In reply to wintertree:
> It also implies the funding available has a cap - which it does.
No it doesn't have a cap. It goes up and down depending on tax take, borrowing costs and a massive inter-related web of policy decisions. And a whole load of other stuff too, e.g. how much tax you actually manage to collect.
> As it stands there is a lot of money spent, I am amazed that it can't do everything it needs to - 25% of the entire tax take of the one of the 20 wealthiest - per capita - countries in the world isn't enough?
I don't think that your amazement provides very good evidence that there is slack or waste in the system that is best addressed with a cap on the total budget.
> If we just keep over-spending now the future gets worse in a non-linear way with current spend, just like any other debt. Pain now or much more pain later.
This isn't the issue. Opposing the cap is not the same as saying you agree with uncontrolled public spending, even though that is the facile argument pedalled by IDS. You know, it might be politics rather than genuine thinking about how best to solve a problem. What a thought!
The issue is about
how you control public spending, not
whether you control public spending. For example, we all know that the Tories like to give tax cuts that benefit rich people, for obvious political reasons. One might think that the number of people who need state support might have an influence on whether such a tax cut is affordable, but this cap breaks that link. That would be handy if you prioritised giving tax cuts to the rich above providing state support for those who need it. You could control public spending either way, the question is which you choose, what are your priorities.
> Further, HS2 is a one-off, welfare is never-ending, so yes why not kill some projects like that that will be of genuine benefit to the country to temporarily delay the bailiffs. Sound thinking. What do we cut when HS2 is gone?
Let's not confuse capital spending with revenue spending. The question is about the latter, and whether the impact of changes in the welfare bill should impact on wider spending, or whether the govt should trade off
one area of benefit spending against another to absorb increases in need.
Post edited at 21:35