Your browser isn't supported
It looks like you're using an old web browser. To get the most out of the site and to ensure guides display correctly, we suggest upgrading your browser now. Download the latest:

Welcome to the MSE Forums

We're home to a fantastic community of MoneySavers but anyone can post. Please exercise caution & report spam, illegal, offensive or libellous posts/messages: click "report" or email forumteam@.

Search
  • FIRST POST
    Former MSE Lee
    What government spending would you PROTECT? Poll discussion
    • #1
    • 14th Jun 10, 10:56 AM
    What government spending would you PROTECT? Poll discussion 14th Jun 10 at 10:56 AM
    Poll between 14 - 22 June 2010:

    What government spending would you PROTECT?

    The Prime Minister and Chancellor have both confirmed that the country will need to face swinging cuts in public spending, with David Cameron announcing they will consult the public for ideas on where pennies and pounds could be saved. Last week we asked what you'd cut, now...

    Which of these areas of spending do you most want protected?

    A. Defence (military spending - 35bn) - 9% (1107 votes)
    B. Education (schools and universities - 32bn) - 20% (2463 votes)
    C. Environment (waste and pollution - 5bn) - 3% (410 votes)
    D. Health (the NHS 124bn) - 37% (4555 votes)
    E. Housing 4bn - 2% (245 votes)
    F. Law & Order (police and courts - 15bn) - 8% (998 votes)
    G. Overseas aid (money to the developing world – 12bn) - 6% (688 votes)
    H. Social Protection (state pension and benefits - 171 bn) - 10% (1275 votes)
    I . Transport (roads & railways - 11bn) - 5% (646 votes)

    This vote has now closed, but you can still click 'post reply to discuss below.


    This Forum Tip was included in MoneySavingExpert's weekly email

    Don't miss out on new deals, loopholes, and vouchers


    Last edited by Former MSE Lawrence; 22-06-2010 at 1:43 PM.
Page 1
  • carlw
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 10, 2:23 PM
    • #2
    • 14th Jun 10, 2:23 PM
    Is there any chance another option is added for none to be protected?
    • Gordon the Moron
    • By Gordon the Moron 14th Jun 10, 9:25 PM
    • 1,459 Posts
    • 741 Thanks
    Gordon the Moron
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 10, 9:25 PM
    • #3
    • 14th Jun 10, 9:25 PM
    Just what I was thinking, I think some should be protected from frontline cuts (such as the NHS) but waste could be cut in all of them.
    If you don't like what I say slap me around with a large trout and PM me to tell me why.

    If you do like it please hit the thanks button.
  • BLT
    • #4
    • 15th Jun 10, 2:34 AM
    • #4
    • 15th Jun 10, 2:34 AM
    I'm still trying to work out why we give 12 billion pounds in aid to overseas when most of them are over here anyway.

    Homeless people on our streets and we devote 3 times as much to foreigners as we do building housing for our own people. Come to think of it the foreigners have most of the housing as well, so make that 16 billion in overseas aid.

    I'm off to vote for the British National Party
    • redux
    • By redux 15th Jun 10, 2:38 AM
    • 19,666 Posts
    • 27,271 Thanks
    redux
    • #5
    • 15th Jun 10, 2:38 AM
    • #5
    • 15th Jun 10, 2:38 AM
    I'm still trying to work out why we give 12 billion pounds in aid to overseas
    Originally posted by BLT

    We don't; if that's meant to be an annual figure then MSE has got it wrong
  • Former MSE Dan
    • #6
    • 15th Jun 10, 9:22 AM
    • #6
    • 15th Jun 10, 9:22 AM
    We don't; if that's meant to be an annual figure then MSE has got it wrong
    Originally posted by redux
    All the figures are from here:

    http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dashboard/#/uk-bubble-chart/focus=TOTAL&year=2010-11

    If you click into 'Running the country', Overseas economic aid is 12bn for 2010/11

    The site is run by the Open Knowledge Foundation, and has been suported by many MPs

    Hope that helps

    Dan
  • spencer88
    • #7
    • 15th Jun 10, 11:54 AM
    • #7
    • 15th Jun 10, 11:54 AM
    171bn for benefits and pensions!

