[Closed] David Cameron complaining about cuts...

Jambayla you're a Tory party wet dream. I genuinely hope your part of the top table or your blinkedly being dicked over like the rest of us, but fighting their corner for them... 😀

Can I just congratulate jamabalayayal;a on so concisely summing up the kind of ignorance and stupidity that leads people to voting for such a bunch of useless divs. if only more people read the Daily mail they'd realise that it's all their default and the more tax you can dodge, the more you deserve to keep the money. Libraries? Who needs them? poor people who can't afford books and if they can't afford books why do they need to read? And they can' read, they'll never find out how much they're being shafted.
And why aren't the council cutting"back room staff"? After all it's just "jobs for the boys" and any other number of cliches for dimwits you care to mention - you'd never find that going on in Tory land would you? What's Osborne's qualification for the job, other than "went to the same school as Cameron"?

[quote=BigButSlimmerBloke said] What's Osborne's qualification for the job, other than "went to the same school as [s]Cameron[/s] Harriet Harman"?

i've come to conclusion he's a moron

There's an awful lot of evidence that points to that conclusion.

As I've said before, there are people who's political opinionsI disagree with but I can respect their view. The rubbish Jambalaya constantly spouts is just beneath contempt.

jambalaya - Member
...Our welfare budget is huge...

just checking, you're not including pensions in welfare are you?

[url= http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/to-help-fuel-their-propaganda-machine-against-the-poor-our-government-has-now-decided-to-redefine-9873127.html ]pensions aren't welfare[/url]

[i]He says the NHS are lumbered with patients costing £4500 a week in hospital beds, who could and should be discharged to Social Services but they don't the budget for that.

So instead the NHS overspends its budget.
[/i]

Yep. This came up when I worked in the NHS, seemed simple to me - just move (enough of) the budget from the NHS to Social Services. And since it cost less for Social Services to do it, money saved.

Political/Management will to do it? Zero.

Political/Management will to do it? Zero.

They can't go cutting NHS budgets - that makes it too obvious.

Much stealthier to keep stretching it so it fails on its own. That way they can blame it all on those lazy greedy doctors and sell it all off via PFI.

@ Jambalaya, yes the welfare budget is huge, but then so's the tax evasion being conducted by big business and suchlike: [url= http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/09/22/new-report-the-tax-gap-is-119-4-billion-and-rising/ ]some tax research bloke[/url] and [url= http://leftfootforward.org/2015/02/tax-cheats-cost-far-more-than-benefits-cheats-yet-far-fewer-are-prosecuted/ ]some lefty website[/url] and finally [url= http://www.standard.co.uk/news/honest-victims-of-tax-dodgers-6967124.html ]the Evening Standard from 3 years ago[/url].

Some of this is individual tax "planning" and some corporate, but it seems to be the general consensus across lots of different data that around £35bn is lost in corporate avoidance each year (which despite [url= http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/tobyyoung/100075906/tax-avoidance-isnt-morally-wrong-its-perfectly-sensible-behaviour/ ]Toby Young's[/url] opinion, would go a long way to helping to avoid cuts to key public services, regardless of if YOU think they're valuable)

companies are not and never have been a "of employees" that would be coop's and some partnerships.

Yep. This came up when I worked in the NHS, seemed simple to me - just move (enough of) the budget from the NHS to Social Services. And since it cost less for Social Services to do it, money saved.

Political/Management will to do it? Zero.

The problem is splitting things up all the way up to the dept of health and the dept for local govt. The NHS doesn't want to have medically healthy patients sitting in expensive hospital beds, they want patients who NEED to be in hospital to be there. But the councils don't want to rush to take on responsibility of those patients. Every day they're in hospital is a day that the council isn't footing the bill for their care.

I know that some hospitals are running "discharge to assess" schemes where patients who don't need round the clock medical care but might need supervision/'pop in' type care due to things like dementia, wound care, medication, not being able to feed/clean themselves etc are discharged into nursing homes. Their beds are cheaper than acute hospital beds so it's better for the patients to wait there while the local council figures out what it's doing with them.

