Budget cuts and what's ahead

[Longcol]

In 1998, we had no National Debt.

 

And a crumbling infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, railways, roads etc needed modernising.

[chem1st]

Why is it that every time Labour get into power for a prolonged time, they spend like mad, get the country into massive debt and then the following goverment has to come in and sort the mess out??.

 

Look at what Maggie did after 1979, massive spending cuts to cut the deficit that Labour had built up in the 70's, crap early 80's and then we had a long time of prolonged wealth.

 

1997 all the spending starts again, labour loose this year and leave a note saying that they have spent the lot

 

Now the cycle is starting again with the emergency budget on June 22nd grrrr

 

The powers that be are probably hoping we don't automatically qualify for stage 2 of the world cup before we play Slovenia on the 23rd.

[Rupert_Baehr]

But Labour spent money. You know, spending...it's what you do when you need hospitals, new schools and back to work programs. Oh and wars, I suppose you'd have not bothered with defense spending either...or is that one spending spree you would have agreed with?

 

Public services don't grow on trees, and they certainly don't spring from the charitable donations of the rich. They need paying for. The question is, and always will be, how you pay for them.

 

You and I spend, too. But unlike governments, I spend what I can afford to spend. If I want a new car (and I can afford a new car) then I buy one. If I want a new car and I can't afford a new car, then I do without.

 

I can't do without food - though I can eat less and I can eat cheaper.

 

There aren't enough rich (If you're talking about the very very rich) to pay for all the public services we want.

 

Even if if you're talking about the very rich, or if you class as 'rich' those who can afford to put food on the table for their kids and who try to stay out of debt to pay to fill the Cornucopia provided by nu-Labour (but put on the tab of the rest of us) there still aren't enough of those to pick up the tab.

 

If you want public services, then we each have to pay for them. If 80% of the population is taking in the washing (providing public services) for the rest of the world, then the other 20% needs a really, really, good well-paying job.

 

And it hasn't got one.

 

Your points in inverse order:

 

Public services certainly do not grow on trees, but simple arithmetic suggests that you can (realistically) only have those public services you can afford to pay for. Labour don't seem to understand that.

 

At one time I had a gardener and a lady who cleaned my house. That cost me money, but I had the money to pay them and I chose to spend my money employing them.

 

Some years earlier [when I was single], I had a manservant. He made my bed, cleaned my room, did my laundry (including the ironing) polished my shoes and bollocked me if - when I went out - my appearance was 'not up to the standard I would expect of one of my gentlemen'. :hihi:

 

I got poorer as I got older ... the People's Democratic Republic of SY didn't help .

 

If you're wealthy, then you can afford servants ... and if you're wealthy, then you can afford to provide work for people, too. If you are not wealthy but you still hire servants you can't afford, then when you can't afford to pay them and they find themselves out of a job, who is at fault?

 

Labour hired lots of people. But Labour didn't have the money to pay them. Will it be the fault of the Tories if they let those people go?

 

Some Public services are necessary, but others are just 'nice' and some seem to be a job-creation scheme.

 

As you know, I've been an immigrant since I was 18 years old (when I first came to your country.) I'm hardly 'anti-immigrant'.

 

Shortly after I arrived in Bavaria (Jun 2008 ) I presented myself at the 'Foreign workers employment office' [Auslanderarbeitsamt] and when the guy came up to the counter to talk to me, I apologised for not being able to speak Bavarian. "That's not a problem, Sir." He said. "We all speak fluent German here."

 

Quite so. All government (Federal and Local) documents are available in German and the people in every federal or local government office speak fluent German. If I want documents translated into English, they would (no doubt) be pleased to give me - at no charge - the name, phone number and address of an interpreter.

 

In the UK, I understand that the government and local councils are obliged (under the provisions of some [otherwise unknown] 'EU Law which applies only to the UK') to provide translation services and an interpreter in any one of 140 or more languages to anybody who demands it.

 

Request a state-funded Dolmechter here and they'll laugh at you ...

 

Yes, there is an EU law which requires 'free movement of people', but EU Member States (other than the UK, which appears to have its own 'interpretations' of EU law) are allowed to consider whether migrant workers are capable of supporting themselves and are capable of enjoying the 'benefits privileges and social advantages of life within those states'. - The basic right of 'Free movement' was never intended to be a burden on member States (Other than the UK, which - under nu-Labour - has 'reinterpreted' EU laws to optimise the number of public-sector jobs it can get away with providing.)

 

No EU member State would wish the citizens of another EU member State resident within its borders to be disadvantaged (particularly through inability to speak the local language.)

 

To that end, there are night school classes (available at very realistic prices - same price for everybody; discrimination is not permitted.) If you can't be bothered to learn the language and if, after about 6 months, you can't communicate with the rest of society then why are you still here? If you can't communicate with people then how can you expect to hold down a job? You are abusing the right to 'free movement of people'.

 

How many of the 'jobs' provided by nu-Labour are really necessary? How many of those jobs provide services which should be paid by those who want them?

 

Defence Spending:

 

The recent Labour Government has been one of - if not the - most pernicious enemies UK forces have faced for 60 or more years.

 

According to the lying Scotsman: 'The forces got everything they asked for.'

 

Really? Then why did so many senior officers resign?

 

Q: What's the major troop killer?

A: Roadside IEDs.

 

Q: How many helicopters can you knock out of the sky with a roadside IED?

A: About none.

 

Q: Why didn't the troops get helicopters when they asked for them?

A: .... blurrp ... blurrp. blurrp...

 

Go on, Gordie - tell us how the troops got everything they asked for!

 

 

 

NHS: We need hospitals. But do we (or rather do you, because where I live the system is rather different .... socialised medicine, but without the crap) need massive administrative staffs to run those hospitals?