    That should be the first to take a cut, get people back out working, or offer them minimum benefits.
    • borkid
    • By borkid 15th Jun 10, 9:53 PM
    • 2,148 Posts
    • 4,562 Thanks
    borkid
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 10, 9:53 PM
    • #8
    • 15th Jun 10, 9:53 PM
    Is there any chance another option is added for none to be protected?
    Originally posted by carlw
    I'd like that option as well. None should be protected, all are very broad and there should be ways of cutting from each option in some way, some options a lot more than others.
    • teamwork
    • By teamwork 15th Jun 10, 11:27 PM
    • 38 Posts
    • 10 Thanks
    teamwork
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 10, 11:27 PM
    • #9
    • 15th Jun 10, 11:27 PM
    Law and order must be protected so we can use the police to restrain the protesters and trade unions when the cuts start to hit people. It also encourages businesses to be entrepreneurial if they know the money they make will be protected from robbers.
  • frogman
    I'm still trying to work out why we give 12 billion pounds in aid to overseas when most of them are over here anyway.
    LOL!

    Has this become the poor man's Daily Mail? I'm guessing BLT lives in Florida...
    • Jenna Appleseed
    • By Jenna Appleseed 15th Jun 10, 11:48 PM
    • 2,198 Posts
    • 7,878 Thanks
    Jenna Appleseed
    LOL!

    Has this become the poor man's Daily Mail? I'm guessing BLT lives in Florida...
    Originally posted by frogman
    what do mean 'become' - Discussion Time's been like that for ages
    "And suddenly I find myself listening to a man I've never known before,
    Telling me about the sea..."
    • redux
    • By redux 16th Jun 10, 1:55 AM
    • 19,666 Posts
    • 27,271 Thanks
    redux
    All the figures are from here:

    http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dashboard/#/uk-bubble-chart/focus=TOTAL&year=2010-11

    If you click into 'Running the country', Overseas economic aid is 12bn for 2010/11

    The site is run by the Open Knowledge Foundation, and has been suported by many MPs

    Hope that helps

    Dan
    Originally posted by MSE Dan
    Well, it seems to be a rather ambiguous subject then, as other sources have 5.5 million last year, and a projected 7.8 million this year, including the published annual report of the relevant Government department

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/812137-cut-aid-budget-to-spend-more-here-say-britons

    Metro: But half of people believe the government’s 7.8billion annual foreign aid budget is too high and even more think the money should be spent at home instead. The government has committed 7.8billion to foreign aid for 2010-2011, up from 5.5billion in 2008-2009.

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

    BBC: Britain spends 3bn a year, about half of its overseas aid budget, through international bodies.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200910/cmhansrd/cm100105/text/100105w0061.htm

    Mr. Laws: To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of his Department's aid budget has been allocated to each recipient country in (a) 2007-08, (b) 2008-09 and (c) 2009-10; and if he will make a statement. [306824]

    Mr. Michael Foster: The Department for International Development's (DFID's) past and future spending allocations are laid out in our Annual Reports which are available at:

    http://www.dfid.gov.uk/About-DFID/Finance-and-performance/Annual-report/

    And here's some detail from one of them

    http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Documents/publications1/departmental-report/2009/vol2-resource-acc.pdf

    - see page 5 and part of page 9


    ... and here is an article in January this year which says the Tories would ring-fence foreign aid from any cuts, and Mr Cameron was talking about allocating money to reconstruction in Iraq and Afghanistan

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8460563.stm


    ... and here's a press release only a week old, quoting the incoming Minister Mr Mitchell talking about a review but not cuts, which presumably prompted the BBC article I linked above, and it too mentions the figure of 5.5 billion for 2008-2009

    http://www.dfid.gov.uk/Media-Room/Press-releases/2010/UK-to-review-multilateral-aid-spend/

    The findings of the review will be made public later in the year.

    In 2008/09. DFID spent 2.27 billion of its 5.5 billion programme budget through multilateral institutions. This included 574m for the World Bank and 252m for the UN.

    In 2009/10, DFID estimates that around 3 billion of its programme budget through multilateral institutions. Detailed figures will be published in the DFID annual report later this year.

    DFID currently funds over 30 organisations to undertake a broad range of activity, such as leading the fight against HIV, malaria and TB, humanitarian response and peacekeeping.




