If you were PM... where would you cut back?

MUNCHKIN123

ihatebt wrote: »

The list could have included things such as:

- Foreign aid. We constantly see our tax money (c.£1 Billion + each year) given to India despite the fact they have more millionaires than Britain, a space programme and a multi-million dollar cricket league. And the hundreds of millions that go to Africa to build roads or whatever. This is OUR money. We pay the tax - the money should be spent on US.

- Illegal wars. How much was spent in Iraq and Afghan?

- Benefits. Too many people see this as a career choice. People get put on incapacity benefit too easily when there's not much wrong with them, my neighbour being one of them.

- Non-jobs in local councils. Too many of them.

Just think of all the schools and hospitals that could be improved if we stopped funding the above. Just think of those nurses, policemen and teachers that could have a pay rise. Or how about lowering tax for all of us? Or does that sound too much like common sense?

I agree, especially re foreign aid. With so many people in need at home we ned to concentrate on helping those closer to home for a while:)

HeyBigSpender

If I were PM I would cut back on the administrative !!!!!!!! across all sectors. There is a whole section of society employed by the taxpayer that is simply chasing needless paperwork formed by pointless agendas and hordes of otherwise unemployable business and marketing graduates who spend their time in safe jobs ticking boxes.

More Nurses nursing people instead of filling forms. More Teachers and Nursery staff teaching and nurturing children instead of filling forms. More Doctors treating illness instead of filling forms. Call me simplistic, but everyone working in every sector moans about the amount of paperwork between themselves and what they were trained to do. Paperwork that keeps millions of others expensively employed filing this expensive paperwork somewhere. It's all bonkers.

harryhound

QUOTE=Andy L;23969295]
Depends, Civil Servants (as opposed to other public sector) who joined since 2007 have a normal retirement age (NRA) of 65 (and, just to muddy the waters have a career average rather than final salary scheme), anyone who was in before then kept a NRA of 60,
[/QUOTE]

This will make quite a big difference when the current cohort of graduate trainees are approaching retirement age in 2050. In the long run we are all dead and I certainly will be by then.

mcgazz wrote: »

Why can't I compare France and Latvia? Latvia hasn't been under a "communist" government for nearly 20 years and has one of the most free-market capitalist systems in Europe. The fact is, attempting to get more work out of Britons by turning this country into a sweatshop will fail.

I'm not a rabid capitalist. In most of the ex communist countries there was a huge learning curve required that was botched. In many examples we got a cross between corruption and gangsterism at the top and "children in a sweetie shop" amongst the general population. This Baltic state has been particularly hard hit by debt probably linked to the Euro. A lot of this money has been invested in unproductive assets such as real estate. Not as bad as Iceland but a nasty car crash of an economy..

Are you using Peronist as a general pejorative, without really knowing what it means: or do you genuinely think that the uncontroversial mild Keynesianism I've proposed would turn the UK into Peronist Argentina?

• Strong centralized government, with authoritarian tendencies.
• Freedom from foreign influences.
• A third way approach to economics which purported to be neither socialistcapitalist, but to incorporate elements of both in a corporativist manner. nor
• The combination of nationalism and social democracy
  

You are right I don't know much about the policies BUT I do see a country that should now be the Canada of South America turned into a third world mess. What went wrong?
Looking at the list above and knock out "nationalism" and it sounds like "New Labour" to me.

Do you genuinely think that the uncontroversial mild Keynesianism I've proposed would turn the UK into Peronist Argentina?

The truth is that the present dose of Keynesianism has never been tried at this scale before in peace time. When Ted Heath set the 1970's ball rolling with lesser deficit spending we got 25% inflation. This was only corrected by the discovery of North Sea oil. We cannot repeat that trick.
Though M.Thatched is famous for the TINA slogan; I seem to remember "Sunny Jim" as being the first prime minister to agree that the modern electronic now global economy can transmit "our" money elsewhere in the world in seconds AND THERE IS NOTHING A FREE SOCIETY CAN DO TO STOP IT. Our Government is powerless. Smart money has already gone into Gold, China & Arabian banks - what a horrible result for social democracy. We are playing with fire in a totally false economy waiting for next year's general election.
;
You should maybe explain further - especially given that the Peron Government believed in the same kind of nationalist autarky that Eurosceptics like you sing the praises of (anyone who brings up the CAP twice on a thread about the UK budget has to be some kind of full-on eurosceptic, and I'm guessing you're a UKIPper). You're the nationalist here, not me.

