I'm not surprised at that coming from Lewisham and know of few of those heads quite well (I interviewed and employed two of them).
I don't doubt a lot of what they say particularly around Pension and NI increases, Lewisham was (I'm going back about 3 years so may have changed) one of the highest funded Per Pupil in the country. there were a few of the boroughs in London that were higher but that was about it. Funding was about £7k per pupil. Compare that to neighbouring Bromley at less than £5k, Croydon at £5.3k and Bexley at £5.1k. The staff salary difference with London waiting and on-cost didn't account for a quarter of that differential. Was/is that fair if you go to Bromley rather than Lewisham each pupil receives over £2,000 per year less in funding?
I don't know the additional Pupil Premium funding per borough but the primary school I was at received circa £240k annum in addition. I would expect that Lewisham got an average greater amount than Bromley as it is directly driven by entitlement to free school meals and would further widen the already large gap.
Interestingly at that time many schools in Lewisham were running a not inconsiderable surplus each year, the allowable was 5% uncommitted and some got in trouble for having more than that so quickly had to find something to commit it to!
The school where I as a governor had 21 classes and from a teaching perspective had 29 teachers (FTE), around 40 teaching assistant's and numerous other inclusion staff, SENCO officer etc. One head, 2 deputies and 2 assistants all non classed based (don't get me on that!), they ran a surplus of over £200k.
There were no staff shortgages, no shortage of supplies and lots of extra curricular activities and both a breakfast and after school club for working parents to bring their kids early and pick them up late (7:30am to 6pm). When I see the Head next i'll be asking him what has changed in three years so dramatically as it would seem to me he would have to in real terms about £600k worse off before it truly effects what they say, even the school cust website states less than half that. Will be interesting to get his take on it (he's told all staff recently that the 'cuts' won't effect their staffing levels).
just saw this on facebook very interesting the guy sounds like he knows what hes talking about.
LABOUR'S FULLY COSTED MANIFESTO
So by my maths and some research, this is how it stacks up...
The LABOUR MANIFESTO makes a loss of £12.43 billion per year for the next 5 years.
In context, our current borrowing per year (because we still need to borrow more money every year and are far from being in surplus) is at just under £60 billion pa, which is too high to be comfortable.
Our total deficit continues to increase every year and is currently at £1.727 trillion (or 86% of our GDP). This is worryingly high.
The total figure for government borrowing has only increased since the economic crash, not decreased despite austerity efforts.
Borrowing per year is down though - and this is a significant measure.
The Labour manifesto costs the country heavily and other than re-nationalising industries (very debatable as to the actual worth of this to the country) and giving students free education - will have achieved very little.
The manifesto does expose the UK to a huge amount of risk, however.
The Labour manifesto also compromises national growth by taxing companies more, effecting profits, investment and employment and makes the likelihood increase of our very small number of 1% top earners leaving the country.
- BREAKDOWN OF THE MANIFESTO:
The current amount of INCOME TAX generated by the whole of the UK is £182.1 bn
It is difficult to find the exact figures but the TOP 5% of TAX PAYERS seem to pay around 50% of the total Income Tax generated.
Through some very technical maths, we can work out that those people alone paying 45% tax currently are paying £91bn
Raising the tax rate from 45% to 50% will raise £101bn in total from these people - an increase of £10 billion from the current government's tax revenue of £91 billion.
- CORPORATION TAX only generates £42.7 bn in total - currently at a rate of 15%.
Working backwards from the taxable amount of £285 bn, adding a further 5% would take the total raised to £57 bn - an increase of £14.3bn
- THESE TWO CHANGES IN TOTAL combined raise a further (£14.3 bn + £10 bn pa) = £24.3 bn pa
- COSTS...
Labour want to give FREE HIGHER EDUCATION from September this year.
463,700 students from the UK (according to UCAS) began their higher education last year paying £9,200 pa in tuition fees per person.
This figure comes to £4.26 bn per year as a total annual bill.
Of course, there are three years of education happening at any one time so generally there will be a running cost of £4.6 x 3 = £12.8 bn per year.
- PAYING NURSES more money - above their current 1% pa cap.
Assuming their salaries are increased under Labour by 2% pa, in line with inflation, the bill works out as follows:
Assuming their salary is approx £33k pa:
285,000 nurses plus 21,604 midwives = 306,604 employees (this ignores doctors and ambulance staff) (306,604 x £33,000 = £10,117,93,000) * 2% = £202,358,640 pa .... (this is £0.2 bn extra pa)
- NATIONALISING ENERGY COMPANIES - this figure, according to a left-leaning newspaper, will be around £69bn as an up front cost
- NATIONALISING BRITISH RAIL - the track and infrastructure are still owned and operated by the government so they just need to buy back the rolling stock when the current operators' franchises on the line end. Very conservative estimate of £2 bn for rolling stock and rebranding.