    The organisations include:
    • African Development Bank
    • Asian Development Bank
    • Caribbean Development Bank
    • Central Emergency Response Fund
    • Commonwealth Secretariat
    • EU Commission
    • Food and Agriculture Organisation
    • Fast Track Initiative
    • Global Alliance for Vaccines and Immunisation Alliance
    • Global Environment Facility
    • Global Fund to fight AIDS, TB, and Malaria
    • Global Facility for Disaster Reduction and Recovery
    • Inter-American Development Bank
    • International Committee of the Red Cross
    • International Development Association (part of World Bank)
    • International Fund for Agricultural Development
    • International Finance Corporation
    • International Federation of the Red Cross
    • International Strategy for Disaster Reduction
    • Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights
    • Peace Building Fund
    • UN HABITAT
    • United Nations Joint Programme on HIV and AIDS
    • United Nations Development Programme
    • United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation
    • United Nations Population Fund
    • United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees
    • United Nations Children’s Fund
    • United Nations Industrial Development Organisation
    • United Nations Development Fund for Women
    • International Drug Purchasing Facility
    • United Nations Office for Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
    • World Bank
    • World Food Programme
    • World Health Organisation
    Fortunately, the new government has not reneged on the country's commitment to organisations like the Red Cross, Unesco Unicef and the World Health Organisation. So I suggest that if the 5.5 billion last year increasing to 7.8 billion figures are wrong, blame the government - not this one or the last one, but both of them. And anyone on the other thread, over 40% of the votes, who wanted the foreign aid budget cut can blame both of them as well, as this seems to be a matter that is uncontended between the 3 main parties.

    Or are there perhaps other allocations counted as foreign aid, but not from that Department?
    Last edited by redux; 16-06-2010 at 7:55 AM.
  • tristram3
    We must educate our work force at every level . It increases self esteem and confidance therefore have a motivated population with less crime , less cost to health and policing .
    Another issue that should be addressed is the police should not have to pick up the cost of policing the drunken nights in our towns and cities. People need to take responsibility for their actions not the tax payer most of whom find it very threatening to go into the towns at night. Those picked up by the police or ambulances should pay for it. this includes A&E care.
    • webwiz
    • By webwiz 16th Jun 10, 8:01 AM
    • 209 Posts
    • 77 Thanks
    webwiz
    Reducing the deficit by more than the private sector can expand will take demand out of the economy thus pushing us back into recession. This is something we must do because the alternative is even worse, but some cuts hit the UK economy harder than others. Rather than choosing between departments (all of which should take a share of the cuts) the government should identify cuts which have the minimum effect on the UK, ie the money saved would have been disproportionately spent on imports. The overseas aid budget should be overhauled even if not reduced. We should replace all cash aid by free supply of goods and services produced in the UK. This would boost the UK economy and prevent corrupt politicians and officials in the recipient countries from mis-spending it.
    • redux
    • By redux 16th Jun 10, 8:24 AM
    • 19,666 Posts
    • 27,271 Thanks
    redux
    We should replace all cash aid by free supply of goods and services produced in the UK. This would boost the UK economy and prevent corrupt politicians and officials in the recipient countries from mis-spending it.
    Originally posted by webwiz
    Do we really need this patronising and xenophobic bollox?

    Is the Red Cross corrupt? UNICEF? The World Health Organisation? Any other people you want to sneer at?

    Is it better value to provide goods made in the UK which might work out 5 or 10 times more expensive including the cost of shipping them around the world? How much does a mosquito net cost anyway?

    The government has already said it is going to review things, but definitely not make any immediate cuts
  • brokeinwales
    It's a bit of a simplistic poll (though polls generally are) as I think it's a bit more complicated than that. All of those suggetsed areas probably have places where savings could be made without any detriment to the service provided, and all have areas where spending should be protected. For example, could admin costs in the NHS be cut? But would that have an affect on accurate record keeping and result in fatalities? Should more money dedicated to education be put towards basic skills such as reading and maths, and less into arts and sports? Or would putting more money into arts and sport improve the mental and physical health of the nation and therefore actually save us money on the health service? Should we cut funding on post-16 education and concentrate on children, who are always considered somehow more important as it's their first chance in education - or should we actually put more money into vocational training for adults in the hope of improving skils in industry and benefitting the economy.
    And of course - if we cut jobs from any aspect of the public sector you've instantly got more people claiming jobseekers allowance - and in a struggling economy the chances of them finding other work quickly are smaller, so they could be on it for a while - if there aren't private sector jobs for these people to go to you're just swapping one problem for another.

