Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
7 October 2010
06:0074010#1
Osborne's slash-and-burn approach to cut Britain's deficit is now feared to have the elderly in its sights - with winter fuel payments and free TV licences next up for the axe
In an attempt to save a measley £2.7 million per year the above benefits may be cut.did the blue rinse brigade vote the Tories in to so that they could face these cuts.Meanwhile the hot potato of immigration and illegals seems to have gone on the bcck burner.Nothing to do with the hot water that France has recently found itself in with the deportation of the Roma gypsies???Even the poor old circuses are being shut down ending centuries of tradition.
So as spending on immigration increases,promises broken it's the poor and the elderly that have to suffer and foot the bill
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
06:2874011#2
Marek - you really are sounding so desperate. 'Slash and burn' indeed - you know that could not be further from the truth.
Stop complaining and come up with cuts of your own.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
7 October 2010
06:3674012#3
Trident
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
07:2974013#4
Merely scratching the surface. Foolish anyway to leave us without our deterrant in such a dangerous world, it needs replacing though I am personally open minded as to an effective alternative.
Try harder Marek
Remember its £80bn thats needed - per annum.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
7 October 2010
07:4074014#5
[URL]
[/URL]
Estimated to save £2.1 billion per year plus £100 million set up and admin and training costs. Your turn Barry to come up with an alternative.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
07:4874015#6
Not exactly £80bn is it?
Those so called savings are exaggerated as you have not factored in the costs of an alternative deterrant.
Like I say, Marek, I have no fixed view on what that deterrant should be and therefore cannot compare costs.
My ideal solution, I am told, is not allowable under treaty obligations. That would be to build three additional Astute Class Hunter Killer Subs instead of ballistic missile subs and to use nuclear tipped cruise missiles as the deterrant. This would be a more flexible solution. The missles could be carried by any of the UK hunter killer fleet, not just the three new ones, the navy get three additional advanced subs that would have practical uses and we would have a credable deterrant capable of hitting most targets.
7 October 2010
08:0074017#7
So, our elderly and vulnerable are worth less than 80 billion?
I think Camerons speech was good in a less-than-Platonic way, hitting the right notes at the right pitch for the circumstances. But specifics were lite and despite assertions that the poor and vulnerable would be "protected" the mildly shambolic presentation of the child benefits cuts and the obvious lack of thinking-through-processes emplyed prior to announcement did not leave me confident.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,931
7 October 2010
08:0974019#8
I think the winter fuel allowance age will be raised to 65, which makes sense as it is for pensioners not those nearing their pension. The same for bus passes.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
08:1774021#9
I agree with you Jan.
Bern - I really dont understand that first comment.
Ultimately it is in the interests of the vulnerable and all of us to have a healthy economy. All benefits and all other public spending must be sustainable and affordable without placing such a burden on the economy that it fails. Sadly Labour lost sight of that fact a\nd its necessary to bring public spending down to a sustainable level.
It is a measure of Labour's excessive spending that this massive cut of £80bn only brings spending back down to the level of 2006.
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
7 October 2010
08:2474025#10
a few cuts that would be usefull as fowlows,
trident not needed.
nhs trust managers not needed.
mps expences not paid.
goverment bodies outdated so not needed.
overseas aid canceld saving billions.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
08:3474027#11
Brian - Trident, that discussion has been done above.
NHS Managers - some are needed and some are being cut, overall though the NHS budget is not targetted for deficit reduction cuts
MP expenses, anyone doing a job should get their, genuine, expenses paid, MPs included - small beer anyway, more wil be saved by the reduction in MP numbers being proposed.
Government bodies - yes many are useless and many are getting the chop, Eric Pickles in particular has been swinging that axe.
Overseas aid, I agree though for some reason I do not understand it is preserved
That list still merely touches the surface
7 October 2010
09:4174033#12
It is really lacking in insight to say that managers are not needed in large organisations, or even small ones! Any organisation needs to be organised, duh! Good managers can save organisations mega-bucks simply by managing resources, including people, well. Not everyone can manage - one of the serious problems with orgs like the NHS is that people are promoted beyond their capabilities because there is no alternative career structure. Nurses who nurse well are not necessarily - I would say are probably not by nature - good at managing the things that need to be managed to maintain the group. Yet the only way for them mto progress realistically is in the management pathway. There is one of the main issues for the public sector orgs.
Good Managers pay for themselves if they are allowed to do their jobs.
7 October 2010
09:5474035#13
Unfortunately Osborne is building up problems for himself by targeting universal benefits as they are one of the few ways that many reasonably wealthy people connect with the rest of society.
If I pay for my children's education, pay for private health care, pay into a private pension fund and then find that due to my income I am no longer eligible for child allowance, free TV licence, winter fuel payments etc. it will not be long before I begin to wonder why I should pay a penny into a system from which I do not benefit.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
10:0774036#14
Very true Bern
Bob, what you say is true up to a point except most of those people will also have a social concience. Is it right though that when we are needing to have massive public sector cuts the wealthy still get benefits?
Brown unhealthily expanded massively the benefit state and now that is having to be reduced and benefits targetted at those who most need them.
7 October 2010
10:0774037#15
...which paves the way for a truly privately funded approach to our Big Society. Although I don't think our MPs are bright enough to have thought it through that effectively yet.
Sorry - this post was following on form Bobs - Barryw beat me to it!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
10:2274039#16
Oh but I can assure you some have.... It would be a good move too....
7 October 2010
10:2774040#17
Strategical sense I suppose. Blimey - what am I saying. The red is ebbing from me as we speak. Say it ain't so..........but I guess for someone like me with a proper third sector background it can make sense in a warped sort of way. Third and private sector have long been the best at delivering services and options. My problem is the funding streams and criteria. DC used the word Fairness so many times - I need assurance that it means the same for me and for him!!
7 October 2010
11:5874043#18
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
7 October 2010
12:5274050#19
does this apply to the n.h.s. tooth fairy or is it only when the private tooth fairy leaves a cash gift?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
7 October 2010
13:5274056#20
Very funny Bob - well done.