- NATIONALISING ROYAL MAIL - this figure, according to a left-leaning newspaper, will be around £2.15 bn as an up front cost to buy a controlling 51% share in the company
- A SOFT BREXIT - and this is a big one - Corbyn and Labour believe we must have a soft Brexit and to have a soft Brexit we must pay our exit bill to appease the EU and retain definite access to the single market. This bill has been mooted as being as low as £50 bn and as high as £100 bn. I have assumed the minimal figure here, of £50 bn.
Theresa May will not be paying this figure and may well walk away from the negotiation entirely, of course.
- TOTALS:
ADDED TAX REVENUE:
Extra INCOME TAX: £11 bn pa. Over 5 years of govt = £55 billion
Extra CORPORATION TAX: £14.3 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £71.5 billion
TOTAL EXTRA TAX REVENUE: £25.3 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £126.5 billion
- COSTS:
FREE HIGHER EDUCATION: £12.8 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £64 billion
NURSES' PAY: £0.2 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £1 billion
NATIONALISING ENERGY COMPANIES: £69 billion
NATIONALISING ROYAL MAIL: £2.15 billion
NATIONALISING BRITISH RAIL: conservative estimate of £2 bn for rolling stock and rebranding
A SOFT BREXIT BILL: £50 billion
TOTAL COSTS OVER 5 YEARS: £188 billion
- DIFFERENCE IN CLAIM vs REALITY = (£188 billion - £126.5 billion) = £62.15 billion over 5 years
... or £12.43 billion per year
- I have also not costed further promises: - Doubling number of free child care hours from 15 to 30 - Limiting class sizes, presumably needing more teachers and more class rooms - Extra police to fight terrorism - Extra nurses to fund the NHS which Labour consistently refer to as 'understaffed'
A lot of people can sound like they know what they're talking about - I've made a career of it!
Did he cost the tory manifesto as well? (whoops, sorry - no numbers in that one). Or did he say how the tories will cut the budget deficit and reduce the national debt from its record level?
Just making the comment in an attempt to achieve balance ;-)
As far as this circus is concerned, does anyone really know what they are talking about??
Be good to see the results from the last CL exit poll pinned to the top of the post when it goes live, so we can track the changes and differences. Possible Labour upshifts, and where the UKIP vote goes (if indeed it does go down) will be interesting to see.
just saw this on facebook very interesting the guy sounds like he knows what hes talking about.
LABOUR'S FULLY COSTED MANIFESTO
So by my maths and some research, this is how it stacks up...
The LABOUR MANIFESTO makes a loss of £12.43 billion per year for the next 5 years.
In context, our current borrowing per year (because we still need to borrow more money every year and are far from being in surplus) is at just under £60 billion pa, which is too high to be comfortable.
Our total deficit continues to increase every year and is currently at £1.727 trillion (or 86% of our GDP). This is worryingly high.
The total figure for government borrowing has only increased since the economic crash, not decreased despite austerity efforts.
Borrowing per year is down though - and this is a significant measure.
The Labour manifesto costs the country heavily and other than re-nationalising industries (very debatable as to the actual worth of this to the country) and giving students free education - will have achieved very little.
The manifesto does expose the UK to a huge amount of risk, however.
The Labour manifesto also compromises national growth by taxing companies more, effecting profits, investment and employment and makes the likelihood increase of our very small number of 1% top earners leaving the country.
- BREAKDOWN OF THE MANIFESTO:
The current amount of INCOME TAX generated by the whole of the UK is £182.1 bn
It is difficult to find the exact figures but the TOP 5% of TAX PAYERS seem to pay around 50% of the total Income Tax generated.
Through some very technical maths, we can work out that those people alone paying 45% tax currently are paying £91bn
Raising the tax rate from 45% to 50% will raise £101bn in total from these people - an increase of £10 billion from the current government's tax revenue of £91 billion.
- CORPORATION TAX only generates £42.7 bn in total - currently at a rate of 15%.
Working backwards from the taxable amount of £285 bn, adding a further 5% would take the total raised to £57 bn - an increase of £14.3bn
- THESE TWO CHANGES IN TOTAL combined raise a further (£14.3 bn + £10 bn pa) = £24.3 bn pa
- COSTS...
Labour want to give FREE HIGHER EDUCATION from September this year.
463,700 students from the UK (according to UCAS) began their higher education last year paying £9,200 pa in tuition fees per person.
This figure comes to £4.26 bn per year as a total annual bill.
Of course, there are three years of education happening at any one time so generally there will be a running cost of £4.6 x 3 = £12.8 bn per year.
- PAYING NURSES more money - above their current 1% pa cap.
Assuming their salaries are increased under Labour by 2% pa, in line with inflation, the bill works out as follows:
Assuming their salary is approx £33k pa:
285,000 nurses plus 21,604 midwives = 306,604 employees (this ignores doctors and ambulance staff) (306,604 x £33,000 = £10,117,93,000) * 2% = £202,358,640 pa .... (this is £0.2 bn extra pa)
- NATIONALISING ENERGY COMPANIES - this figure, according to a left-leaning newspaper, will be around £69bn as an up front cost
- NATIONALISING BRITISH RAIL - the track and infrastructure are still owned and operated by the government so they just need to buy back the rolling stock when the current operators' franchises on the line end. Very conservative estimate of £2 bn for rolling stock and rebranding.
