-
Doesn't that just show that operational savings will be at the same level as capital expenditure by 2050, so the balance will still be very negative at that point.
Yep, it's also showing both public and private sector investment, so it's not all about Government debt. In any case, I don't think anyone's suggesting that the serious required investment would be paid off within a decade or two, only that it would pay for itself over the medium to long term, alongside hitting broader necessary social goals.
This is really the problem with the current fiscal rules — that they target overall debt and not just the deficit. It necessarily lumps in capital investment with borrowing for operational expenditure, and says it needs to reduce both of these within a 5 year horizon. Any investment that doesn't pay for itself in full within that short period of time is thrown out the window, despite the huge advantage a state has of using a potential investment horizon of centuries.
Equally, it's perfectly within the Government's power to have a monetary and regulatory structure that reduces interest rates for things like green investment, both public and private, making the necessary investments much cheaper to service.
It's certainly not easy in the current political environment, but Labour doubling down on the same old tired lines is getting exhausting to watch.
You are reading a single comment by @slippers and its replies.
Click here to read the full conversation.
slippers
Doesn't that just show that operational savings will be at the same level as capital expenditure by 2050, so the balance will still be very negative at that point.
[edit]
so - a very different picture, if you look at cumulative budgeted versus cumulative projected savings. Even in 25+ years time, there's a negative balance of almost half a trillion. Not even taking into account the cost of servicing that debt.
That's quite a bit of money.