What Goverment spending would you cut? poll discussion

ericfish

after reading many opinions of different people i will say this , stop immigration,anyone coming into this country of ours ,whether legally or illigally stop them send them back to the country of thier origin,doing this would stop all payments to them from the social security fund,
after three weeks of unemployment and signing on i have witnessed people claiming benefits while "fiddling" people claiming not to speaking the language of this country (english) so needing an interpreter (at more cost).so they can claim money from a country they havent put anything into , i have been unemployed for seven weeks since leaving school in 1973 and found claiming to what i am entitled to horriffic,after paying taxes throughout my working life ,yet people that have not payed anything into the countries economy get loads of state freebies. this has to stop.
if we went to a foriegn country would we be able to claim all the benefits they claim heare I DOUBT IT .so come on this english government stand up for what is our right and what we voted for .

AnthonyKirke

I would abolish Trident. It is a completely useless waste of money

W_s_n

A.

Defence.

slummymummyof3

Reduce the number of postings that service personnel have and you will save a considerable sum of money in relocation/furniture removal costs.

Look for far more competitive, cost effective rennovation quotes for married quarters. Increase the 'life' of curtains and carpets in married quarters by a further year or so.

Reduce the level of hotel accomodation used by service personnel on detachment - is a Marriot hotel (or similar) necessary?

Service personnel should pay for routine medical prescriptions such as antibiotics (if not connnected to injury in service such as wounded in Afghanistan/Iraq etc) and for dental treatment.

Clamp down on company's that supply the MOD/Services and negotiate proper and valid discounts for bulk purchases - stationery, food, carpets, curtains, property renovation etc.

Rent out empty married quarters privately to reinvest in quality of married quarters.

Use money from National lottery to go towards supplying hospitals with equipment such as mri/ct scanners which are incredibly expensive for the NHS. That way more people will benefit.

Cut EMA payments - students whose parents are over the threshold for claiming EMA can't afford to pay their children £30 per week so why should those with a household income of less than £30k be entitled to it? Lets go back to the era where you went and got a part time job to get spending money whilst studying. This will help to encourage financial responsibility.

Cut the school fruit and vegetable scheme - it isn't working! Despite 11 billiion spent by labour, child health hasn't improved.

Ask teachers who are actually in the classroom, what they actually really need and get rid of bureaucratic managers who don't have the experience in the classroom to realistically pass comment! The same probably applies to the NHS, defence etc.

Aldahbra

Why have pensions and benefits been lumped together? Pensions are what people have earned by duties, domestic or in work place, throughout their lives. People have paid in to these. These should not be cut.

Benefits are state charity.

If recent television programs are anything to go by then families on benefit are better off than we are, where we both work and have two children. It just seems so unfair. They showed one family whinnging that they only had £150 a week to spend on shopping. Whereas I have £400 a month, and out of that I pay for school dinners, not get them for free.

The Welfare State System is counter productive, encouraging the wrong behaviours and trap the very people they are supposed to help. I'm not saying scrap it but what we have now is immorral and unsustainable. It is time to cut it back to the bone, make it simpler, faster and fairer.

trickypockets

Re voting for the Common Market - at the time of the vote, it was just about a trading arrangement, nothing like the monster it has grown into today. That's the only time we've ever been asked.

Didn't the last government get elected with a manifesto promise to hold a referendum ? No doubt, if we'd voted to leave, they'd just have held another vote until they got the 'right' answer, as happened with the Irish ratification vote.

redux

bjemblem wrote: »

How sad that the most popular budget to cut is Overseas Aid. We're in trouble, but we still have enough to share a little.

Also sad is that MSE researchers have produced a wildly incorrect figure for this, and the true level is about half that quoted.

