Jump to content

Recommended Posts

To be fair, a lot of the additional money was to pay for the damage caused by a lack of maintenance during the Tory years.


The Tories saved cash by running the health service and education into the ground.


Like any similar scenario, in the long term the bill for the lack of maintenance far exceeded the costs if they'd maintained the systems well. The tragic thing is that some of the damage was irreversible.


My old man had to sell his school's sports pitches in the early nineties to keep his school heating bills paid and stop the roof from leaking.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/6/#findComment-196331
Share on other sites

Agree there was under investment by the Tories but much of that shortfall was made up by Labour's PPP / PFI projects that didn't feature as government borrowing and shouldn't therefore impact on the government spending figures for last 10 years. There is / was a revenue cost but for most projects that was contained within their existing revenue budgets. So, to that extent, Tory under investment cannot explain a significant part of the Labour over spend.


PPP / PFI costs exist in a strange limbo where they don't appear as Government borrowing nor appear on the private sector's balance sheets.

Link to comment
https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/topic/6060-budget/page/6/#findComment-196396
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • The private sector is not going to build a significant amount of social housing. Everyone is very keen for *everyone else* to subsidise construction of social housing. I take it none of the objectors to this scheme was suggesting putting up council tax so Southwark could build more social housing...? Social housing isn't going to appear in serious numbers if the state doesn't borrow money and build it.
    • They must be really desperate to collab with Tesla. Honestly, it's not even the worst thing they've done. I've noticed these sex events happening in the last few months at a place that's supposed to be a restaurant and venue. I was planning my wedding there and was appalled by the setup for those events. When I discovered what was going on, I was disgusted by how they were using the same rooms as 'playrooms' where families are supposed to eat. The hygiene and safety concerns are just unacceptable. We really need to come together as a community to put a stop to this! They're destroying a sacred, Grade II listed building, and it's just not right. The owners need to be held accountable for their actions. It's time for us to stand up and protect our heritage and ensure that these spaces are used appropriately, especially when they should be serving families and the community.   sex events vid.mp4 sex events videe.mp4 Literally promoting it on their Instagram! Only just taken down after scrutiny.     
    • yes, which properly explains why they responded to me on this occassion, as i included the CQC in my response. I have spoken to the Health Ombudsman, and they feel the regulator is more suited to the issues I have raise for more than a year now. welcome aboard. its great to have you on the thread. so sorry you are also experiencing issues. has this been addressed as yet?
    • Tbh most Tesla owners are people who are concerned about the environment and have purchased accordingly- but mr nut job has soured their purchasing- so I actually sympathise with them being associated with such an awful man. But to actively promote the company given the knowledge we now know about him makes utterly unacceptable. 
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...