 

In the UK, you have hospitals built using 'Private Finance Initiative'. State hospitals built with public (owned by the public) money (A bit like public[private] schools .) The people behind the PFI put up the money, build the hospital and get paid interest on the money they spent. I don't know how much they get (If I was negotiating the deal on my own behalf, I'd want a lot!)

 

Then the local health authority (or whatever you call it) run the hospital. They (As I understand it) get money from the government and they spend that money as they see fit.

 

Does that work? Is that efficient?

 

Where I live, If I want to build a hospital (and I can get the money together) there's nothing to stop me from doing so. I can treat private patients (if I can get them) or I can treat patients whose healthcare is paid by the state. I don't get money from the state; there is no massive 'cash cow' which enables me to hire thousands of 'administrators'.

 

Administrators are 'cost' - and I have to pay all my costs out of the money I get.

 

I can charge private patients whatever I like - if they're prepared to pay - but I can only charge state patients the amount laid down by law. If I can charge (say) €300 for an Endoscopy then that's what you would pay elsewhere. I - as the hospital operator - get paid for the procedures my hospital carries out. If I want to hire doctors and nurses (who carry out medical procedures which generate income) I may do so. If I want to hire administrators, I will have to pay them out of the money I receive for the procedures I carry out.

 

How has the efficiency of the NHS changed since Nu Labour came to power?

 

I'm sure the statistics are available somewhere.

 

Consider 5 procedures: (Medusa, please correct this list if you think it's unreasonable)

 

1. Draw blood (for lab work) - How has the full cost changed over the last 13 years?

(How have the costs of the analyses changed? - ZB: HBA1C, Full Liver Panel, Kidney Panel?)

 

2. Appendectomy

 

3. ER: Broken Leg (Tib&Fib) Diagnose, treat, follow-up.)

 

4. Hospitalisation for Influenza

 

5. Childbirth (OK, it's not an illness - but we do need hospitals for that.)

 

I'm not a (particularly) 'socialist' person, but I live in a socialist state - which works.

[Rupert_Baehr]

And a crumbling infrastructure. Schools, hospitals, railways, roads etc needed modernising.

 

And what did nu-Labour do about that?

 

Are they going to accuse the tories of digging the potholes?

[Longcol]

And what did nu-Labour do about that?

 

Are they going to accuse the tories of digging the potholes?

 

Upgraded hospitals, built new schools (count 'em in Sheffield) , upgraded the motorway network and the railways since you ask.

[Rupert_Baehr]

Well, if you got 1.5 trillion quids' worth of new schools hospitals, motorways and railways then presumably you also got the factories, production orders and industry expansion that such a large expenditure would inevitably produce.

 

Or did nu Labour screw it up?

 

How many upgraded hospitals, new schools and upgraded motorways do you get for 1.5 Trillion quid?

[GordonBennet]

Some people seem to be getting quite hysterical when talking about the national debt but the fact is that there always has been and always will be a national debt running into billions of pounds. It would only ever become an issue if the people we owe the money to suddenly asked for it back.

 

If there really is no money, why has the government just given £19 millon to Israel? Why do we throw billions a year at African countries in the name of "aid" when it just disappears into corrupt dictators' pockets? Why do we spend millions "fighting climate change" when "experts" can't even agree as to whether global warming exists?

 

All that will happen is that some people in the public sector will lose their jobs. A few products we buy in the shops will go up by a few pence. People on benefits might finally be forced to start looking for work.

 

Society won't collapse. The NHS won't be dismantled, education will still be free. Your pension will still be there.

 

We do love a good panic over nothing, don't we?

[kebab69man]

So Labour treats us like a "nanny" state and the Conservatives let us act like grownups then?, hummm nuff said i think!!

 

I think many people complain about spending money on public services until they too require help from nan.

 

Imagine cuts in health care, education, police, social housing, and benefits.

 

Then imagine your buble burst - no job, mortgage protection running out, woops no house. You might be lucky and get a council house in a not so desirable area effected by lots of crime. Call the police and they don't respond on time. When you had the good job, you could afford a good lifestyle. All of a sudden its Income Support or job seekers, but no money because the claim is delayed due to lack of staff. Your health might get worst due to the stress. Oh dear, its a rather long waiting list to see a hospital consultant.

 

Afraid Nan can't help, no one spends anymoney on her anymore. Poor Nanny State.

[andyofborg]

In 1998 (shortly after Nu-Labour got their fingers back in the purse) the UK had no - as in zero - national debt.

 

 

yes we did, it was about 40% of gdp

 

it fell up to 2003ish then started to increase

[dawny1970]

I think many people complain about spending money on public services until they too require help from nan.

 

Imagine cuts in health care, education, police, social housing, and benefits.

 

Then imagine your buble burst - no job, mortgage protection running out, woops no house. You might be lucky and get a council house in a not so desirable area effected by lots of crime. Call the police and they don't respond on time. When you had the good job, you could afford a good lifestyle. All of a sudden its Income Support or job seekers, but no money because the claim is delayed due to lack of staff. Your health might get worst due to the stress. Oh dear, its a rather long waiting list to see a hospital consultant.

 

Afraid Nan can't help, no one spends anymoney on her anymore. Poor Nanny State.

 

Health care = loads more middle management and quango's, not extra cash to front line support

Education, why do we have teaching assistants??, err coz of larger class sizes, thats hardly throwing money wisely!!

Police, in a nutshell, PCSO's, nuff said!!!

Social housing, labour gave priority to those from other country's before those born in the UK!!!

Benefits, they are not exactly brill are they!!, so your point is???

 

Like it said on the BBC 6pm news, we have the largest public debt since the end of WW2, and who's fault is that....err Labour!!!