- NATIONALISING ROYAL MAIL - this figure, according to a left-leaning newspaper, will be around £2.15 bn as an up front cost to buy a controlling 51% share in the company
- A SOFT BREXIT - and this is a big one - Corbyn and Labour believe we must have a soft Brexit and to have a soft Brexit we must pay our exit bill to appease the EU and retain definite access to the single market. This bill has been mooted as being as low as £50 bn and as high as £100 bn. I have assumed the minimal figure here, of £50 bn.
Theresa May will not be paying this figure and may well walk away from the negotiation entirely, of course.
- TOTALS:
ADDED TAX REVENUE:
Extra INCOME TAX: £11 bn pa. Over 5 years of govt = £55 billion
Extra CORPORATION TAX: £14.3 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £71.5 billion
TOTAL EXTRA TAX REVENUE: £25.3 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £126.5 billion
- COSTS:
FREE HIGHER EDUCATION: £12.8 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £64 billion
NURSES' PAY: £0.2 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £1 billion
NATIONALISING ENERGY COMPANIES: £69 billion
NATIONALISING ROYAL MAIL: £2.15 billion
NATIONALISING BRITISH RAIL: conservative estimate of £2 bn for rolling stock and rebranding
A SOFT BREXIT BILL: £50 billion
TOTAL COSTS OVER 5 YEARS: £188 billion
- DIFFERENCE IN CLAIM vs REALITY = (£188 billion - £126.5 billion) = £62.15 billion over 5 years
... or £12.43 billion per year
- I have also not costed further promises: - Doubling number of free child care hours from 15 to 30 - Limiting class sizes, presumably needing more teachers and more class rooms - Extra police to fight terrorism - Extra nurses to fund the NHS which Labour consistently refer to as 'understaffed'
A lot of people can sound like they know what they're talking about - I've made a career of it!
Did he cost the tory manifesto as well? (whoops, sorry - no numbers in that one). Or did he say how the tories will cut the budget deficit and reduce the national debt from its record level?
Just making the comment in an attempt to achieve balance ;-)
As far as this circus is concerned, does anyone really know what they are talking about??
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
It will be 1) for me. I went to bed on the evening of the 2015 election, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the referendum vote, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the US election and woke up disappointed. I can't see this being any different.
I would love to see the Tories take a pasting, but can't see Labour getting enough votes. They've lost Scotland to Jimmy Cranky, that made up a lot of their seats in 2010 and before. The Tory voters aren't as vocal in the run to the election as Labour voters. There are millions out there that will just vote on the day, no fuss, no rallies etc.
Would be great to see it be a lot tighter, I just won't get my hopes up
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
It will be 1) for me. I went to bed on the evening of the 2015 election, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the referendum vote, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the US election and woke up disappointed. I can't see this being any different.
I would love to see the Tories take a pasting, but can't see Labour getting enough votes. They've lost Scotland to Jimmy Cranky, that made up a lot of their seats in 2010 and before. The Tory voters aren't as vocal in the run to the election as Labour voters. There are millions out there that will just vote on the day, no fuss, no rallies etc.
Would be great to see it be a lot tighter, I just won't get my hopes up
Two things Cabbles...... clearly going to bed at these important times is effecting the results.... you snooze you lose
Secondly I now need a new keyboard and am typing this on my phone as your jimmy cranky comment made me spit my tea out in laughter!
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
It will be 1) for me. I went to bed on the evening of the 2015 election, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the referendum vote, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the US election and woke up disappointed. I can't see this being any different.
I would love to see the Tories take a pasting, but can't see Labour getting enough votes. They've lost Scotland to Jimmy Cranky, that made up a lot of their seats in 2010 and before. The Tory voters aren't as vocal in the run to the election as Labour voters. There are millions out there that will just vote on the day, no fuss, no rallies etc.
Would be great to see it be a lot tighter, I just won't get my hopes up
Two things Cabbles...... clearly going to bed at these important times is effecting the results.... you snooze you lose
Secondly I now need a new keyboard and am typing this on my phone as your jimmy cranky comment made me spit my tea out in laughter!
Of more concern surely is that every time he goes to bed he wakes up disappointed!
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
It will be 1) for me. I went to bed on the evening of the 2015 election, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the referendum vote, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the US election and woke up disappointed. I can't see this being any different.
I would love to see the Tories take a pasting, but can't see Labour getting enough votes. They've lost Scotland to Jimmy Cranky, that made up a lot of their seats in 2010 and before. The Tory voters aren't as vocal in the run to the election as Labour voters. There are millions out there that will just vote on the day, no fuss, no rallies etc.
