Public sector/benefits to be savaged FT article

whathavewedone

I think there is room for a lot of cuts. I don't agree with the amount of money being spent on prevention in the NHS for example. It was set up with the intention of helping who were sick and that is what it should be there for.

Huge amounts have been spent over the last 11 years yet I think we have a worse service. Lots of money spent on anti smoking, anti obesity and pro breastfeeding campaigns. Lots of jobs created for anti smoking cessation counsellors and breastfeeding counsellors.

Gps got a huge pay rise for working far shorter hours - as a mother of young children it makes me spitting mad that I've had to take really poorly children out in winter in the middle of the night to A and E instead of being able to call a doctor out.

Health visitors no longer carry out development checks, there's a shortage of midwives and nurses.

I think we should forget about spending money on nannying people about their health. If you can afford to smoke you can pay for your own patches - even if you're on the dole - patches cost half as much as fags. I speak as someone who quit smoking recently.

As for giving money to pregnant women as an incentive to stop smoking - words fail me.

If you want to quit smoking you will quit smoking. If you want to breastfeed you will breastfeed (so long as you are able). If you want to live on Mcdonalds all your life no amount of nannying is going to make you eat salad and tofu instead. I just think the money spent on nannying people might as well be flushed down the toilet.

drc

geoffky wrote: »

When will people get it. that the social security bill is the price we have to pay to keep the unemployable from causing social unrest and massive crime problems..If we cut it expect them to come knocking and wanting a share of our wealth.

I don't think the country has much choice but to cut it. What you say may well be true but if it comes to the point (and I think it will) where the private sector is having to pay increasingly higher taxes, higher pension plus subsidise the public sector and all its perks and the benefits system, it will simply buckle. What's more, those in the private sector will vote with their feet as soon as they see that working in the UK is not cost effective (which will happen once all the high paying jobs disappear and the tax rises and cost of living in the UK become unsustainable). Unless the government make it a crime to move abroad or spend your savings, I don't see how the current status quo (which is already dipping heavily in favour of the public sector/welfare state) can go on much longer.

StevieJ

SingleSue wrote: »

In short, can we please not stereotype and call everyone who claims scum or workshy.

How is it going Sue, not seen you posting much, still got that new bloke in tow?
Up the Aces :beer:
Agree with your point BTW.

StevieJ

whathavewedone wrote: »

If you want to quit smoking you will quit smoking. If you want to breastfeed you will breastfeed (so long as you are able). If you want to live on Mcdonalds all your life no amount of nannying is going to make you eat salad and tofu instead. I just think the money spent on nannying people might as well be flushed down the toilet.

I agree, I gave up 4 years ago cold turkey, I went to the doctors after about 3 weeks feeling a bit fluey I had not had a cig for 3 weeks and he wanted to put me on those patches and infect me again :rotfl:I told him where to go! Do the doctors receive backhanders for introducing smokers to patches
Another point. they don't seem to recommend the Alan Carr books and I found the amazingly magical for helping me ditch the weed for negligible cost.

Just check the comments on the Amazon site

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Allen-Carrs-Easy-Stop-Smoking/dp/0141026898/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241865821&sr=8-8

That is my bit for the budget deficit Although I am not sure that stopping smoking is going to help the deficit much, Living Longer - More state Pension, Not buying Cigs - Lost taxes.

treliac

geoffky wrote: »

When will people get it. that the social security bill is the price we have to pay to keep the unemployable from causing social unrest and massive crime problems..If we cut it expect them to come knocking and wanting a share of our wealth.

Are you suggesting that we are now paying people in order to stop them from burgling us?

Shucks, they'll just have to unlearn their unemployability and join the rest of us who've had a hard slog all our lives. The govt should never have allowed it to get to this.

As whathavewedone and so many others are saying, this govt has been misappropriating our money for years. We'd like it spent sensibly in the future please.

If there's a pain barrier to go through, we'll just have to face up and go through it.

ukmike

They just prefer to get diagnosed with silly pseudo-illnesses and live off incapacity benefit.

Which is no longer available to new claimants.

StevieJ

treliac wrote: »

Are you suggesting that we are now paying people in order to stop them from burgling us?

I think the Krays had similar successful business running in th 60's :eek:

Wookster

treliac wrote: »

Shucks, they'll just have to unlearn their unemployability and join the rest of us who've had a hard slog all our lives.

Its work ethic that is desperately lacking. The only reason that Eastern Europeans have done so well here is because the're reliable and willing to work consistently.

Somehow that work ethic has been lost by some of the masses who have been unemployed for several years. Other than the threat of destitution, how can these people be weaned back to work?

Where we are in the economic cycle doesn't exactly lend itself to getting many people into work now. Why didn't Labour get this sorted out during the boom?

Spiv_2

drc wrote: »

I don't think the country has much choice but to cut it. What you say may well be true but if it comes to the point (and I think it will) where the private sector is having to pay increasingly higher taxes, higher pension plus subsidise the public sector and all its perks and the benefits system, it will simply buckle. What's more, those in the private sector will vote with their feet as soon as they see that working in the UK is not cost effective (which will happen once all the high paying jobs disappear and the tax rises and cost of living in the UK become unsustainable). Unless the government make it a crime to move abroad or spend your savings, I don't see how the current status quo (which is already dipping heavily in favour of the public sector/welfare state) can go on much longer.

I think you have it in a nut shell. We can't afford "Our Lifestyle" and we have to decide what needs to go. It's unlikely that we'll all agree on what to axe.

There are a lot of things the government are doing which I don't mind paying for with tax at current levels. However, if my tax is going to go up - well, I've changed my mind. I no longer want to pay for them. I'm happy to pay for smoking cessation programs at current tax rates but not at higher tax rates. I'm sure the majority of voters feel the same.

BACKFRMTHEEDGE

Wookster wrote: »

Its work ethic that is desperately lacking. The only reason that Eastern Europeans have done so well here is because the're reliable and willing to work consistently.

Somehow that work ethic has been lost by some of the masses who have been unemployed for several years. Other than the threat of destitution, how can these people be weaned back to work?

Where we are in the economic cycle doesn't exactly lend itself to getting many people into work now. Why didn't Labour get this sorted out during the boom?

OMG where do you live? I've never met anyone like that in my whole life!