What Goverment spending would you cut? poll discussion

toriitom

The first reduction that this government should make is in MP's wages.

They get paid far too much for all that they do. IMHO they should be paid by results; no results = no pay.

chey_2

I've always wondered if it would be cheaper for the taxpayer to put thugs and others with ASBO's into national service for a couple of years rather than wasting money on legal proceedings and police time. But I know of a couple of local lads with ASBO's who can't get into the military because of their criminal record. So must we continue to bear the cost of repeat offenders?

toriitom

chey wrote: »

I've always wondered if it would be cheaper for the taxpayer to put thugs and others with ASBO's into national service for a couple of years rather than wasting money on legal proceedings and police time. But I know of a couple of local lads with ASBO's who can't get into the military because of their criminal record. So must we continue to bear the cost of repeat offenders?

This is a rant of mine for a goodly number of years.

Forced conscription would lessen the burden on the police, the courts and the prisons. They would come out of the military with some understanding of how to behave in public and teach them some discipline.

earthmother

I don't think the cuts can be laid at any one area - but we are at a point where we have to reassess our priorities, just as any DFW on this site has had to do - in fact it struck me the other day that Cameron was almost doing an opening 'post' on DFW - laying out the SOA and asking for ideas.

I think almost all areas can handle a percentage cut, and that is the fairest way to do it, but each will need a different way of distributing it.

Cut child benefit - first two children only, maybe even means tested - and at the same time reduce the caps for tax credits. Many benefits could be trimmed by a percentage, others means tested/better controlled such as the winter fuel allowance paid to Spanish expats. And stop paying out benefits etc to those who haven't contributed in the first place, be they EU/non-EU immigrant or skiver.

For defence, education, the NHS and law & order - a redistribution of responsibilites so that there are less managers and the on-the-ground guys can have more say in what spending is needed would make them run more efficiently.

Administration and management is a big place for savings - across all departments and areas. Cameron stated that the NHS has almost doubled the number of managers in recent years, and I'd like to bet that's not the only department that has - there's plenty of scope there. Also there's basic wastage such as excess paperwork (our HB and CTC renewals often result in at least 3 envelopes each, the contents of which all say the same and could have gone in one each), lighting in unused areas/excessive lighting of public buildings (were were in a hospital waiting room the other day that was uncomfortable to be in because of the number of lights, half could easily have been removed without detracting from the actual light needed) etc. There was a chap on the radio the other day who reckoned a lot of local councils could reduce their operating costs just by reassessing the use of office space - such as where job-sharers who never meet still have sperate desks, which sit empty half the time, but still need cleaning, heating, ventilating, maintaining etc.

Unneccesary 'jobs for the boys', such as the local council team who over the last few weeks have been (literally) wandering my town 'skimming' perfectly good footpaths with tarmac and actually making them worse (creating a new job for themselves in a few months time when it's all broken down and lifted again, as it is already doing), or the people in at least one of our local hospitals, who are actually employed on the night shift solely to wander the hospital counting the empty beds each night - you're not telling me that couldn't be done on a ward-by-ward basis by a nurse on her rounds and an email, or even on the main computer system.


I agree with trimming overseas aid to those countries who can obviously afford space programs etc. The lower budget should go to the true needy countries in a way that it can only get to the people who need it, not the fatcats at the top.


And just for the record, I have three children, and we currently exist on my husband's DLA and IB, & other top-up benefits, so I've just cut our personal income in more than one place. There can be no 'I' this time around - surely no-one wants their grandchildren to still be paying this off in 50+ years. There's no point striking or demonstrating for pay rises or against pay/budget cuts when the money simply isn't there - it's surely better for everyone to get a little less, than for a handful to be hit really hard.

earthmother

toriitom wrote: »

The first reduction that this government should make is in MP's wages.

They get paid far too much for all that they do. IMHO they should be paid by results; no results = no pay.

Cameron's already done that - and frozen them for 5 years.

globalds

I voted Law and order.

I'm not entirely happy with the Police ,but can see they have a tough job and it must be a nightmare trying to get it right ..

My moan is about the legal system ...
Surely it is time to get rid of the closed shop of barristers and Crown court ....Talk about creating a system that allows you to ramp up any fees.

Secondly I would get real with legal aid ..It looks like another "little earner" for legal professionals.

PhiltheBear

It seems that the assumption is that everyone on benefits is some kind of scrounger. And that, frankly, is b****cks.

I'm on benefits at the moment. Over the years I've been employed I've paid huge amounts of tax - much of it at 40%. I think that the state should stand by me now, when I've stood by it for so long.