But all the way to the top, local government and health are separate, so who can make this stuff happen? As a taxpayer i'd rather the council spent £10 than have the NHS spend £50, for the same outcome. But if I were a council finance boss, I'd rather the NHS spent £1000 than I spend £1. The NHS would want the councils to discharge people into social care/nursing homes really quickly but it has absolutely no way of making the councils spend the money to get that service in place.

Excess spending or not enough tax?

But all the way to the top, local government and health are separate, so who can make this stuff happen? As a taxpayer i'd rather the council spent £10 than have the NHS spend £50, for the same outcome. But if I were a council finance boss, I'd rather the NHS spent £1000 than I spend £1. The NHS would want the councils to discharge people into social care/nursing homes really quickly but it has absolutely no way of making the councils spend the money to get that service in place.

I think that sums up the whole problem in all government/council departments nicely.

around £35bn is lost in corporate avoidance each year (which despite Toby Young's opinion, would go a long way to helping to avoid cuts to key public services, regardless of if YOU think they're valuable)

There's no point though in taking Cameron's favourite approach and saying "ooh we'll do nothing about it but it's immoral". It's not immoral, it's legal. If the government wants the tax to be paid, they should adjust the rules around tax to make avoidance illegal and fund HMRC adequately to pursue, prosecute and fine tax evaders. It's almost as if they don't want to do that for some reason.

I think this nicely illustrates how the cuts to council funding are impacting the NHS

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-34790100 ]On almost every measure, the NHS in England is in a worse position than this time last year.
And as we enter winter, that spells bad news: last year's was the worst for a generation with A&E waits hitting their highest levels since targets were introduced in 2004[/url]

"[i]... who really goes to the Library these days ? Libraries occupy expensive and valuable property in town centres and sadly are yesterdays news, the world including publishing is increasingly online these days. [/i]"

Ah a "Cameron style" deeply ignorant statement if ever I read one. The glorious assumption [i]everyone[/i] has money to spare and a comfortable home to sit in.

I regularly go to 6 different libraries in my county/city. I have also been to Libraries in several other towns not nearby. Often tourist info and other local info can be found in them as part of the service. I can only think of 1 library I have been in that was not well used each time I was there, and that was a local branch in Cardiff which was in appauling physical condition - seems they had run down the local assessible branches to fund the newer library in the middle of the city.

If you bother to go into a library that has been supported by its council you will find reading groups, play groups, local information and loads and loads of PCs as well as bookstock and audio/video titles.

You will find somewhere for the elderly and unemployed to go, to find entertainment and heat and to apply for jobs via the computers.

Everyone can get internet access, as much as it would surprise you and Cameron, some people cannot afford computing equipment and line rentals at home. I wonder how many unemployed people looking for jobs can afford a replacement PC etc when thier entire budget for food, electricity, clothing, bus fares to interviews, materials for job applications etc is £60 per week. Not many job centres have lots of pcs to use.

I cant go into any of our local libraries without seeing people of all ages using up at least 95% of the available computers. Often there are queues to get on them.

I can only assume people who think Libraries are a waste of space never go in them and are self absorbed enough not to realise they are hugely important to much of the community. Libraries will become more and more important as more people are priced out of education, computing equipment, social activities and even basic life requirements such as heat in the winter.

If you bother to go into a library that has been supported by its council you will find reading groups, play groups, local information and loads and loads of PCs as well as bookstock and audio/video titles.

You mean its like an asset for everyone in the community to use? Its almost like there was such a thing as society after all

[i]But all the way to the top, local government and health are separate, so who can make this stuff happen? [/i]

The Govt? At the end of the day it's all paid from our taxes, so someone SHOULD take responsibility.

[i]But if I were a council finance boss, I'd rather the NHS spent £1000 than I spend £1. [/i]

I use to have a Dilbert cartoon on my desk; gist of it was

"while the project may save a $1m for a $10k outlay, it will never happen as it's my $10k outlay for someone else to save a $1m..."

