Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
3 February 2011
07:4891245It would appear that the Citizen Advice Bureau's budget is expected to be slashed by approximately 45% resulting in staff losses and office closures. Another vital lifeline that the less 'well off' rely upon.
Bus companies are currently reviewing their loss making country services with a view to withdrawing them completely..Beecham in disguise. It means those that live in the country will no longer be able to hop on a bus to town to visit the shops,doctors ,hospital etc. Again its the less well off that will be affected...do you see a trend developing in these Tory cuts?...
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2011
08:5091257But, Marek, they are still just not cutting enough, nowhere near enough if we want a competitive economy with the jobs and wealth it brings.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,888
3 February 2011
09:0691263The one area where money should not be cut is the CAB they are worth every penny they get.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
3 February 2011
09:1691264It was said on Newsnight last night that the only country making cuts as dramatic as us is Greece. It looks like we have gone for overkill. Experts have urged George Osborne to have a Plan B ready for fear of Plan A not working out...the fear is that the private sector instead of expanding and recruiting ..is actually contracting.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
3 February 2011
09:3291267I totally agree that bad financial decisions were made by the Labour government and would like to point out (as I always do) I am not a Labour supporter. However, regardless of of 'the deficit' or world recession, it has ALWAYS been the idealogical outlook of the Conservatives to cut public services and place more dependance on the private sector. It seems to me that this is just the perfect opportunity to implement their plans.
You only have to look at the way in which before any 'cut' announcement they say something along the lines of 'being in more debt than a 3rd world country with a trillion pound a minute drug problem' (or some other surreal reference).
They can perform all the semantic gymnastics they like but at the end of the day 'big society' is just another way of saying: 'you're on your own' NOT: 'We're all in this together'
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2011
09:4991270PaulB - we must look after our own economy and let others make their own mistakes. The West has for too long lived hogh on borrowed cash and that party cannot go on.
The simple fact is that the public sector IS dependent upon the private sector. The public sector does not create wealth and only re-cycles it and very inefficiently too.
53% of our GDP is the public sector and that includes the 'secondary public sector' - those nominally private sector companies dependent upon public sector cash.
That 53% is supported by the other 47% - a highly unstable arrangement.
This is why we are losing out on manufacturing jobs to places like China where the state takes just 25% of GDP along with other Asia countries with far smaller public sectors than us. On top of that they have less red tape and beaurocracy as well, its a lot simpler to sack people in these countries so they are more willing to take risks and employ them.
To compete we really should be aiming to get the public sector down to under 30% of GDP and with that money spent far more efficiently than at present. Plus getting rid of red tape and many of the more damaging employment laws.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
3 February 2011
09:5591272So Darren, if you were in Government and faced with such a huge gap between income and expenditure; faced with the certainty that your country's credit rating would be slashed to ribbons if you borrowed any more; faced with a reduced tax base because of the recession; surrounded by the baying masses saying 'you can't cut this and that'; how would you raise the money to keep everything going?
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
3 February 2011
12:3091290Peter, I'm not saying that some cuts aren't necessary, and I can honestly say I agree with some. What I am saying is that it is very handy when your ideology rests in the hands of the private sector that an opportunity like this comes along.
My problem is with the social inequality being created as a result. Bus routes being a good example of a service, subsidised heavily by the public but run by private companies who can ultimately decide who is entitled and who is not. If we left this up to the private sector on it's own, we wouldn't have a service.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2011
12:4591292Not ideology but sensible and logical economic policy. You have not even tried, DT, to answer the points that eight Peter or I have made.
Guest 696- Registered: 31 Mar 2010
- Posts: 8,115
3 February 2011
13:0891296It certainly seems that the economy is in a mess, and that the spending capabilities of the State are limited. Of-course the national debit expalains a lot.
I still believe the Government is on the right track to getting to the core of the problem, which is to justify public spending rather than abusing the Treasury as a black-hole of debits.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
3 February 2011
13:1991300traditionally rural areas are core blue voters, they will be up in arms over not being able to get to town to get their shopping, prescriptions, doctor and dental visits and such.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
3 February 2011
14:2991310a question for barryw,how many people would you like to be unemployed claiming benifits and not paying tax,1/2, 2/3rds of the total workforce.?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
3 February 2011
15:2791322Brian - a job in the public sector is at the expense of jobs in the private sector.
I have said that the public sector only recyles wealth and does so inefficiently. One example is on-costs. A public sector employee has around 40% on-costs to salary. The figure in the private sector is nearer 20% - 12.8% of which is employer NI.
It is in the wealth creating private sector where we need the jobs. Reducing the burden of the state will help wealth creation.
The short answer to your question, is none. I want them them off the public payroll and into doing something profitable.
DT1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 15 Apr 2008
- Posts: 1,116
4 February 2011
08:1991440Hold up, I'm not sure where I said I disagreed with all the cuts? Why do I have to substantiate a position I haven't taken? We need to save, the question is where to draw the line?
All I wrote was that this cutting the public sector is (and has been) the ideology of the Conservative party, regardless of 'the deficit' ...which is handy for them.
If you want to talk about logic, then surely growth is an interesting Capitalist mantra. But then I don't think we are on about Logic, just money. The cutting of a bus service is carried out like this, it is only logical when balancing input and output financially, nothing more. Once again the cost of everything and the value of nothing!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
8 February 2011
12:5591944manchester city council have announced closures of toilets,public libraries, swimming pools, leisure centres and children services.
in fact the whole city will be left with 1(one) public toilet!!
structural deficit or not this is an act of carnage to the very fabric of that famous city.
these places, once closed, never reopen.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
8 February 2011
13:0491946Thats the choice they make, localism. Their priorities,
I wonder what their chief exec is paid, mmmm.....
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
8 February 2011
13:2191947this localism thing seems a right con, manchester city council are 110 million quid short from central goverment, then they are asked to choose what to cut.
residents will still have to pay the same council tax whilst their services are decimated.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
8 February 2011
13:5991956Howard - far from a con, they have to decide their own priorities and what to spend their available resources on.
I would, however, like to see all council services funded locally and there to be no reliance at all on central government. Then we really will have true local accountability and localism.
A local sales tax, replacing all or most of VAT, with perhaps a proportion of VAT being set locally, depending how the numbers now work out given the recent VAT rise. There ised to be a close correlation between what was raised by VAT and what was paid to Councils.
Dan Hannen did a paper on this some years ago - he envisaged a County level local VAT rate, not at District level. Districts might keep a higher proportion of the Council Tax instead plus their locally raised business rates.
Guest 653- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,540
8 February 2011
19:3891999Would it not be better and easier, for local authorities to keep the money raised through business rates ?
If it was up to us (DDC) we could create business start-up advantages, to encourage people to be entreprenurial.
Roger
Unregistered User
8 February 2011
19:4692002I believe DDC takes £25m approx in Business Rates ,sends to government & gets £8-9m back. Crude figures.
So Business Rate used locally is advantageous to us but will hit those who get our money. That is why we don't believe it will happen
Is it fair?
Discuss.