Would be great to see it be a lot tighter, I just won't get my hopes up
Two things Cabbles...... clearly going to bed at these important times is effecting the results.... you snooze you lose
Secondly I now need a new keyboard and am typing this on my phone as your jimmy cranky comment made me spit my tea out in laughter!
Of more concern surely is that every time he goes to bed he wakes up disappointed!
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
It will be 1) for me. I went to bed on the evening of the 2015 election, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the referendum vote, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the US election and woke up disappointed. I can't see this being any different.
I would love to see the Tories take a pasting, but can't see Labour getting enough votes. They've lost Scotland to Jimmy Cranky, that made up a lot of their seats in 2010 and before. The Tory voters aren't as vocal in the run to the election as Labour voters. There are millions out there that will just vote on the day, no fuss, no rallies etc.
Would be great to see it be a lot tighter, I just won't get my hopes up
Two things Cabbles...... clearly going to bed at these important times is effecting the results.... you snooze you lose
Secondly I now need a new keyboard and am typing this on my phone as your jimmy cranky comment made me spit my tea out in laughter!
Of more concern surely is that every time he goes to bed he wakes up disappointed!
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
if its number 3 then for the next year moan about what the people that have voted him have done to this country and say how thick and stupid they are.
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
I went to bed on the evening of the 2015 election, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the referendum vote, woke up disappointed. I went to bed on the evening of the US election and woke up disappointed. I can't see this being any different.
There's absolutely no doubt it'll be 1) above this time on Friday for me.
Corbyn has totally surprised me in the way he has stood his ground in face of the ridiculously biased media attention he's had and presented, for me anyway, a progressive manifesto addressing a lot of issues that are important to me. What he's failed to do, as Miliband before him, is successfully counter the total myth that Labour are always profligate and the Tories always provide a 'strong & stable' economy.
What this means is that the 'shy Tory' that's spoken of can still cling on to this claim as their reasoning for voting for them. We are nearly at 200 pages in this thread now and yet not one Tory supporter has been able to unquestionably point to an an area of our society that is better now than 7 years ago. What's it going to be like in 2022?
We've had a couple of attempts tbf but ultimately it comes down to voting Tory for self interest above all else. I still 'get' that if you've done okay that's a perfectly legitimate reason to vote one way or another but for me it never will be the only issue and it's saddens me that our society is moving more towards this approach than away imo.
Are our hospitals and doctors in a better place? Not for me they aren't. Are our police services? No. Our prisons? Nope. Are are armed forces? No. Is our environment better? Not for me. Are are schools moving forward? Not in my view. What about social care? A disaster in progress for me. What about all the other services provided by local authorities, are they improving? Nope, not at all, seriously going into reverse. Is our housing problem improving? Not in my view. Are we benefiting from improved wages, workers rights and standard of living? No. Not for most of us I'd suggest. Has our transport system improved. Nope. Has the perceived 'issue' of the effects of net immigration been addressed? Not at all. Employment? Maybe, if creating 100,000's of low paid, insecure jobs that still require the worker to receive charity or benefits to make ends meet is a benchmark.
I could go on but you get the picture. There's pretty much nothing that the Tories can point to and say, "Look, that's much better than it was!", yet astonishingly in 48 hours they will have improved their majority.
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
if its number 3 then for the next year moan about what the people that have voted him have done to this country and say how thick and stupid they are.
If number 3 comes true, then I am going to have a tattoo of Diane Abbott put onto my..........
Maybe a hung parliament with a coalition of losers leading Labour in to number 10 - but they ain't gonna have more seats than the Tories.
Or to look at it the other way, is the UK population going to continue to watch as the NHS falls apart, kids leave Uni saddled with debt (and no way of finding a place of their own), old people suffer indignity and worse as the care system collapses, the police and security system buckles while trying to deal with the terrorist threat; and yet still allows itself to be led into a frothing rage by the Daily Mail when some hapless politician suggests that there might need to be a tax rise to help fix these things?
I don't think we are disagreeing in the main Prague, but neither of our main parties have a clue how or what to do or more likely it's all about getting elected and they won't say things unpalatable to their audiences. Can you imagine in labour strongholds if they had proposed the Denmark model, i.e. you pay income taxes on nearly every penny ranging from 35-55%? Plus anything you buy with whats left will cost 5% more (assuming it attracts VAT).
And before someone trots out the nurses visiting food banks..... A nurse in Denmark is paid more than the UK, around £35,000. However they will pay over 40% of their total salary in income tax so would net a similar amount to a UK nurse (19-20k).
We all have an honest decision to make (or maybe we don't), are we all prepared to receive less in our pay packets to have a better NHS, Police, State etc etc........... i think sadly if any party actually put that forward they'd get no where near being elected as we've built a society of expectation and of someone else paying for it, or what we used to refer to as 'the never never'.
The one bit we may disagree on is property, i'm not saying it's easy but buying your first property never has been and has always meant sacrifices, whether that be 2nd jobs 5-6 nights a week like I did, or renting a room in a shared house for the first few years of marriage and then moving out of Eltham to Rainham in Kent like my parents did (who both worked in the city).
