... which would see them spending £2bn to pay for repairs.

[GoldfishLord]

The housing secretary gave companies until 13 March to sign the agreement aimed at addressing cladding issues exposed by the Grenfell Tower fire.
Mr Gove named the 11 firms that failed to sign the contract, which would see them spending £2bn to pay for repairs.

Source: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-65070636

---

I'm trying to understand the sentence as a whole.
However, I'm curious about what "see" means.

What's the meaning of "see'?

 

[Tarheel]

They are looking at spending that much money.

 

[GoldfishLord]

1. Does the "to" in "see them spending £2bn to" mean "in order to"?
2. What's the reason why "would see" was used instead of "saw".

 

[Tarheel]

@GoldfishLord I suppose you could say "to pay for repairs" is a shortened version of "in order to pay for repairs". (I wouldn't.)

When you remove a word from its context it loses the meaning it had within that context.

 

[5jj]

2. What's the reason why "would see" was used instead of "saw".

It's the bare infinitive form following 'would'.

 

[GoldfishLord]

I wonder why "would" was used there.

 

[GoldfishLord]

@GoldfishLord I suppose you could say "to pay for repairs" is a shortened version of "in order to pay for repairs". (I wouldn't.)

When you remove a word from its context it loses the meaning it had within that context.

What do you mean by "I wouldn't"? Do you think that "to pay for repairs" doesn't mean "in order to pay for, for the purpose of paying"?

 

[Tarheel]

I wouldn't want to do that much work. If I understand what a phrase means in the first place there is no need for me to convert it to something I can understand better.

 

[Barque]

which would see them spending £2bn to pay for repairs.

"See" isn't used in its literal sense here. This is an idiomatic and non-literal use. It means "which would result in them spending £2bn".

2. What's the reason why "would see" was used instead of "saw".

"Saw" would mean they've already spent it. They haven't. The meaning would change and the sentence wouldn't make sense. It would mean that they spent that money as a result of the contract though they hadn't signed the contract. That's not logical.

It seems to me that you haven't understood what the entire phrase starting with "which" means. I'm not sure why you're picking on just a couple of words from it. Why don't you ask us what the phrase means? If you don't, we're going to think you understand the phrase but not the grammar.

I wonder why "would" was used there.

It's needed to describe what would happen if the contract was signed.

Mr Gove named the 11 firms that failed to sign the contract, which would see them spending £2bn to pay for repairs.

1. Mr. Gove named 11 firms.
2. Those were the firms that didn't sign the contract.
3. If they signed the contract, they would spend £2bn as per the terms of the contract (in the future).

Those companies haven't yet signed the contract. If they did, they would have to spend £2bn.

Do you understand this?
If you don't go on holiday, you'll save money. But if you went on holiday, you would have to spend money.
It's the same use of "would have".

 

[GoldfishLord]

Is the "spending" in "see them spending £2bn to" a gerund?
That's important for me.
It is needed to understand the sentence as a whole.

 

[Barque]

Did you understand the explanation I gave you in #9?

No, "spending" isn't a gerund.

Quite frankly I'm unable to figure out what your actual question is, and whether you're learning anything from the answers you've got. This is your fourth question in this thread, and all have been about the meaning of a single word. You asked about "see", then "to", then "would", and now "spending".

 

[GoldfishLord]

Did you understand the explanation I gave you in #9?

No, "spending" isn't a gerund.

Quite frankly I'm unable to figure out what your actual question is, and whether you're learning anything from the answers you've got. This is your fourth question in this thread, and all have been about the meaning of a single word. You asked about "see", then "to", then "would", and now "spending".

Even though I asked a question about just a couple of words, your answer to it was very helpful in understanding the sentence as a whole.