The only foreigners that disturb me are those believers in a pre medieval religeon prepare to kill and die for their beliefs.

I think I would like to be thought of as a global realist. Conceptually I am very pro the European Union and happy to be a citizen. I am proud of the different cultures and concepts we have given to the rest of the world. However I cannot see the point of giving massive subsidies to land owners. Nor do I support unaccountable un audited centralised government. It always feathers its own nest and justifies its expansion.

And again, how the CAP is administered does not affect how much the treasury has to spend - as you yourself point out, the amount that goes to Brussels is fixed [as a percentage of our economy?]. We could leave the EU, but that would reduce trade, tourism, etc, and possibly cost us more in the long run.
You cannot spend the same money twice unless you are a fractional banker or a quantitive easing government. Every pound spent by the CAP has to be a pound that cannot be spent on other things here in the UK.
I seem to remember that M.Thatcher got some significant changes to our foreign aid to France Spain & Italy, quite right too. I think some of the new states, who are not being bribed with other peoples taxes would support us

A bird in the hand now is worth several in the bush

I stumbled upon the responses to a critical article about nice Mr Cameron on the Daily Torygraph web site. A faction was hoping that UKIP would split the Tory vote, thus forcing Labour to try and fail to correct the county's financial mess.
This would give the Tories time to replace nice Mr Cameron and allow a truly right wing government to take over.
Could well happen as a lot of people are being bribed with their own stealth tax money at the moment.

What do you think will happen in the next election?

zygurat789

I expect the electorate to see sence and not vote for any of the oligarchy of 630 odd who have created a regime where all the rules that apply to us do not apply to themselves. All new MPs are determined to solve the country's problems by common sense means and reduce the massive number of laws that turn people into criminals for minor petty offences but properly punish those who deserve it.
Then I saw the last post was at 3.23am and I woke up.

shig

Well the MP's are in recession now and I know for a fact that some of them have gone to Fiji (flying business class) at public expence and one of the MP's ( I can name him) is standing down at the next election.
Stop the free loading MP's sounds a great place to start or let us all book island hopping trips at the public expence

zygurat789

shig wrote: »

Well the MP's are in recession now

Aren't we all mate?

miss_no_money_pennies

:j I am a teacher and so is my mom, we have been amazed at how much money has been put into education over the years since Tony was in number ten and I think it should stay that way.

There is no right or wrong answer on this one but if they need to cut back why can't they cut back on the benefits some idiots, whose children I am teaching, who stay at home on benefits instead of getting a job - my sister went to university had a great job but now due to the CC is working at a local superstore stacking shelves. Its not what she wants but its better than popping out kids so she can sit on her !!! all day (whilst getting paid alot more for doing so some earn upto £15,000 in benefits a year whilst staying at home). Some people take the system for a ride and this goverment is just letting then get away with it.

Also watching a TV prog the other day about border control. Police arrested 5 yes 5 illegal immigrants within an hour, but they had to be released to attend court at a latter date - NOT ONE TURNED UP TO COURT. Meaning they are not paying taxes and sponging off our goverment. The government should deport them straight away then others who want to come to this country would soon get the message - NO SPONGERS!!!!!!:T

JimmyTheWig

miss_no_money_pennies wrote: »

Police arrested 5 yes 5 illegal immigrants within an hour, but they had to be released to attend court at a latter date - NOT ONE TURNED UP TO COURT. Meaning they are not paying taxes and sponging off our goverment.

How are they sponging off the government, exactly?
What benefits do you think an illegal immigrant is entitled to?

stulynes

Why do so many people think defence is worth cutting back on? There's a strong case for saying that the world is a more dangerous place now than it was 10 years ago, this will only become more so when even less money is allocated for supporting the troops on the front. If there's less money to support the troops with equipment and training we're not likely to win any wars either.

With 5 times the amount of money being spent on benefits it seems an obvious choice for attack. In the long term perhaps cut out on child benefits for new born children to stop rewarding this behaviour, and in the short term more stringent tests for unemployment benefits to separate those who want the work yet is unfortunate from those who don't and are lazy.

zygurat789

JimmyTheWig wrote: »

How are they sponging off the government, exactly?
What benefits do you think an illegal immigrant is entitled to?

How sweet & innocent.
More than you and me mate. All you need is a national insurance number, which can be bought and fill in a form saying you've six kids back home in
Bulgaria and sit back and collect the tax credits for them.