Are people really saying 2 x young city workers couldn't afford to buy an average semi in Rainham Kent at circa £275k if they saved up for 5 years? Or is it they still want to go out at least 3 nights a week, eat out, have a nice car, contract mobile phone, 50" TV and a sky subscription - and also buy a pad in an expensive part of the UK (London). I've lost count of the times I've had this conversation with people who work for me, who when I sit them down and go through their expenditure they don't see any issue (only entitlement) of spending 50% of their salaries (say £35k) on new cars on HP, going out/eating out, spending £10 in pret at lunch, mobile phones, 2 weeks in the sun, an uber account etc etc. It's simply a matter of priorities, buy an old banger or get the bus, restrict yourself to a pay as you go phone, get Freeview not Sky, stay in more, make a packed lunch and don't buy 3 coffees a day in Starbucks!
Indeed. I was with you until we got to property.
Maybe you read before, I established that in the time since I left for Prague in 1993, the salary of the job I had has gone up by about 80%, but the value of my house has gone up 550%. Now the thing is that the job I had was a decent one by most standards, it would have put me in the famous top 5%. However the house, well its in Surbiton, so a fair way out from London and importantly I wasn't married and sometimes had two flatmates helping pay the mortgage. Especially useful when interest rates went to 15%. So I had a decent life, but I wasnt exactly living like those City types who eat wherever they like and don't even look at the bill. Now? Obviously my equivalent couldn't even live as I did.
Looking through your prescription for how young city workers should live, one thing is clear. You are saying that they should expect a standard of living that is far worse than that enjoyed by equivalent qualified people 20-25 years ago. You could see why they might be a bit pissed off by that when they look at the growth of the country's GDP since then, and the evidence of super riches all round London which were not there when I left. I am not sure entitlement is the right word to describe their attitude, if you look at it like that.
I looked up the GDP per capita PPP adjusted figures for the period in question
1993: £19,059 2014: £40, 233
So it's more than doubled, but you expect young city workers, presumably graduates who are working hard to get on, to bring a packed lunch? Wow. Just, wow. I am not having a go at you for suggesting how they save. I am asking how is it possible they have to live like I never did when their contribution to GDP has doubled compared to my day?
Again I ask, where does all the money in Britain go???
New cars. Drive around the UK & try and find a car with a plate older than 8 years old. Figures out last week showed that loans to buy cars on "balloon payment" finance is the highest its ever been. When I started to drive (30 yrs ago) a lot of people drove old cars & youngsters bought bangers - not anymore. A typical monthly payment is around £250 pm & I know people paying almost £500 pm
To be fair, back in 1969, when I passed my test, you'd be stretched to find a car older than eight years old then either. Mind you, that was because they didn't last that long before transforming themselves into a small pile of rust.
just saw this on facebook very interesting the guy sounds like he knows what hes talking about.
LABOUR'S FULLY COSTED MANIFESTO
So by my maths and some research, this is how it stacks up...
The LABOUR MANIFESTO makes a loss of £12.43 billion per year for the next 5 years.
In context, our current borrowing per year (because we still need to borrow more money every year and are far from being in surplus) is at just under £60 billion pa, which is too high to be comfortable.
Our total deficit continues to increase every year and is currently at £1.727 trillion (or 86% of our GDP). This is worryingly high.
The total figure for government borrowing has only increased since the economic crash, not decreased despite austerity efforts.
Borrowing per year is down though - and this is a significant measure.
The Labour manifesto costs the country heavily and other than re-nationalising industries (very debatable as to the actual worth of this to the country) and giving students free education - will have achieved very little.
The manifesto does expose the UK to a huge amount of risk, however.
The Labour manifesto also compromises national growth by taxing companies more, effecting profits, investment and employment and makes the likelihood increase of our very small number of 1% top earners leaving the country.
- BREAKDOWN OF THE MANIFESTO:
The current amount of INCOME TAX generated by the whole of the UK is £182.1 bn
It is difficult to find the exact figures but the TOP 5% of TAX PAYERS seem to pay around 50% of the total Income Tax generated.
Through some very technical maths, we can work out that those people alone paying 45% tax currently are paying £91bn
Raising the tax rate from 45% to 50% will raise £101bn in total from these people - an increase of £10 billion from the current government's tax revenue of £91 billion.
- CORPORATION TAX only generates £42.7 bn in total - currently at a rate of 15%.
Working backwards from the taxable amount of £285 bn, adding a further 5% would take the total raised to £57 bn - an increase of £14.3bn
- THESE TWO CHANGES IN TOTAL combined raise a further (£14.3 bn + £10 bn pa) = £24.3 bn pa
- COSTS...
Labour want to give FREE HIGHER EDUCATION from September this year.
463,700 students from the UK (according to UCAS) began their higher education last year paying £9,200 pa in tuition fees per person.
This figure comes to £4.26 bn per year as a total annual bill.
