Hmm, so, how do we explain this?

Labour has said it “does not recognise” estimates that pledges in its manifesto would cost more than £90bn to deliver, as questions mounted over the economic viability of its ambitious spending plans, including abolishing tuition fees, £6bn extra for the NHS and building 100,000 homes every year.

The Daily Mail and the Telegraph claimed their analysis of Labour’s spending plans revealed it would cost £93bn, or £4,000 per family, though the shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, has put the overall figure at £55bn.

The simple answer, and Occam’s shaving tool might apply here, is that McDonnell cannot count.

Alternative explanations welcomed.

17 comments on “Hmm, so, how do we explain this?

  1. When they think they can get almost 40-50% more money out of corp tax than is paid currently by reversing a rate-change which coincided with an increase in returns, they’re howling at the moon.

  2. And their understanding of 2nd order effects is such that if they banned biscuits, they’d be genuinely surprised if sales of cake skyrocketed.

  3. Alternative explanation: McDonnell et al, don’t give a shit if the numbers add up. Their free-stuff offer is purely them throwing red meat/sustainably sourced tofu to their base to keep them onside for the upcoming leadership contest after Corbyn leads them to their greatest defeat in Labours history.

  4. I liked the commitment to devolved powers to regional and local assemblies.
    Followed by a range of proposals specifically contrary to that including legalising abortion in Northern Ireland, a higher national minimum wage, and a national maximum amount you can lose on the spin of a roulette wheel. So not localism at all then.

  5. @Bongo – it’s just an incoherent wishlist to give the hard left a hard-on.

    And did anyone else spot that that bizarre Labour poster unveiled a couple of days ago makes more sense repurposed for the tories? I mean, it’s still wierd, but it looks like the Mrs May hand is pulling the UK forwards (given that 99.99% of people associate left-to-right as the forwards direction).

  6. It really has come to something when a manifesto contains a boast to build, wait for it, ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND houses a year.

    Cue Dr Evil and his ONE MILLION DOLLARS ransom demand.

  7. abacab, nice job with the poster. I especially liked the subliminal message about big tits too!

  8. @BiW – even the lefties must think the poster is bad, I’ve not seen it shared on FB or Teh Twatters yet.

  9. “Labour has said it “does not recognise” estimates that pledges in its manifesto would cost more than £90bn”

    Well that’s just saying the obvious isn’t it; the inumerate claim not to recognise a number.

  10. KJ – “One alternative. The Mail and Telegraph are right-wing shitrags.”

    If only. The Telegraph in particular has become the Guardian-lite.

  11. There are economic multipliers. Spending cuts never save as much as the headline figure. Spending increases never cost as much as the headline figure.

  12. @SJW: Aah, yes, the magic economic multipliers that nobody ever seems to be able to quantify in a robust fashion. And, there are also other 2nd order effects. E.g. putting VAT on school fees will put a certain number of extra kids into the State education system. Whereas Lab seem to be genuinely baffled as to why this might be the case.

  13. “Spending increases never cost as much as the headline figure.”

    Ah yes, the well known phenomenon of how every government project comes in under budget., and every projected cost of running a government department or implementing a policy is always less than first suggested.

    See Holyrood Parliament, the NHS from foundation, HS2, Nationalised industries, Nimrod AEW3, British Leyland, NHS National IT project etc etc.

  14. @TW,

    …McDonnell cannot count

    Nor can D Abbot, A Raynor (yeah but, no but…), Lady Nugee, J Corbyn……….

  15. abacab: hard to quantify exactly, certainly. But it’s impossible for the effect not to exist.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.