Shameless labour

ILW

So where does the extra money come from? We are already spending more than we are earning and have been for the last decade.

lynzpower

You can still spend less money and get the same outcomes. Dont you find it baffling how some of these outsourcers to the UK are paid multi millions for failed it systems or how a school can also cost millions, yet these outsourcers have massive profits and huge bonuses? When private companies charging more for NHS surgeries get given the contracts anyway? Vodaphone didnt pay millions in taxes, yet smoking cessation clinics are being stopped, libraries and nurseries closed? Dont you see something wrong here? Or that the costs of care to older and disabled people get less care in thier own homes? Or that a head teacher can pull in 100k a year, is that not a bit wrong?

Some of the later benefits were over generous and that led to housing inflation costs, simply reducing housing inflation frees up extra money for people to spend.

ILW

lynzpower wrote: »

You can still spend less money and get the same outcomes. Dont you find it baffling how some of these outsourcers to the UK are paid multi millions for failed it systems or how a school can also cost millions, yet these outsourcers have massive profits and huge bonuses? When private companies charging more for NHS surgeries get given the contracts anyway? Vodaphone didnt pay millions in taxes, yet smoking cessation clinics are being stopped, libraries and nurseries closed? Dont you see something wrong here? Or that the costs of care to older and disabled people get less care in thier own homes? Or that a head teacher can pull in 100k a year, is that not a bit wrong?

Some of the later benefits were over generous and that led to housing inflation costs, simply reducing housing inflation frees up extra money for people to spend.

I get the impression that that is what the current government are trying to do, sadly the previous government just threw money at every percieved problem with no thought of how it was going to be paid for.

mbga9pgf

Nor how it was supposed to be best spent.

nick-mob

The current government, regardless of who's in control, is a huge, wasteful machine that needs to be seriously reduced, and made more efficient. Even something like centralised government purchasing was estimated would save at least £1bn a year if I remember rightly? Don't get me started on the joke of a tax system and the waste there.

Degenerate

Wookster wrote: »

2.9 Million people on DLA on a population of 70M. That's 4.5% of the population, probably 10% of the working population.

It is absolute madness to think that 10% of the working population can reasonably be unfit to work.

You demonstrate your ignorance of the topic by assuming that DLA claimants must be out of work.

Wookster

lynzpower wrote: »

It is best to pay down deficits when you have a booming/ growing economy.

Oops. That'd be where Crash messed up then wouldn't it.

Generali wrote: »

They are reluctant, as more recent oppositions have been, to specify what they would do.

In the specific case of the budget deficit where all parties stood on platforms of cutting the absolute deficit and the deficit relative to GDP, it is possibly disingenuous for Labour to oppose every cut without offering up any of their own.

Labour being disingenuous... oh what a surprise.

lynzpower

ILW wrote: »

I get the impression that that is what the current government are trying to do, sadly the previous government just threw money at every percieved problem with no thought of how it was going to be paid for.

I think you are mistaken

You do not get the same outcomes by getting rid of targets- how can you complare ( eg nhs waiting times)

You do not get the same or better outcomes for education if you completely change the way that they are measured?

A|s one comparison is massively different from another

Where do you get the idea that the government wants more for less?

the big society? Is that getting more for less? Or just less for nothing?

How do you get the health of the UK improving ( we are sitting on a few times bombs here) when your public health strategy is being guided by Mcdonalds, nestle, and they overpower health experts by 2 to 1?

More for less? Or less for less?

Wookster

lynzpower wrote: »

More for less? Or less for less?

Of course you can get more for less. That's all that he private sector has done for the last 3 years - got every last drop of profit and efficiency out.

You hear councillors talk and the first thing they say is we'll have to cut services. It is a cop out. They need to cut efficiencies first.

lynzpower

Oh now I know you are taking the pi55!!!!

Got every last drop of profi out, yes. Efficiency please do me a favour. Some of these companies do work time and again to get paid by the tyaxpayer time and again. So knowing this we pass the NHS to these very companies? Or housing management to these companies knowing damn well that they have been and still do arguably operate cartels to rip the taxpayer off.

I suggest you take your blinkers off mate