Jambalaya - care to comment on that graph ^^^^^, you know the one that shows the opposite of post?

[img] [/img]

Jambalaya - care to comment on that graph ^^^^^, you know the one that shows the opposite of post?

Seriously don't waste your energy. Facts/evidence are entirely unimportant to him.

The longer Cameron and Osborne are in government, the more left wing I'm becoming. This made me chuckle though from the BBC website:

[b]For Labour, shadow chancellor John McDonnell told the BBC: "I'm backing David Cameron on this one, he is absolutely right that his chancellor's cuts to local government are seriously damaging our communities and have to be opposed.

"I welcome the prime minister as another Tory MP joining our campaign against George Osborne's cuts."[/b]

😆

Clear, simple message and a good sound bite. Exactly what Milliband and Balls failed to do.

"Libraries. So cut something else then but the tough choice is what"

I nominate the £1,460,000,000 that the British government spent on R&D for the subsidy junkie arms industry.

https://www.caat.org.uk/issues/jobs-economy

Seriously don't waste your energy. Facts/evidence are entirely unimportant to him.

I think it's quite clever actually, instead of discussing the fact that the PM is either ignorant of the effects of his own policies or willing to lie about them when it suits him this thread has, as they always do, descended into discussing the ramblings of an ignorant prat on the internet.

When I'm an evil dictator I shall have an army of Jambalayas posting on forums 24/7 to deflect all discussions away from me.

I live in Oxfordshire. I don't have a car and cycle everywhere. On the odd occasion I take the infrequent bus into Didcot.
The County Council has voted to end subsidies for all buses in Oxfordshire. Well that's me stuffed then. Time to buy a small trailer for the bike.

[i]I live in Oxfordshire. I don't have a car and cycle everywhere. On the odd occasion I take the infrequent bus into Didcot.
The County Council has voted to end subsidies for all buses in Oxfordshire. Well that's me stuffed then. Time to buy a small trailer for the bike. [/i]

Or with the money you save from not having a car, get a taxi.

Why should everyone subsidise buses that not enough folk use?

IN a rural community a bus service can be a lifeline for many people, without cars or the fitness to get to the nearest town for shopping and the doctors and various other things townies take for granted.

Some things are unprofitable [ we have no idea how many fok use them we just know they dont make money] but essential and we do it for the greater good of society and because we care for our fellow human beings more than we care for our bank balances

If you're going to stop subsidising public transport, surely the packed commuter train services into London should be the first to go? Why are we subsidising transport for people in relatively high paying jobs in the city. Infrequently used services are exactly the ones that should be subsidised.

Why should everyone subsidise buses that not enough folk use?

This is the same debunked argument from earlier. 'I don't use it so why should I pay for it'. Some of us want to live in a society that works and aren't just out for ourselves. Mental innit?

That the scary political arguement. "you saved money by not having x so spend that money on y"
Back in the real world its not that I saving money its I cant afford x because I have no money to spend on it so cant afford y either.

[i]If you're going to stop subsidising public transport,[/i]

What we actually need to do is spend money in the right ways.

We live in a very rural area, for example the village I work in is not served by any public transport with the exception of the school bus.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lilliesleaf

Putting a bus service through would cost an awful lot of money and probably be barely used, so better that we look at other ways to help those folk who either can't afford to own a car, or can't drive.

What about taxi vouchers, or schemes to help folk pass their driving test? Or maybe a 'community' taxi/mini-bus service?

This way not only might we save money but we may end up with a more useful service that actually helps folk.

I am not against spending money on services I don't use, but I am against wasting money, full stop.

Why should everyone subsidise buses that not enough folk use?

Because it's better for the environment (which we all breathe) to have less private cars in use and more public transport?

b r - since rural bus services are discussed in just about every community meeting.. can you put a link to the minutes of the village meeting, of where you work, where everyone said they wouldn't use it...instead of posting wiki references which we all know is invalid as a reference tool...

