£100Bn Fund For Social Housing & Infrastructure - Crabb

[R K]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36700080

Someone has been reading my sig. Nice!.

Tory leadership contender Stephen Crabb has pledged to create a £100bn "Growing Britain Fund" if elected.

The work and pensions secretary said the infrastructure investment fund could finance essential projects including flood defences, a national fibre-optic broadband network and Crossrail Two.

The money would come from issuing new government bonds, Mr Crabb said.

Bond yields have fallen since the Brexit vote, lowering borrowing costs.

"The cost of borrowing is incredibly low. Spending government money on infrastructure has therefore never been more affordable," Mr Crabb said.

Mr Crabb announced his plan in conjunction with Business Secretary Sajid Javid, whom he plans to appoint as chancellor if he wins the leadership election.

The duo said they would also bring forward current infrastructure plans, including the electrification of the TransPennine Manchester to Leeds rail route which was put on hold last year.

They plan to issue up to £20bn of long-dated bonds each year for five successive years to create the fund.

It would also be used to invest in social housing, school buildings and new prisons, Mr Crabb said.

Mr Javid claimed the plan could create "hundreds of thousands" of new jobs.

[zugzwang]

Just another £100bn of concrete pouring? Why not make it £500bn and build a transatlantic tunnel to Newfoundland?

[spyguy]

Tie social housing to people who work.

Charge market rents - 10%

Dont start giving social housing to doleys. Seriously.

[Giraffe]

Sound impressive but 100 billion is peanuts. two HS2 equivalent. There's probably 100 billion maintenance backlog with the existing infrastructure.

[sf-02]

It's not peanuts at all. £20bn per annum is a fair whack if in addition to current plans. HS2 is £40bn over 20 years. So £2 bn per annum on average. Not much. Cross rail is £15 bn over 10 years but only £5bn from central govt. £500m per annum. £20bn per annum would enable a great deal of badly needed transport plans nationwide and many houses. But it'd pay for itself by reducing huge housing benefit bill and reducing congestion.

[Venger]

The cost of borrowing is incredibly low for Govts, providing they keep confidence of investors, and who wants to be repaid in risk of ever cheaper pounds?

The cost of VI is incredibly high. Favoured select companies, pay-and-bonuses, long-wave land-prices.

Jan 11th 2014

Since 2008 the number of small house builders—those that put up between 10 and 30 units per year—has fallen by 50%. ...Weak competition means that builders have little incentive to invest in design, which may explain why new homes are often unlovely. And since these firms often operate as little local monopolies, they rarely cut prices: if prices are not suitably high, they tend to undershoot even the low targets set by councils.

http://www.economist...ng-laws-enacted

[billybong]

"The cost of borrowing is incredibly low. Spending government money on infrastructure has therefore never been more affordable," Mr Crabb said

but the cost of construction is exceptionally high in Britain - partly due to such low interest rates.

Doing these thing right now isn't a one way street of affordability just because interest rates are low.

[Sandwiches33]

"new prisons"

Probably to contain all thosetroublemakers on HPC

[porca misèria]

Oh dear. More public money to push up prices of land, and line favoured back pockets.

How long 'til our public borrowing tops Italy's? Borrow at low rates, and make yourself hostage to fortune when the bond matures.

[cashinmattress]

Crabb. Perhaps he can 'cure' the UK's endemic bigotry along with homosexuality?

Gee, let's go after working women next, then send kids back to the coal mines.

FFS.

Edited July 4, 2016 by cashinmattress

[justthisbloke]

£100bn being taken from people or, worse, borrowed in their name. To spend on politicians' vanity projects, pet schemes, and electoral bungs.

[Riedquat]

Sound impressive but 100 billion is peanuts. two HS2 equivalent. There's probably 100 billion maintenance backlog with the existing infrastructure.

But maintenance is dull and unexciting (and means that stuff doesn't fall apart, thus giving you an excuse to push new stuff). Far better just to build more godawful obnoxious sh1te everywhere, it's good for the economy don'tchaknow.

[R K]

Plenty of bile from usual suspects

Clearly a rather excellent idea then.

[Riedquat]

Plenty of bile from usual suspects

Clearly a rather excellent idea then.

You like it? There's proof it must be bad.

[Noallegiance]

Crabb. Perhaps he can 'cure' the UK's endemic bigotry along with homosexuality?

Gee, let's go after working women next, then send kids back to the coal mines.

FFS.

Can we have a referendum on that please?

[Venger]

Hah RK; Usual suspects and bile? Let the £100 billions roll without any challenge.

I simply hinted at a view that too many special VI are involved in the economy, and in many sectors it may not offer good value for money. Other costs exceptionally high / not a one way street of affordability (billybong).

Know of one owner still sat on empty land plot for 15 years because of the rising values, partly due to stimulus measures - outbid an associate who actually wanted to build on it 15 years ago.

- A common feature of all stimulative initiatives, especially those that involve little but income redistribution, without a substantial component, is that they expand government debt. This runs down the national balance sheet, increasing the debt burden without increasing earning capacity. In logic, this means a deeper depression in the end.

Borrowing for public spending projects has to be done to increase wider earnings and create a productive tax return, over the years, to play down the debt.

[interestrateripoff]

And the plan to pay it back is?

[justthisbloke]

And the plan to pay it back is?

All parasites follow the same plan: raise the rents (taxes), innit?

[long time lurking]

I n theory building more social housing is not a bad idea ,but this is clearly a career politician making pledges to further his career,anyone would think he was in the race to be PM

[long time lurking]

I'm pretty sure, combined with government power for land purchase and then altering it's designation, a very big saving on the annual housing benefit bill can be made by a large scale house building programme. In fact make a profit and then cut taxes.

How many apprentices`s could a schem like that train

[mrtickle]

But maintenance is dull and unexciting (and means that stuff doesn't fall apart, thus giving you an excuse to push new stuff). Far better just to build more godawful obnoxious sh1te everywhere, it's good for the economy don'tchaknow.

Yes, infrastructure is boring. "The problem is - no-one has made a major blockbuster movie about the importance of routine maintenance and repair"

... until now! check the link :-)

[Assume The Opposite]

Why the objections? Certainly more useful than HTB.

Or better yet governemnts can print their own money debt free. Why be on the hook to the bankers?

[R K]

Tim

Montgomerie ن Verified account ‏@montie

Given super low interest rates UK should be borrowing more for infrastructure. Delighted that @ScrabbMP agrees

Good lad

[R K]

And the plan to pay it back is?

Investment pays for itself.

Thats why its called investment

[19 year mortgage 8itch]

Investment pays for itself.

Thats why its called investment

What do you call it when your forefathers invested in the nation's infrastructure but your fathers sold it off to the lowest bidder?