'Do you support public spending cuts?' poll discussion

dizzybuff

LSEdwards wrote: »

Can you please link to a newspaper report where Theresa May said this because I can't find one.

You may have a long search because she didn't say anything of the sort.

It was the government , TM stated as well there will be cuts . It was confirmed by government we could be looking at 25% over 4 years.

Happychappy

Forces have been told to budget for a 25% reduction over the next four years ?

LSEdwards

dizzybuff wrote: »

It was the government , TM stated as well there will be cuts . It was confirmed by government we could be looking at 25% over 4 years.

So you don't have a link or any evidence at all to support your claim?

If you bother to look you will see that it was the President of the Police Superintendents' Association, basically a police union, who warned that if spending is cut by 25% there may be up to 40,000 job losses. Complete twaddle.

SapphireFlames

LSEdwards, I agree with many of the things you have said in this discussion thread, but I still find your idea for disenfranchising certain sections of society to be very disturbing and extreme. I definitely don't understand how you can describe it as either "fair" or "democratic". There could be many reasons why a person might pay less than £500 income tax in a year, for example if they are on a part-time minimum wage job, and they are unable to work full-time because they have children to look after. Just because someone is unemployed or underemployed, that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't contribute to society in any way. I personally work full-time and I would meet your "criteria" but I think the idea would cause terrible social dischord. Of course, this is very much hypothetical, as I doubt the idea would ever actually be implemented.

Instead of resorting to extreme measures, it would be better to attempt to solve the root causes of unemployment. For example, in some areas in the north and many rural areas, there just aren't enough jobs. So there must be some way of encouraging companies to set up premises in these areas, in order to provide more employment. Education is also a big factor - many unemployed people don't have the skills necessary to do the jobs that are available; therefore more should be done to ensure that people have access to the education and training that they need.

As for making the voting system fairer, I think proportional representation would be the best way of achieving that. AV is an important stepping stone, but I think PR would be the fairest way.

dizzybuff

LSEdwards wrote: »

So you don't have a link or any evidence at all to support your claim?

If you bother to look you will see that it was the President of the Police Superintendents' Association, basically a police union, who warned that if spending is cut by 25% there may be up to 40,000 job losses. Complete twaddle.

What I do have is hundreds of my colleagues panicking because of the governments incompetance to run a country.

We have been told to expect this . This has come from most cheif constables .

I dont need evidence to know that a budget cut for police will be a haven for criminals to flock to this country because we cant cope with a simple crime.


It will come to a stage where we wont be able to go to burglerys because we simply dont have the resources.

The Prime Minister have a "Big society" ( Yes I do read :P) ideology , where in theory its great . But if we do not have the support of a community riddled by gang warfare because they are too scared to talk . How the hell are we going to get info of crime without resources.

Yes people have to take responsibility for crime in their area, but many middle class people dont give a toss what the police do until they are a victim of crime, then they are not seen quick enough fast enough etc etc .

Maybe LSEdwards , you should ask those who are going to be effected by the cuts and lack of funding. The victims . I see victims daily , especially ones who have had henious crimes committed against them , it can take weeks to get information of of them and years to come to trial .

We can only do what we are capable of , give me a magic wand I will gratefully stop time and investigate every time we get a child abuse , domestic voilence , robbery , rape , burglery etc These victims deserve more than that. More than money , they deserve our time and efforts no matter what.

Im passionate about the work the police do , prevention is less costly than investigating a crime , I live and work in an area where 60k students decend on the city every september , causing burglers to start dreaming about the thought of 6ok laptops, iphones , ipods become available.

We give out cups , cards , hats to make awarness that there are ciminals about . They lead a carefree life this is what we have to do to prevent crime, yet we get slated for prevention.

I work for the Public sector to improve the service we provide. I want to help as do all my colleagues but we are being prevented by not having the resources available.