Of course, there are three years of education happening at any one time so generally there will be a running cost of £4.6 x 3 = £12.8 bn per year.
- PAYING NURSES more money - above their current 1% pa cap.
Assuming their salaries are increased under Labour by 2% pa, in line with inflation, the bill works out as follows:
Assuming their salary is approx £33k pa:
285,000 nurses plus 21,604 midwives = 306,604 employees (this ignores doctors and ambulance staff) (306,604 x £33,000 = £10,117,93,000) * 2% = £202,358,640 pa .... (this is £0.2 bn extra pa)
- NATIONALISING ENERGY COMPANIES - this figure, according to a left-leaning newspaper, will be around £69bn as an up front cost
- NATIONALISING BRITISH RAIL - the track and infrastructure are still owned and operated by the government so they just need to buy back the rolling stock when the current operators' franchises on the line end. Very conservative estimate of £2 bn for rolling stock and rebranding.
- NATIONALISING ROYAL MAIL - this figure, according to a left-leaning newspaper, will be around £2.15 bn as an up front cost to buy a controlling 51% share in the company
- A SOFT BREXIT - and this is a big one - Corbyn and Labour believe we must have a soft Brexit and to have a soft Brexit we must pay our exit bill to appease the EU and retain definite access to the single market. This bill has been mooted as being as low as £50 bn and as high as £100 bn. I have assumed the minimal figure here, of £50 bn.
Theresa May will not be paying this figure and may well walk away from the negotiation entirely, of course.
- TOTALS:
ADDED TAX REVENUE:
Extra INCOME TAX: £11 bn pa. Over 5 years of govt = £55 billion
Extra CORPORATION TAX: £14.3 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £71.5 billion
TOTAL EXTRA TAX REVENUE: £25.3 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £126.5 billion
- COSTS:
FREE HIGHER EDUCATION: £12.8 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £64 billion
NURSES' PAY: £0.2 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £1 billion
NATIONALISING ENERGY COMPANIES: £69 billion
NATIONALISING ROYAL MAIL: £2.15 billion
NATIONALISING BRITISH RAIL: conservative estimate of £2 bn for rolling stock and rebranding
A SOFT BREXIT BILL: £50 billion
TOTAL COSTS OVER 5 YEARS: £188 billion
- DIFFERENCE IN CLAIM vs REALITY = (£188 billion - £126.5 billion) = £62.15 billion over 5 years
... or £12.43 billion per year
- I have also not costed further promises: - Doubling number of free child care hours from 15 to 30 - Limiting class sizes, presumably needing more teachers and more class rooms - Extra police to fight terrorism - Extra nurses to fund the NHS which Labour consistently refer to as 'understaffed'
just saw this on facebook very interesting the guy sounds like he knows what hes talking about.
LABOUR'S FULLY COSTED MANIFESTO
So by my maths and some research, this is how it stacks up...
The LABOUR MANIFESTO makes a loss of £12.43 billion per year for the next 5 years.
In context, our current borrowing per year (because we still need to borrow more money every year and are far from being in surplus) is at just under £60 billion pa, which is too high to be comfortable.
Our total deficit continues to increase every year and is currently at £1.727 trillion (or 86% of our GDP). This is worryingly high.
The total figure for government borrowing has only increased since the economic crash, not decreased despite austerity efforts.
Borrowing per year is down though - and this is a significant measure.
The Labour manifesto costs the country heavily and other than re-nationalising industries (very debatable as to the actual worth of this to the country) and giving students free education - will have achieved very little.
The manifesto does expose the UK to a huge amount of risk, however.
The Labour manifesto also compromises national growth by taxing companies more, effecting profits, investment and employment and makes the likelihood increase of our very small number of 1% top earners leaving the country.
- BREAKDOWN OF THE MANIFESTO:
The current amount of INCOME TAX generated by the whole of the UK is £182.1 bn
It is difficult to find the exact figures but the TOP 5% of TAX PAYERS seem to pay around 50% of the total Income Tax generated.
Through some very technical maths, we can work out that those people alone paying 45% tax currently are paying £91bn
Raising the tax rate from 45% to 50% will raise £101bn in total from these people - an increase of £10 billion from the current government's tax revenue of £91 billion.
- CORPORATION TAX only generates £42.7 bn in total - currently at a rate of 15%.
Working backwards from the taxable amount of £285 bn, adding a further 5% would take the total raised to £57 bn - an increase of £14.3bn
- THESE TWO CHANGES IN TOTAL combined raise a further (£14.3 bn + £10 bn pa) = £24.3 bn pa
- COSTS...
Labour want to give FREE HIGHER EDUCATION from September this year.
463,700 students from the UK (according to UCAS) began their higher education last year paying £9,200 pa in tuition fees per person.
This figure comes to £4.26 bn per year as a total annual bill.
Of course, there are three years of education happening at any one time so generally there will be a running cost of £4.6 x 3 = £12.8 bn per year.
- PAYING NURSES more money - above their current 1% pa cap.