Fortunately, the government have recently stated that this department is not going to be cut, though it has told about 30 international bodies which receive half the money, such as the UN and the Red Cross, it wants proof of value for money.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10272418.stm

So that's nearly half the votes in this poll wasted, and two reasons why.

meher

Britain is one of the poorest in offering aid and Iran, the wealthiest, if you'd check foriegn aid statistics - that's shameful enough specially when the western civilisation has always been and is about living out of resources of other countries. But then Islamic nations are dynamic in their economic policies whereas European and American nations capitalist, thriving on international stage purely due to their upbeat lip service. Also not a penny offered is without strings attached or as benevolent as it's made out - there are trade and other financial implications which keep nations that accept aid locked into commitments and obligations that benefit the lenders. The aid offered during calamities and disasters are only pledge which rarely materialise as it keeps shifting to the next disaster struck needy State. So I think it's about time people really inform themselves before getting all high and mighty about the small aid offered. I'm not a fan of aid but that's for different reasons - I'd like people to be politically aware and force their governments to be proactive about eradicating pverty instead of depending on lenders. But I'd never have reservations about aid offered at the time of disasters - if a human being suffers, I believe it's another side of me that's suffering and to let it happen diminishes me. You don't have to be Britain or American or Chinese to feel for another human beings sufering - in that respect at least we're all the same - social beings. It is a duty in every sense to strive for fairness and make sure suffering is lessened and eliminated if possible even if means huge sacrfice.

To address the poll question, I voted defence. There's no actual threat to Britain to keep and maintain armed force. The wars are also criminal. It leaves people in the dark and that's how we create misguided souls plotting harm, sinning by resorting to violence tactics, to address injustice as they see it. Victor Hugo apparently said this in le miserables “The guilty one is not he who commits the sin, but the one who causes the darkness.” Also wars destabilise the entire region, creating war zones and political unrest - they create refugees who then knock on our doors.

msn73

Hi, this will upset some but most will agree that this government and many before have wasted billions on benefits for immigrants, I am not against immigration but we need to adopt the policies of Australia, they shouyld be self supporting, these people have never contributed to the UK economy and come here and get free money, tighten up our regulations and save billions. I know there is free movement within the EU so we cant stop them arriving but if we dont give them a house and benefits they would not come, I am sure I could not leave this country and move to the south of Spain and live for free, so why should we spend billions supporting these people.

Also I agree we need a certain level of child tax benefits for workers and the unemployed but this should stop at say 2 children to stop these families who dont work having 5 or 6 kids to get more benefits. Everyone is entitled to have as many children as they want, but it is not down to the government to pay for them.

I know this is a long rant but no one will be able to convince millions of English Working people this amount of spending is crucial.

jakey998

eileenfromplaistow wrote: »

Streamline the Police, AND CUT THEIR OVERTIME.

This one made me laugh eileen. The police have been streamlined almost out of existence!. PCSO's with virtually no power now fool the public into thinking that there are police officers patroling every town at all times, civilian staff have taken roles that police officers used to do, for instance in call centres it may now take two or three people to do the job one officer used to do. (one person to take the call and direct you to the control centre and another who does not have the experience or knowlege of law to be able to efficiently answer the call. A police officer would know when a call needs full resourcing or just advice. Ad vice that the call handler is ill equipped to deliver). Two civilians on 18 - 25K PA is a false economy on one officer on 22 - 36K especially when they can only fulfill one role.
It also seems that you have been taken in by the recent Daily mail article on police officers raking in overtime. The part about 'waiting to take a call 5 minutes after the end of a shift to collect overtime' is completely misleading as any overtime that is unplanned, i.e. not organised before the start of the shift, is not paid for the first half hour. In other words in a 6 day working week the force can get up to 3 hours work out of an officer for free!
The police service doesn't need streamlining it needs reorganising and the wasteful civilian and PCSO posts brought in by police authorities, Blunkett and his successors should be scrapped and replaced by proper police officers with full policing powers who can be utilised in emergencies. You cant take a civilian out of the control centre and get them to work at the scene of a major incident but you can use a proper officer!