In fact Im out of this conversation as I have just noticed your post count . HMMMMM See ya

LSEdwards

SapphireFlames wrote: »

LSEdwards, I agree with many of the things you have said in this discussion thread, but I still find your idea for disenfranchising certain sections of society to be very disturbing and extreme. I definitely don't understand how you can describe it as either "fair" or "democratic". There could be many reasons why a person might pay less than £500 income tax in a year, for example if they are on a part-time minimum wage job, and they are unable to work full-time because they have children to look after. Just because someone is unemployed or underemployed, that doesn't necessarily mean that they don't contribute to society in any way. I personally work full-time and I would meet your "criteria" but I think the idea would cause terrible social dischord. Of course, this is very much hypothetical, as I doubt the idea would ever actually be implemented.

Instead of resorting to extreme measures, it would be better to attempt to solve the root causes of unemployment. For example, in some areas in the north and many rural areas, there just aren't enough jobs. So there must be some way of encouraging companies to set up premises in these areas, in order to provide more employment. Education is also a big factor - many unemployed people don't have the skills necessary to do the jobs that are available; therefore more should be done to ensure that people have access to the education and training that they need.

As for making the voting system fairer, I think proportional representation would be the best way of achieving that. AV is an important stepping stone, but I think PR would be the fairest way.

I agree 100% on voting reform. I support PR and always have done. AV is not ideal but is much better than FPTP. Labour seem to have performed a U-turn on this issue, which is no more than one would expect from a party whose only interest seems to be self interest.

There are a number of problems with the economy including the excessive size of the public sector, the effect this has on the burden of taxation, poor education, lack of private enterprise outside the South East, excessive immigration, ineffective and excessively complex tax collection processes etc. etc. What it boils down to is almost complete mismanagement by the previous Government. All of these problems should have been tackled while the going was good, instead they wasted the opportunity.

In passing, I also believe the last Government completely mishandled the banking crisis. I wish the current Government the best of luck in getting a grip.

As to disenfranchising the undeserving, how does this not equate to fairness? I would have thought it was self evidently fairer than giving the vote to people who do not deserve and have not earned it. The principle is sound, the difficulty is implementing it fairly.

I do take your point regarding single parents, although there are far too many people who have children when they are not in a position to suport them financially.

As to 'fixing' the economy, isn't there an argument that the way to do this is to get rid of the dependency culture that is so pervasive? The economy would also be far stronger if we could reduce the burden of taxation and thereby encourage and reward free enterprise.

Jacks_xxx

Apologies for not reading the whole thread but I saw this as I was signing off.

Limiting the poll to only those options is a form of bias so I have no choice but to abstain.

There will be a skewed and meaningless result as people who do accept that cuts are necessary, but who disagree with the proposed form the said cuts are taking will vote against the cuts themselves in the absence of any other choices.

angelizz

angiebhfx wrote: »

zierisaver wrote: »

2.6 million people in the UK are on incapacity benefit - roughly 1 in 20 of the population. In Scotland this jumps to more than 1 in 10. Can anyone really say that this accurately reflects the state of health in this country? It's a joke and something's got to give. It's ok blaming "the bankers" for the state of the economy, but that only reflects a tiny part of the problem.

It's just not that simple, most employers have a bug up their bottoms about sick. So you have MS and you have good days and bad, you need to take time off sick, employers don't like that so someone who is disabled isn't a viable option they cost money. We need a sea change in employers attitudes and disabled people need more support to get back to work. If a person is on benefits and received Housing Tax benefits and Council Tax benefits if they wanted to work part-time they would lose their HB & CTB and would be worse off not better off. Some people can just not physically or mentally work 35 - 40 hours per week.

I volunteer and I meet disabled people volunteering a few hours a week so a great majority do contribute to society.

I think you are missing the point. The poster wasn't saying everyone who claims incapacity benefit is a fraudster, but can you say hand on heart that 1 in 10 people in Scotland isn't fit to work?

alimckay

LSEdwards wrote: »

You say that contractors cost 4/5 times more and you also say you want and FOI request to find out how much contractors cost. Which is it?

I suspect that, if you include the gold plated pension, redundancy costs, excessive sick time, recruitment costs and lack of productivity of full time employees in the public sector, they do not cost 4 or 5 times less than a private contractor brought in on a short term contract.