Assuming their salaries are increased under Labour by 2% pa, in line with inflation, the bill works out as follows:
Assuming their salary is approx £33k pa:
285,000 nurses plus 21,604 midwives = 306,604 employees (this ignores doctors and ambulance staff) (306,604 x £33,000 = £10,117,93,000) * 2% = £202,358,640 pa .... (this is £0.2 bn extra pa)
- NATIONALISING ENERGY COMPANIES - this figure, according to a left-leaning newspaper, will be around £69bn as an up front cost
- NATIONALISING BRITISH RAIL - the track and infrastructure are still owned and operated by the government so they just need to buy back the rolling stock when the current operators' franchises on the line end. Very conservative estimate of £2 bn for rolling stock and rebranding.
- NATIONALISING ROYAL MAIL - this figure, according to a left-leaning newspaper, will be around £2.15 bn as an up front cost to buy a controlling 51% share in the company
- A SOFT BREXIT - and this is a big one - Corbyn and Labour believe we must have a soft Brexit and to have a soft Brexit we must pay our exit bill to appease the EU and retain definite access to the single market. This bill has been mooted as being as low as £50 bn and as high as £100 bn. I have assumed the minimal figure here, of £50 bn.
Theresa May will not be paying this figure and may well walk away from the negotiation entirely, of course.
- TOTALS:
ADDED TAX REVENUE:
Extra INCOME TAX: £11 bn pa. Over 5 years of govt = £55 billion
Extra CORPORATION TAX: £14.3 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £71.5 billion
TOTAL EXTRA TAX REVENUE: £25.3 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £126.5 billion
- COSTS:
FREE HIGHER EDUCATION: £12.8 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £64 billion
NURSES' PAY: £0.2 bn per year. Over 5 years of govt = £1 billion
NATIONALISING ENERGY COMPANIES: £69 billion
NATIONALISING ROYAL MAIL: £2.15 billion
NATIONALISING BRITISH RAIL: conservative estimate of £2 bn for rolling stock and rebranding
A SOFT BREXIT BILL: £50 billion
TOTAL COSTS OVER 5 YEARS: £188 billion
- DIFFERENCE IN CLAIM vs REALITY = (£188 billion - £126.5 billion) = £62.15 billion over 5 years
... or £12.43 billion per year
- I have also not costed further promises: - Doubling number of free child care hours from 15 to 30 - Limiting class sizes, presumably needing more teachers and more class rooms - Extra police to fight terrorism - Extra nurses to fund the NHS which Labour consistently refer to as 'understaffed'
Would need to see more (well any) of the working out as at the moment you are asking us to take them at their word.
But some things that stand out (after a quick look through) are:-
1. Corporation Tax is at 19% not 15%. 2. Theresa May won't pay a Brexit divorce bill is conjecture and does not calculate what the cost would be of a no deal Brexit. E.g we would have no agreement in place to land planes in the EU which is ludicrous. 3. The cost of pay rises to NHS staff- have you seen how much we pay in agency costs? 4. Labour will tell you that their nationalising plans will bring money to the Exchequer. Rail will be as and when whilst energy is not full re-nationalisation just a model that allows the state to set up in regional competition.
So that is £120 billion of his calculation over five years out the window which by his calculations would leave a surplus of 1.2 billion every year for five years.
See above, he was merely stating it was an issue in the past and school budgets are shrinking - If you want to tell me they are not when my wife works in a school you might just start to irritate a bit too much - best leave it there I think.
See above, he was merely stating it was an issue in the past and school budgets are shrinking - If you want to tell me they are not when my wife works in a school you might just start to irritate a bit too much - best leave it there I think.
Not sure if that related to something I posted Muttley?
FWIW we are in the same club, my wife also works in a school.
Well please dont try to make out schools are not facing cuts because they are. Serious ones!
We are facing another 5 years of this crap and I have absolutely no patience for being told we are putting more money into schools and the NHS. You may be able to insult some people's intelligence but please don't try and insult mine.
1) Shy Tory syndrome rears its head again and May increases her majority, as was always expected. Corbyn is crushed and Labour finally ousts him. Most likely result.
2) Reduced Tory majority or even hung Parliament. Wolves baying for May. Somewhat less likely.
3) Labour is largest party. Very unlikely.
Thursday 22.05 ought to be interesting like it was last time.
if its number 3 then for the next year moan about what the people that have voted him have done to this country and say how thick and stupid they are.
But when the results of the analysis of the educational backgrounds of the people who voted for each party are published by the polling companies it will be hard to make that claim stick. In fact the results will clearly show the opposite.
Unlike the results of the analysis of the Brexit vote which clearly showed the thick and stupid vote overly represented on the Leave side.
Comments
I don't doubt a lot of what they say particularly around Pension and NI increases, Lewisham was (I'm going back about 3 years so may have changed) one of the highest funded Per Pupil in the country. there were a few of the boroughs in London that were higher but that was about it. Funding was about £7k per pupil. Compare that to neighbouring Bromley at less than £5k, Croydon at £5.3k and Bexley at £5.1k. The staff salary difference with London waiting and on-cost didn't account for a quarter of that differential. Was/is that fair if you go to Bromley rather than Lewisham each pupil receives over £2,000 per year less in funding?