This way not only might we save money but we may end up with a more useful service that actually helps folk.

ALso the suggestion the subsidised bus does not help folk is false. What we know is that it is not profitable not that it is not helping.

why is it, that private car use is heavily subsidised, but public transport has to make a profit?

It's just struck me that you could add an 'n' to the thread title and it would still be just as ironic.

Catching up ...

Excess spending or not enough tax?

I did comment on the graph, I pointed out how the deficit had exploded under Labour, to what I and much of the electorate think is an unsustainable level. The national debt is now so high we have to target a budget surplus to try and get it under control. I never posted anywhere that a Tory government should always run a budget surplus as a matter of policy, I don't believe that. It depends on circumstances. The last Labour government handed over a deficit running out of control, accelerating to unprecedented and unsustainable levels.

It never ceases to amaze me that so many posters here are unable to accept alternative viewpoints to their own without attempting to trivialise the opposing argument. Remember 2.5 years ago when I was posting here immigration would be a major issue at the GE and beyond, no that was just the viewpoint of rabid UKIPers or DM readers ? Now we have a absolute fiasco throughout Europe and Schengen on the verge of being suspended or even collapsing totally. By failing to grasp the difficult issue firmly years ago we now have a much more serious issue with thousands of people dying.

[i]It never ceases to amaze me that so many posters here are unable to accept alternative viewpoints to their own without attempting to trivialise the opposing argument.[/i]

because time and again your views have been shown to be wrong by many many people, all of whom you've ignored and gone on your way blinded by ideology...

HTH

I did comment on the graph, I pointed out how the deficit had exploded under Labour

I was going to point out how that explosion happened to coincide with the 2008 financial meltdown but aaah, **** it - everyone else knows that, and you won't listen.

I was going to point out how that explosion happened to coincide with the 2008 financial meltdown but aaah, **** it - everyone else knows that, and you won't listen.

I suggest its you who won't listen:

[i]from 2005 onwards Labour was insufficiently vigorous in limiting or eliminating the potential structural deficit. The failure to embrace the Fundamental Savings review of 2005-6 was, in retrospect, a much bigger error than I ever thought at the time. An analysis of the pros and cons of putting so much into tax credits is essential. All of this only has to be stated to seem unconscionably hard. Yet unless we do this, we cannot get the correct analysis of what we did right, what we did wrong, and where we go now.[/i]

Tony Blair, A Journey, 2010

It never ceases to amaze me that so many posters here are unable to accept alternative viewpoints to their own without attempting to trivialise the opposing argument.

Oh the irony.

[i]b r - since rural bus services are discussed in just about every community meeting.. can you put a link to the minutes of the village meeting, of where you work, where everyone said they wouldn't use it...instead of posting wiki references which we all know is invalid as a reference tool... [/i]

The wiki reference was just so folk could see how rural this is, and also how it's actually a decent sized community.

Around here, and in most sparsely populated rural areas, it is pretty much accepted that the only way you can get around (with the exception of travel between the 'major' population) is by private car.

It's nothing really that buses can replace, and anyone that thinks otherwise hasn't got work/children/shopping/etc to juggle.

I pointed out how the deficit had exploded under Labour

Can we please stop looking at the colours on that deficit graph and blaming the respective party?

Surely anyone with half a brain can see that there are outside influences at work?

A few reasons why G Brown was responsible for the financial problems this country is in.

G Brown made the BoE independant and responsible for setting interest rates but with no mandate to include house prices in this mandate.

G Brown did not regulate the banks to ensure that they were not taking on stupid risks.

G Brown did change the tax regime on pensions, making a pension less of an attractive investment leading the the growth of Buy To Let.

Combine these and you get a property boom, with associated dodgy lending which is why the British banks were in such an awful position when similarly idiotic policies had been followed in the US leading to the crash.

Had G Brown taken a different set of economic decisions, Lehmans may still have gone tits up, but Northern Rock et al would not have followed suit like so many dominoes.

