What government spending would you PROTECT? Poll discussion
Options
Comments
-
Also to claim job seekers etc surely you should be awarded this instead by completing community service during the week to receive at the end of it. Hey presto filled in potholes at a much lower cost,
That's exactly the kind of thing I mean. It seems like a great idea - but if we're suddenly getting potholes filled in by people on jobseekers allowance, what happens to all those people currently employed to fill in potholes? They become redundant and end up on jobseekers allowance.
I'm not saying it doesn't sound like a great idea, or that I'm against people working for benefits, but there are always knock on effects.
Also whilst I'm a great believer in giving people incentives to work, and not letting people scrounge on benefits - we also have to look at whether the jobs are actually available for people to move into. And would increasing spending, on education and training, for example, actually count as a saving because it could leave to more currently unemployable people being able to find jobs and move off benefit?
Having said that, I do think benefits are one area that does need to be looked at - mainly by ensuring that it is NEVER more financially lucrative to stay on benefits than it is to work. (Call me naive, but I do actually believe that a large percentage of unemployed people would actually genuinly prefer to be in work - but if you can earn £25k a year in benefits, but struggle to find a full time job paying half that - well it's difficult to argue when they choose to stay home!)0 -
I personally wouldn't protect any of the big budget areas - they will all have savings possible in admin/management that would in turn allow the frontline to function better.
But, I did vote - for Housing. It is the smallest budget, and yet one of the (personally) most important. We have been on the local housing register for almost 3 years now (with two years on a neighbouring one previously) - and there have been just 4 properties in all that time that we could have 'bid' for - do we want a mansion, or are we really picky about areas? No - we just happen to be a family of five, hence need a 3-bed house. If we utilised our 'key' that states the need for wheelchair access, that number would have dropped to zero. The council state that there are plenty of social housing projects going on around here - but they are all building 1 and 2 bed flats, (even though many others in the area are still empty 12+months after completion), no family homes (adapted or otherwise). The SS state that current housing stock can be adapted for us, but the council & HAs won't let us in them unless they are adapted (because of budgetary constraints and 'computer say no' mentalities) - catch 22. So we rent privately, have no security, and are paying through the nose for the privilege.
We are not the only ones in this social housing trap, and so to cut their budget yet further will only result in more problems. That budget needs to be held, and the new build priorites reassessed to take into account the makeup of the existing waiting list, not just the maximum number of dwellings that can be squeezed onto a postage stamp.DFW Nerd no. 884 - Proud to [strike]be dealing with[/strike] have dealt with my debts0 -
I don't think that was my exact response - I merely asked a question [which you didn't answer]:
I don't know if those things are happening or not - that's why I didn't answer. But if it was all done like that then there would be NO possibility of corruption and wasted money. I'm not saying don't give aid, I'm just saying do it in a different way to money. However, I would say, defer it until the country is on its feet a bit, it's no use giving millions away, if we cannot look after our own. A lot of people are going to lose their jobs, they will also need help.
I didn't vote for any of them, as like some on here, I think there is scope for savings in all departments, but I do think it should be from the top down - you could save half a dozen jobs by getting rid of one Council Chief Exec!! And that goes for all departments!
Sorry but they wouldn't let me post the links!!0 -
The pole isn't the point. We seem to have swallowed the line that cuts are the only way to get us out of this mess. Lets face it, the rich have had an easy ride ever since Thatcher and Reagan. Why should those least able to cope, and who bear no responsibilty for creating the problem, be the ones to suffer most? Everyone's so scared shitless to talk about taxing those who can pay more. We need to wake up.0
-
Why are benefits and pensions lumped together. Pensions that have been earned should be paid in full.0
-
I have to say that I believe the govt. is wrong to ringfence the NHS. OK, it's an emotional topic for all....we all expect a strong NHS to satisfy our health needs, however the waste...........is ENORMOUS. The NHS is hopelessly inept at making savings of any kind.....far too much administration costs et al. I believe a whole heap of money could be saved if the govt. hadn't caved in on this vote catcher.0
-
A lot is being said about cuts in admin & managerial functions to support frontline services. As someone working in those areas I obviously have a vested interest! However my concern is that the government reduce the staff doing this work without reducing the workload.
The upshot will be police officers completing even more paperwork to keep the Home Office happy. Teachers negotiating with suppliers instead of teaching. Doctors dealing with payroll issues for their staff and not treating patients.
I see do see waste in the system which needs to be dealt with but, for example, NHS Managers represent less than 3% of NHS costs. So even sacking the whole lot will not release much money back to frontline services. There are, however, some areas that could easily go such as "equality & diversity" posts .0 -
A lot is being said about cuts in admin & managerial functions to support frontline services. As someone working in those areas I obviously have a vested interest! However my concern is that the government reduce the staff doing this work without reducing the workload.
The upshot will be police officers completing even more paperwork to keep the Home Office happy. Teachers negotiating with suppliers instead of teaching. Doctors dealing with payroll issues for their staff and not treating patients.
I see do see waste in the system which needs to be dealt with but, for example, NHS Managers represent less than 3% of NHS costs. So even sacking the whole lot will not release much money back to frontline services. There are, however, some areas that could easily go such as "equality & diversity" posts .
Soemthing that has struck me over the past eyar or two watching redundancies in public-sector funding areas (which we can expect to increase in the next twelve months) - usually the people being axed aren't the executives and managers on £60k plus a year - the first to go are the "shop floor" staff - the admin and clerical people, the people that you speak to about problems with waste collection, the people that process your housing benefit application - etc - people who are usually on under 15k a year. When cutting jobs it often feels like they look for areas where they can save relatively tiny amounts from their budget, by cutting people who will be hugely affected by unemployment (less likely to have savings or own property, fewer qualifications) rather than going for places where they could save four times as much by cutting just a single job from someone far less likely to suffer for it.
Just an observation.... it worries me...0 -
How can anyone want to protect benefits. systematic fraud of the benefit system costs the most. !!!
I agree with you on this. I'm unemployed at the moment, I was made redundant and benefits are necessary for me at the moment. Having said that I get more per month in benefits than some people get working full time (because I don't pay tax on my beneifits) and this seems wrong as I'm doing nothing to earn this money.
I would much rather work to get my benefits as this would put me in contact with a much wider group of people which could ultimately lead to full time employement.
However working to get benefits is a contradiction. Also I would have to be paid minimum wage, I don't know where I would stand with paying tax and what about all the agencies out there who supply this sort of work anyway.
Back to the topic though, the total spend adds up to about £420billion. Do we know what the deficit is at the moment and how much the Gov is intending to cut the budget by?0 -
brokeinwales wrote: »Soemthing that has struck me over the past eyar or two watching redundancies in public-sector funding areas ...
Just an observation.... it worries me...
Lets ay each manager has 10 people under them
1 manager = £60k 10 workers @£15k ea = £150k
If you had 4 managers (£240k) you would have 40 workers (£600k) if each manager lost 4 workers you would loose 16 workers in total and save £240k and each manager would be left with 6 people under them. You can now afford to loose 1 or 2 managers (lets say 2) and save another £120k.
So the ratio of workers lost to managers lost is 8:1 or, if in this example you only lost one manager, the ratio would be 16:1 so it seems like the managers are getting away with it but actually it's just there's far fewer of them.0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 343.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 250.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 449.7K Spending & Discounts
- 235.3K Work, Benefits & Business
- 608.1K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 173.1K Life & Family
- 247.9K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 15.9K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards