UK Coalition Government Comprehensive Spending Review - Oct 20th 2010

borntobefree

Well let's hope it all turns out as expected.

Fiscal balance in 4 years, that'll be great.

I suddenly feel optimistic :j

Blacklight

lemonjelly wrote: »

Firstly, the source I gave in my original post clearly highlights the reasons for what I asserted, though you try to be a clever little geezer & don't include that in what you quote. Funny that, but hey.

Secondly, this response you have put up actually highlights that you intentionally tried to be as offensive as possible.

Firstly, you have assumed a gender for me. Then, having assumed I am female, you have effectively called me a !!!!!. That is deliberately an inflammatory remark, designed to be as offensive, and as hurtful as possible.

You are clearly a vulgar person.

Perhaps you aren't getting any, which is why you have to make such derisory remarks rather than engage in any realistic debate?

Taking your original post:

lemonjelly wrote: »

Excellent initial assessment from s Flanders, courtesy bbc

You are aware Stephanie has slept with most of the labour party? It was her I was offending with my flippant remark, not you. :rotfl:

mitchaa

Average household income is £35k which works out at around £26k net and hence the benefit cap of £500pw

ILW

This no worse off than the average working family seems wrong to me. By definition would this not mean that a non working family will be better off than around half of working families?
A fairer scheme would be no worse off than ANY working family.

Blacklight

mitchaa wrote: »

Average household income is £35k which works out at around £26k net and hence the benefit cap of £500pw

How is that calculated? Based on the average working family with children? Two people working? What about childcare costs? What about families where only one parent works? I thought the average wage was about £25k?

I guess we won't really know until it's in black and white. I also don't see how they can just have a blanket figure for the whole of the UK.

bendix

Well, Osbourne has pulled of another great day, to surpass his initial emergency budget.

Very very impressed. Politically expedient - great stuff about bank levies, extra to find tax evasion, no more assistance to Russia or China, woven into some of the tougher messages.

StevieJ

Blacklight wrote: »

Taking your original post:



You are aware Stephanie has slept with most of the labour party? It was her I was offending with my flippant remark, not you. :rotfl:

No guarantee, in fact the opposite, a women scorned and all that

Wookster

Heyman wrote: »

BBC correctly points out that they've talked about the 'protected' NHS budget, but on the other hand they now want the NHS to pay £1bn towards social care whereas at the moment it pays nothing - so it's not really a protected budget is it?

They have always said they want efficiency gains from the NHS but in real terms the NHS budget is still protected isn't it?

Or perhaps you don't think there are efficiency savings to be had?

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Indeed.

Talk about expectation management!!!!

All that hype about "austerity". And then we get this damp squib.:eek:

The doomers will be gutted though.

To be fair, you'd say this whatever was announced.

They are the largest cuts since the second world war (BBC quote). Hardly a damp squid. Will take a few days to get to the real issues.

First time I ever heard announcements of 480k jobs going and someone saying it's a damp squib. What you want? 2/3 million people cut?

StevieJ

lemonjelly wrote: »

Firstly, the source I gave in my original post clearly highlights the reasons for what I asserted, though you try to be a clever little geezer & don't include that in what you quote. Funny that, but hey.

Secondly, this response you have put up actually highlights that you intentionally tried to be as offensive as possible.

Firstly, you have assumed a gender for me. Then, having assumed I am female, you have effectively called me a !!!!!. That is deliberately an inflammatory remark, designed to be as offensive, and as hurtful as possible.

You are clearly a vulgar person.

Perhaps you aren't getting any, which is why you have to make such derisory remarks rather than engage in any realistic debate?

How are tricks Stef