Tory cuts could be mighty unpleasant

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

As you fully know, he can't really give precise figures, as they do not have access to the books.

We both know this is cobblers. He doesn't need to give precise figures, rounded to the nearest £10m would do. Hasn't seen the books? He's seen the budget hasn't he - thats the books. Nothing whatsoever to stop him publishing his own plan. And if the budget turns out to be a lie then he can change his plans, publish the lie and blame Labour.

So come on, where is the meat of the cuts? The programmes mentioned will save peanuts.

Afriend_2

edgex wrote: »

not a government funded org though!

It's a TV tax(?) dear chap.

lostinrates

Afriend wrote: »

Cutting the Beeb would be popular. It's a waste of money and I hardly watch the thing.
I'd prefer the license fee money to be in my pocket.

<self note: you promised yourself that you wouldn't debate with Graham>

BBC Radio four is fantastic. I'd pay for that alone (but I'd scrap the smug comedies, which are just dull). On Saturday we were down your way and listening to local BBC radio....which is invariably dull: so much more could be made of that I think. TV not so much, radio yes.

elwistua

ILW wrote: »

I think part of the problem of the people at the top comes from a much quoted justification of their £100k plus salaries which goes something like this: "I deserve this remuneration bacause I head up a council with a budget of £XXXX millions, employing XXXX thousands of people."
This just encourages inefficiency and overspending.

I totally agree, public service shouldn't have got to this, there will be those who quote the old market forces line. There maybe a justification if they didn't take the final salary pension but the phrase cake and eat it spring to mind.

This controversy would have been somewhat muted if civil servants were paid a reasonable salary given that the jobs "were" safe and secure with the promise of a generous pension at the end of your service. The huge salaries of the few have set the public against the service and ultimately ruined it for the majority.

mewbie_2

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

So come on, where is the meat of the cuts? The programmes mentioned will save peanuts.

I suspect this is the start of a season of cut offerings by both Labour and Tory parties. The public know that either we cut or we pay higher taxes - or both. So maybe the focus groups have told the politicians that the target voters (those in the middle / non affiliated) will be voting for a party that has real cuts on offer, hoping in return that the tax rises won't be too bad.

Afriend_2

lostinrates wrote: »

BBC Radio four is fantastic. I'd pay for that alone (but I'd scrap the smug comedies, which are just dull). On Saturday we were down your way and listening to local BBC radio....which is invariably dull: so much more could be made of that I think. TV not so much, radio yes.

Ditto with bells on. I confess to liking Chris Moyles Radio One show as well.
I wonder how much of the license fee goes to radio.

btw. what were you doing in my area? They don't usually let chavs in.

Mr_Mumble

Can't believe I'm agreeing with Rochdale ... he's right, the cuts today amount to very little as Stephanie Flanders notes:

on the basis of the plans announced so far, this enormous chasm in rhetoric belies a very small difference in what they would do.

As the IFS has pointed out, Labour's plans are front-loaded - they're actually planning to withdraw 2% of GDP - around £25bn - from the economy in 2010-11 by withdrawing the stimulus. Whereas today's plan from Osborne is highly back-loaded.

That £7bn a year saving is by the end of the next parliament. So is the £3bn a year to be saved on cutting bureaucracy. And the public sector pay freeze - the biggest single saving, doesn't take effect until 2011.

By my reckoning, these measures taken alone would only cut borrowing by maybe £2bn, if that, in 2010-11. Or at most 0.2% of GDP.

Perhaps the Conservatives have far more cuts planned, if they don't then there is little difference between current Labour and Tory proposals.

What has miffed me is how the cuts have targeted the working (state pension, public sector pay) and middle classes (tax credits) while leaving Quangos, international supranational funding (EU, UN, World Bank, IMF) and the benefits system largely untouched.

LeeSouthEast

So glad I had my LBM when I did. The thought of getting rid of £15-20k of debt without an income is a rather unpleasant thought.

LeeSouthEast

Note: I don't have children.

Child tax credit/benefits should be abolished. If you can't support children on your own income, don't have them!

Incapacity Benefit: Stringent initial and regular (at least annual) assessments.

You should never ever be able to earn more on benefits than if you were working, or working full time.

Abolish 'middle management' just about everywhere.

Thrugelmir

[QUOTE=edgex;25737165pay freeze for earnings over £18k?
theres people on these boards pointing out that 'average' wages are either £20k or £25k

[/QUOTE]

My comment is not political.:cool:

The level of £18k is generally regarded as the poverty line for family income in this country. Thats why I assume that its been used.

So the interpretation can be infered that every other working family across the board has to accept a cut in their standard of living.