Rachel Reeves is considering changing how the government’s fiscal rules are calculated to allow billions of pounds more in capital spending, according to government sources.
Fiddling, not fiddling with, the books.
Labour promised in its manifesto to abide by the previous government’s rule that public sector net debt should be falling as a proportion of economic output in the fifth year of a forecast period. But sources say how that debt is calculated is now being reconsidered.
One idea Reeves is weighing up is to exclude losses for the Treasury on the Bank of England winding down its crisis-era quantitative easing bond-buying programme, which experts say could open up headroom in the public finances worth up to £15bn.
She’s not going to change the way the profits – already spent of course – were calculated though, is she? Lies.
Another person familiar with the discussions said the chancellor was considering plans to move Labour’s new institutions, the National Wealth Fund and GB Energy, off the government’s books. Andy King, a former senior official at the Office for Budget Responsibility, has said that could give her another £15bn more headroom for borrowing.
Is the govt guaranteeing that debt? Then it’s govt debt, innit. And if it’s not guaranteeing then why are they doing it at all – it’s private finance, innit? Lies.
A third option would be to exclude certain projects from the debt calculation if the Treasury calculates they will provide enough of a boost to the economy.
Drive a coach and horses through that gap. Renewables are cheap, provide lossa benefits, so money spent on renewables doesn;t have to be counted as debt…..lies.
Government officials added that they were also working on a plan to publish estimates for how much new capital projects could stimulate growth, as well as how much money they would generate directly for the Treasury.
So, anyone done that for HS2 yet? Lies.
Etc, etc. This is all Spud worthy.
For none of these changes change the two basics. One, what’s the capacity of the economy to absorb the spending without inflation? Two, who is guaranteeing the debt? Both of those before we get to the question of whether government can invest profitably at all?
Labour promised in its manifesto to abide by the previous government’s rule that public sector net debt should be falling as a proportion of economic output in the fifth year of a forecast period.
………..giving themselves permission to spend like drunken sailors for the next four years before pausing for breath just in time for the next election,
Of course it depends on when the five year forecast period is deemed to start but I think we can guess.
I know their publicised “leader” for now is temporarily TTK, who has been trained to professional standards as a liar by the Law Society, but this pile of ordure does indeed smack of Spudonomics.
And in no way would I bet that any other political party will be allowed in five years time. Blair has his eye on joining with Obama and running their country for the next 30 years…
You could see this coming the moment Mazzucato et al released their report claiming we can borrow and spaff billions as long as we call it investment.
I presume Thieves and the rest were aware of the report ages ago and that the extra borrowing has been locked in for months.
I’m reminded of a bit from many years ago when a new administration (U.S.) argued that certain spending items needed to be accounted for “off budget” because they were important.
Someone explained that this was a legitimate accounting approach because these amounts were written down on a completely different sheet of paper!
John @ 7.48 “ Labour promised in its manifesto”.
As the law courts decided back in the days the last pile of Labour ordure were in power, a manifesto is just a load of lying bollocks put out by political parties prior to an election, to be swallowed as gospel by the proles, but to which no one in said political party can be held.
bis,
She didn’t have anybcontrol over who to investigate, they got tasked by n a top down basis and all she could do was ring the person and do telephone interviews. The system is crap and designed not to go after your mates.
And just because you know a lot of people who do it, it doesn’t invalidate my observation from her comments.