    My point, ultimately, is - I'm not voting in the poll, because I think all options given are far too simplistic. This is a complex balancing act that needs to consider all kinds of different problems - you save money in one place, you risk creating a problem somewhere else. There are probably certain small areas of all these suggestions that need protecting, and certain others taht definetly don't.
    • rpb
    • By rpb 16th Jun 10, 9:46 AM
    • 124 Posts
    • 127 Thanks
    rpb
    "None"
    Is there any chance another option is added for none to be protected?
    Originally posted by carlw
    Yup, I wanted to vote "none" as well. There must be a lot of waste in all of these areas, and where there's waste there's room for savings!
    • Marisco
    • By Marisco 16th Jun 10, 9:57 AM
    • 35,807 Posts
    • 110,029 Thanks
    Marisco
    Do we really need this patronising and xenophobic bollox?

    Is the Red Cross corrupt? UNICEF? The World Health Organisation? Any other people you want to sneer at?

    Is it better value to provide goods made in the UK which might work out 5 or 10 times more expensive including the cost of shipping them around the world? How much does a mosquito net cost anyway?

    The government has already said it is going to review things, but definitely not make any immediate cuts
    Originally posted by redux
    I don't think anyone is sneering here! You had a pop at me on the "cuts" thread for saying the same thing!! Are you saying that not a penny in aid goes into the corrupt regimes' pockets? Many suggest giving benefit recipients vouchers for food and goods, so they won't spend the money on drink and fags, well this would be the same, albeit on a larger scale!!
    • redux
    • By redux 16th Jun 10, 10:22 AM
    • 19,666 Posts
    • 27,271 Thanks
    redux
    I don't think anyone is sneering here! You had a pop at me on the "cuts" thread for saying the same thing!! Are you saying that not a penny in aid goes into the corrupt regimes' pockets?
    Originally posted by Marisco
    I don't think that was my exact response - I merely asked a question [which you didn't answer]:

    I voted for overseas aid, not because I don't think they need a hand, but because I don't agree with giving actual money. Instead of sending money which ends up with corrupt officials or used to buy arms, why not build things for them, i.e housing, schools, irrigation systems, desalination plants etc? Train the people out there to help themselves.

    How do you know such things are not amongst those already happening?

    But capital projects still cost money.
    ____

    Here is what some of those organisations have said about corruption:

    The WHO seems to suggest that much of the corruption in pharmaceuticals is in developed countries

    http://www.who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs335/en/

    UNICEF: It is a sad fact that corrupt governments do exist but of course children are not responsible for this. UNICEF ceasing to work in a particular country would only end up making children’s lives worse than they already are. Rather than stopping assistance in the face of these problems, the provision of targeted accountable aid can actually bolster a society and over time help to combat the difficulty of corruption itself.

    http://www.unicef.org.uk/press/news_detail_full_story.asp?news_id=634
    Last edited by redux; 16-06-2010 at 10:42 AM.
    • minerva_windsong
    • By minerva_windsong 16th Jun 10, 11:11 AM
    • 3,765 Posts
    • 8,672 Thanks
    minerva_windsong
    It's hard to say. I do agree with those who say that waste could be cut in all departments, and there are certain areas where I would like to see money reallocated (Trident scrapped and the money put towards equipment for troops in Afghanistan, road building and third runway at Heathrow scrapped and money put towards high speed rail, making public transport more affordable and re-opening the rail network). But the services I would put as my 'must keeps', in no particular order, are health, education and law and order. Less money in bureaucracy and more money in frontline services please.
    "A mind needs books as a sword needs a whetstone, if it is to keep its edge." - Tyrion Lannister

    Married my best friend 1st November 2014

    Loose = the opposite of tight (eg "These trousers feel a little loose")
    Lose = the opposite of find/gain (eg "I'm going to lose weight this year")
Welcome to our new Forum!

Our aim is to save you money quickly and easily. We hope you like it!

Forum Team Contact us

Live Stats

1,794Posts Today

5,976Users online

Martin's Twitter