plus pay rise to the junior doctors was that the cost of the move was a ‘drop in the ocean’ compared to the cost of industrial action.
Anybody even remotely interested in maintaining a negotiating position would never make a statement like that.
The Norwegian gov has ‘done an Amazon’. Not one penny of North Sea oil revenues has ever been spent. They invest the income and spend the interest.These unclaimed benefits have surely accumulated too mate, this has been a year on year thing whilst the govt (Any govt) make it harder and harder to actually claim the money.
Are they banging it in one almighty slush fund in the Caymans for a rainy day like Amazon do :)
The Norwegian gov has ‘done an Amazon’. Not one penny of North Sea oil revenues has ever been spent. They invest the income and spend the interest.
As a result, Norway has a huge sovereign wealth fund. 1.7 trillion USD.
We should, but we spent it as fast as it came in. Divide Norway’s wealth fund by the population and they are all rolling in it. Divide our debt by the population and….oh dear.If that's the case and I have no reason it isn't, we should have a lovely little nest egg on the go by now.
We should, but we spent it as fast as it came in.
I suppose it does really as we go deeper into debt. I have no idea how unclaimed benefits are accounted for by UK PLC. On the books as a contingent liability? Unlikely imho.Would that be including the 20 or so billion unclaimed benefits from this year?
I suppose it does really as we go deeper into debt. I have no idea how unclaimed benefits are accounted for by UK PLC. On the books as a contingent liability? Unlikely imho.
It’s hard to disagree with Reeves obvious calculation that taxes must rise or benefits be cut. So far she has just said: “We can’t have things that we can’t pay for.” She spent several years in the Bank of England and is thus orthodox. Watch this space!The way it is going, I don't think they will get two terms. When Labour got elected, my initial thought was, that was it for the Tories, a 3 term government. Even after such a short time in power, I'm now not so sure. The financial black hole in 59 months is going to be off the scale. Unless Labour can somehow magic year-on-year growth of the economy they are going to be in big, big trouble.
The black hole is a myth, a gov PR effort to justify actions such as tax increases. The hole is just the difference between the amount to be spent and the amount of income. Both figures are just calculations on a set of assumptions.
In this case that difference is £20 bn. which includes this govs assumption of the increase in gov employees pay. The gov has assumed over 20% increase, whereas the previous gov assumed a 2% increase. If one accepts this change to be more realistic, fine; otherwise the hole left by the previous gov was £10bn.
Now the killer: the uk budget is £1300bn, so the assumed black hole is a tiny tiny percentage of that.
Politics eh?