I don't know the additional Pupil Premium funding per borough but the primary school I was at received circa £240k annum in addition. I would expect that Lewisham got an average greater amount than Bromley as it is directly driven by entitlement to free school meals and would further widen the already large gap.
Interestingly at that time many schools in Lewisham were running a not inconsiderable surplus each year, the allowable was 5% uncommitted and some got in trouble for having more than that so quickly had to find something to commit it to!
The school where I as a governor had 21 classes and from a teaching perspective had 29 teachers (FTE), around 40 teaching assistant's and numerous other inclusion staff, SENCO officer etc. One head, 2 deputies and 2 assistants all non classed based (don't get me on that!), they ran a surplus of over £200k.
There were no staff shortgages, no shortage of supplies and lots of extra curricular activities and both a breakfast and after school club for working parents to bring their kids early and pick them up late (7:30am to 6pm). When I see the Head next i'll be asking him what has changed in three years so dramatically as it would seem to me he would have to in real terms about £600k worse off before it truly effects what they say, even the school cust website states less than half that. Will be interesting to get his take on it (he's told all staff recently that the 'cuts' won't effect their staffing levels).
I would love to see the Tories take a pasting, but can't see Labour getting enough votes. They've lost Scotland to Jimmy Cranky, that made up a lot of their seats in 2010 and before. The Tory voters aren't as vocal in the run to the election as Labour voters. There are millions out there that will just vote on the day, no fuss, no rallies etc.
Would be great to see it be a lot tighter, I just won't get my hopes up
Secondly I now need a new keyboard and am typing this on my phone as your jimmy cranky comment made me spit my tea out in laughter!
Not as concerned as his other half.
It will be whoever is Prime Minster at the time. So either Boris, Michael Fallon, Philip Hammond or Amber Rudd.
Corbyn has totally surprised me in the way he has stood his ground in face of the ridiculously biased media attention he's had and presented, for me anyway, a progressive manifesto addressing a lot of issues that are important to me. What he's failed to do, as Miliband before him, is successfully counter the total myth that Labour are always profligate and the Tories always provide a 'strong & stable' economy.
What this means is that the 'shy Tory' that's spoken of can still cling on to this claim as their reasoning for voting for them. We are nearly at 200 pages in this thread now and yet not one Tory supporter has been able to unquestionably point to an an area of our society that is better now than 7 years ago. What's it going to be like in 2022?
We've had a couple of attempts tbf but ultimately it comes down to voting Tory for self interest above all else. I still 'get' that if you've done okay that's a perfectly legitimate reason to vote one way or another but for me it never will be the only issue and it's saddens me that our society is moving more towards this approach than away imo.
Are our hospitals and doctors in a better place? Not for me they aren't.
Are our police services? No.
Our prisons? Nope.
Are are armed forces? No.
Is our environment better? Not for me.
Are are schools moving forward? Not in my view.
What about social care? A disaster in progress for me.
What about all the other services provided by local authorities, are they improving? Nope, not at all, seriously going into reverse.
Is our housing problem improving? Not in my view.
Are we benefiting from improved wages, workers rights and standard of living? No. Not for most of us I'd suggest.
Has our transport system improved. Nope.
Has the perceived 'issue' of the effects of net immigration been addressed? Not at all.
Employment? Maybe, if creating 100,000's of low paid, insecure jobs that still require the worker to receive charity or benefits to make ends meet is a benchmark.
I could go on but you get the picture. There's pretty much nothing that the Tories can point to and say, "Look, that's much better than it was!", yet astonishingly in 48 hours they will have improved their majority.
Maybe a hung parliament with a coalition of losers leading Labour in to number 10 - but they ain't gonna have more seats than the Tories.
This guy surely?
But some things that stand out (after a quick look through) are:-
1. Corporation Tax is at 19% not 15%.
2. Theresa May won't pay a Brexit divorce bill is conjecture and does not calculate what the cost would be of a no deal Brexit. E.g we would have no agreement in place to land planes in the EU which is ludicrous.
3. The cost of pay rises to NHS staff- have you seen how much we pay in agency costs?
4. Labour will tell you that their nationalising plans will bring money to the Exchequer. Rail will be as and when whilst energy is not full re-nationalisation just a model that allows the state to set up in regional competition.
So that is £120 billion of his calculation over five years out the window which by his calculations would leave a surplus of 1.2 billion every year for five years.
FWIW we are in the same club, my wife also works in a school.
We are facing another 5 years of this crap and I have absolutely no patience for being told we are putting more money into schools and the NHS. You may be able to insult some people's intelligence but please don't try and insult mine.
Unlike the results of the analysis of the Brexit vote which clearly showed the thick and stupid vote overly represented on the Leave side.