The private sector has had pay feezes and cost reductions for years and I really don't see how the public sector can be immune from efficiency savings.

Public sector workers are paid much more on average than private sector workers.

I would love you to show us one person in our department who earns more than private sectors, also our "Gold Plated Pensions" are paid for by us the workers they are not Non-contributory as they are in financial services - yes the employer pays as portion as they do for any workplace pension - but they are certainly not Gold Plated.

I cannot ask for an FOI as an employee am not eligible to ask for the information - I know what people I work with get paid - do you actually know what most Public Sector staff get or - how many consultants are employed in the Local Authorities at huge daily rates and what for?
Short term is not what I mentioned unless you count 5 years as a short term contract - I'd love that kind of option and I bet most folk reading this would to so before you point out the Which is it sarcasm - read the whole quote and not just pick the bits which work for you!

We have had pay freezes, we don't actually have a redundancy policy at the moment and a proposed 1 week per years service is not a great one - so no idea what these cost are you seem to know about, sick pay has been halved already and I and the people I work with are amazed that we have far more sick days than others when none of us have been off for more than 2 years due to commitment to the people we help day to day.

No-one is saying that Public sector should be immune if you read the comments but that there are many other ways to save public money before the huge slash 1:6 staff from the staff role which will affect care homes, school diners, swimming pools, classrooms, social services to name a few add to that firemen, nurses and policemen.

And a question for you - if the tax payer owns 85% of some banks are they not then 85% public sector workers so should not be allowed bonuses or overtime the same as the rest of us!

LSEdwards

alimckay wrote: »

I would love you to show us one person in our department who earns more than private sectors, also our "Gold Plated Pensions" are paid for by us the workers they are not Non-contributory as they are in financial services - yes the employer pays as portion as they do for any workplace pension - but they are certainly not Gold Plated.

I cannot ask for an FOI as an employee am not eligible to ask for the information - I know what people I work with get paid - do you actually know what most Public Sector staff get or - how many consultants are employed in the Local Authorities at huge daily rates and what for?
Short term is not what I mentioned unless you count 5 years as a short term contract - I'd love that kind of option and I bet most folk reading this would to so before you point out the Which is it sarcasm - read the whole quote and not just pick the bits which work for you!

We have had pay freezes, we don't actually have a redundancy policy at the moment and a proposed 1 week per years service is not a great one - so no idea what these cost are you seem to know about, sick pay has been halved already and I and the people I work with are amazed that we have far more sick days than others when none of us have been off for more than 2 years due to commitment to the people we help day to day.

No-one is saying that Public sector should be immune if you read the comments but that there are many other ways to save public money before the huge slash 1:6 staff from the staff role which will affect care homes, school diners, swimming pools, classrooms, social services to name a few add to that firemen, nurses and policemen.

And a question for you - if the tax payer owns 85% of some banks are they not then 85% public sector workers so should not be allowed bonuses or overtime the same as the rest of us!

If you tell me which Department you work in I will endeavour to show you how many people are paid more than private sector employees (many of whom who are on minimum wage). As Panorama revealed last night, there are 9,000+ people on the public payroll earning more than the PM.

There are virtually no financial services organisations left which offer non contributory pensions. In fact almost all have closed their final salary schemes to new entrants and have defined contribution schemes now.

I would not like to try and defend the excessive use of consultants by the public sector. Speaking as a contractor myself I know however that in some circumstances they are a sensible choice!

I just think it is a bit rich for people (perhaps not you) to always have a go at the "greedy bankers" when the majority of people working in banks are badly paid. What about the "greedy public sector"?

Please don't take it personally, I am enjoying the debate. If you and your colleagues work hard for little reward then good for you, but the statistics for the public sector as a whole are not so laudable.

Lots of people are saying the public sector should be immune, which I think is the point of the poll.

I agree with you on bonuses for senior RBS staff (and Lloyds), they should be limited to similar levels to bonus schemes for the public sector until the government has sold its holding.