I never said that I disagreed with you @Jamie, although the £6m for Her Majesty was already budgeted for so it's not new money and (IMO) she's worth every penny.
The £1.5bn looks like new money, I agree. However, there is always a "magic money tree" with any Government. Either they increase taxation or increase public borrowing (or both). Neither is necessarily bad, provided the money is spent on things that generate economic growth. That growth then results in increased tax revenues later down the road, which will either repay the debt incurred or allow tax cuts.
Inevitably, it all boils down to political will. The Tories did not want to commit to increased public spending during the election, as this would have meant reversing seven years of stated policy. Had they done so then they would have been roasted - even more than they were. However, having had a "light toasting" at the hands of the electorate, it became politically easier (and necessary) for May to loosen the purse strings.
May 'lost' the election by about 750 votes in key marginals. Ironically, she could have given each one of them £1m to vote Tory and come out quids in. It would have breach electoral law but arguably would have been less morally repugnant.
That said, Labour can't claim any moral high ground. Their proposals were shameless (and quite successful) bribes of the electorate at large, just like Gordon Brown's £500 bung to every new parent in the early Noughties.
(Cheers, Gordo. It was appreciated!)
)
Is the voter fraud investigation a distraction?
)
)
)
)