Budget cuts and what's ahead

[Greybeard]

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!!!

 

Don't worry about it, the Sheriff of Nottingham has arrived to restore the natural order of things and Robin Hood has gone off to sulk in the forest.

[Guest sibon]

yes we did, it was about 40% of gdp

 

it fell up to 2003ish then started to increase

 

And at the moment it isn't at a particularly high level, historically speaking.

 

Without trying to trivialise things, we do appear to be being set up to blindly accept another round of savage Tory cuts to essential services.

 

To answer the OP. We are likely to see an end to loads of capital projects, public sector pay cuts, decreases in benefits and a bonfire of the quangos. Some of these will probably be beneficial in time. Others will cause damage.

 

The one thing that we wont see is a request from the Government for the best off in our society to contribute more. Modest, temporary tax rises , especially to the top rate, should be part of the strategy to reduce the deficit. They wont happen though.

[Guest sibon]

 

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!!!

 

That rather depends upon your definitions. As a proportion of GDP, our National Debt is currently at similar levels to the 1970s and well below the levels of the 1950s and 1960s.

 

As for who caused it... that depends upon your viewpoint too. It isn't a coincidence that most of Europe is in the same boat though.

[LibertyBell]

Citation link please.

 

It is the essence of right wing thinking.

[kebab69man]

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!!!

 

So, if you think services are in a state now when they had a reasonable amount of funding. Looks like we are all in the sh*t when we loose our jobs and health.

[Tony]

It is the essence of right wing thinking.

 

Even if that was true it isn't what was claimed.

[sccsux]

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

 

Not many potholes on the new IRR:confused:.

[llamatron]

Labour spend a lot to offset Tory cuts and to get public services back to an acceptable level. Public spending cuts stop the country from functioning as it should, e.g. you can't get your tax, passports, drivng licences and that kind of stuff sort if there's nobody around to do the processing, which is why the Tories always get voted out - people have had enough.

 

Yes, and I do remember the 80s, massive innercity riots, high unemployment, the selling off of UK industry to exploit cheap foreign labour, the selling off of social housing (which is probably against the law and is there for a purpose as people found out over the last couple of years,) extended waiting lists ... the lists are ended. Now we have an unelected PM who got in through the back door and is going to cane everyone except the old boy's brigade. Great innit?

 

you can't spend a lot to get services back to an "acceptable" level if you can't afford it. An acceptable level should be the best the country can afford.

[espadrille]

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.

 

I love it when someone provides a detailed factual post on here and sees the subject from a different point of view.