Yes, there are the ignorant, lazy, whatever who don't want to work - but I've met loads of people in my local JobCentre who are trying desperately hard to get work. Me included. But the reality of life is that there's a monumental shortage of jobs.

I'm pretty well qualified and have no problem taking almost any job. But guess what? Employers won't take me on because they think that as soon as something comes along that I'd be a better fit for, I'll be off. And, the jobs that I'm qualified for just aren't there.

My local paper's job adverts consist almost entirely of vacancies for 'health professionals' - for which candidates must have previous experience. So, exactly how am I supposed to get a job? I apply for well over 100 jobs each week - all over the country. And how many interviews have I had? Two. In over 18 months of trying.

This situation isn't going to get better - because Dave and Nick are going to cut Civil Service jobs - national and local. That'll put more people out of work. So where are the jobs going to come from?

Before people get all excited about cutting benefits they ought to consider that they may need them themselves soon. If you remember the Thatcher years there were loads of people, many of them middle class Tory supporters, who were thrown out of work. It's likely to happen again.

XRAT

If our Aid is anything like Americas, although the statistics are given in currency.., the aid is actually given in produce. Such as food, that we wouldn't eat anyway, which keeps our farmers employed and destroys the economies of the country it is given to because the locals can't compete with our production levels. Or weapons, which keep our munitions factories open and citizens employed while the fighting goes on abroad. We are led to believe that our 'Aid' is helping, while many of those aided think we are destroying them.

According to the government our previous 'prudent' government spent a fortune on the national credit-card. I would like to see some claw-back from those responsible.., who are still costing us a fortune in protection (though they probably need it more now than when they were in office)

RobinHoodofHartshill

chocolatemaniac wrote: »

I presume you mean that administrative and managerial staff numbers should be reduced??
The numbers of nurses and doctors has not increased that much over the last 10 years, in fact most clinical areas have probably seen a decrease in skilled/trained nurses and an increase in untrained care workers. However the amount of work required has increased substantially. In my area of work my patient numbers have gone from 150-170 per month in 2001 to 650-700 per month this year, we have the same number of staff seeing those people (2).
As for pensions, I am actually fed up with people saying public sector worker dont contribute to their pensions, WE DO!! It's council workers, civil servants and the armed forces who do not.

All public sector workers contribute to their pensions (including council workers of which I am one). The difference between the public sector pensions is that NHS staff, teachers, police, civil servants and fire service pension pots are "unfunded" whereas the local government pension scheme is. This simply means that the former retired employees are paid from contributions the existing employees make, with the government having to make up the shortfall by providing these sectors with budgets that will cover these costs. The local government scheme actually has a money in its fund that it has accrued over the years and so the scheme is self financing and therefore not a burden on the public purse unlike the other sectors' pension schemes. So, please do not make sweeping statements that are factually incorrect. I pay into a funded pension scheme and have had my pension entitlement reduced in recent years because the scheme was in danger of getting into the same difficulty as the others. Where would be the justice in mine being cut back further to pay other schemes?

Also, I agree with the comments about the bankers making the mess and us public sector workers being the fall guys who have to pay big chunks of it back. Our mealy mouthed politicians whinge that all of these incredibly highly paid stock brokers etc would flee the country if they tried to claw back some of the money. How absolutely pathetic! They are simply morally bankrupt and have too much invested in keeping the gravy train going. They demonstrated that vividly with the expenses fiasco. I have to submit a receipt for 50p if I expect to be reimbursed and would be sacked for gross misconduct if I fiddled my mileage allowance to gain a few extra quid. If that is acceptable to me what is so different about politicians that they do not have to follow the same rules - we are all public servants, and the public have every right to know what their money is being spent on.

Whilst we have all of these "professional" politicians (could that be an oxymoron!!!) nothing will ever improve because they will simply carry on putting sticky plaster on the problem instead of making the big structural changes that are required to change this modern culture of 50 people to manage, spend all of their time at meetings and discuss what one worker actually does, and then deciding to hire a "consultant" (did not mean to use a swear word on a public site - apologies) because they did not want to make a decision that they would have to account for....."well, that's what the consultant advised, and as they're the expert, what else could I do" as yet another big budget project collapses or massively overspends. Must stop now because I am so disillusioned and depressed by our leaders and betters!!!!!!!

juliefooleyimnofool

I voted for cuts in benefits, I think there should be a fixed time limit you can claim benefits unless disabled. My husband has been made redundant twice and each time managed to find new work within a month. It's there if you really look!

I would also make very big cuts in the amount of money spent on keeping criminals in a comfortable lifestyle!!! this isn't even on the list!! It makes me so angry hearing about the things prisoners have (Things like xboxes and playstations) when hard working people can't afford these things for their children.