So yes, the perilous state of the UK economy can be placed firmly at the door of the Labour party. This is why they have failed to be elected to power at the last two elections.

As for the cuts, if the councils had been given 5% cuts they would have squeeled like stuffed pigs at an Oxford Uni reunion that they would have no choice but to cut front line services, or 10% or 20%, so quite how much money were they wasting under the Labour government to be able to cut 30-40% and the only have to start cutting front line services. Like the little boy who cried wolf, now there may be a real wolf at the door I'm still not sure I actually believe them.

Surely anyone with half a brain can see that there are outside influences at work?

G Brown made the BoE independant and responsible for setting interest rates but with no mandate to include house prices in this mandate.

Not 100% correct, but underlying point OK

A few reasons why G Brown was responsible for the financial problems this country is in

Attempting to pin the global crisis on one person is ludicrous.

I might as well try blaming Thatcher for it - I expect the STW Tories will have an answer for that though.

I though it was Gideon's fault?

Brown did change the tax regime on pensions, making a pension less of an attractive investment leading the the growth of Buy To Let.
Combine these and you get a property boom, with associated dodgy lending which is why the British banks were in such an awful position when similarly idiotic policies had been followed in the US leading to the crash.

[i]So yes, the perilous state of the UK economy can be placed firmly at the door of the Labour party.[/i]

Wow.

Everybody in a position of power (all political parties), bankers and economists can be held responsible in some way. Many economists even admit they didn't see it coming (and they're the supposed to be experts).
http://www.economist.com/news/schoolsbrief/21584534-effects-financial-crisis-are-still-being-felt-five-years-article

we care for our fellow human beings more than we care for our bank balances

Surely anyone with half a brain can see that there are outside influences at work?

It never ceases to amaze me that so many posters here are unable to accept alternative viewpoints to their own without attempting to trivialise the opposing argument.

I'm trying to ignore your nonsense now because there's no point arguing with someone with so little regard for evidence, but I saw this because it was quoted. I think this might actually be the most spectacular hypocrisy I have ever seen. Bravo!

I'll say it again, but do you see people lining up to call mefty a moron for having opposing political views? Ever wondered why you get so much stick and he doesn't, despite you being on the same end of the political spectrum?

I mean, even ninfan mostly makes more reasonable points than you these days - he does at least seem to be familiar with the concept of having opinions based on something other than blind prejudice, even if he's trolling half the time.

Tony Blair, A Journey, 2010

There's a certain irony that Tories now quote Tony Bliar as gospel. Dodgy Dossier, anyone?

I was going to point out how that explosion happened to coincide with the 2008 financial meltdown but aaah, **** it - everyone else knows that, and you won't listen.

Tax Credits are dropping from £30n pa to £25.6bn - that's £25.6bn to support the most vulnerable people in work. The fact is Labour want to reduce the deficit to zero too but now (McDonald/Corbyn) say over 7 years not 5 (prior leadership), well they claim they will do that but I doubt anyone believes them - that's why they lost the election.

@grum, I think you and I both know I don't give a t-ss about so called "stick", the postings are a sign of weakness in others IMO as I've said before. I'm trying to get people to open their eyes to alternative arguments and viewpoints. As I have posted repeatedly, my general viewpoints seem to match government policy here, in Europe and in the US. I understand people rile against that. It's like having a Pantomime villain to shout at.

JY, indeed save it for another Israeli thread, father and son ambushed and shot today and a Jewish group targeted by a sniper while visiting a holy site and a Jewish businessman stabbed in Milan in a race motivated copy-cat attack.

I'm trying to get people to open their eyes to alternative arguments and viewpoints. As I have posted repeatedly, my general viewpoints...

(PS classic appeal to authority. Those playing the Jambalaya debating drinking game have to drink a shot now).

ninfan - millions of 'ordinary' Iraquis would agree with you. Bliar certainly got things done there.

Labour's spending may possibly have been affordable but for the crises but following it they should have reigned in spending but they did not.

Indeed save it for another Israeli thread,

Yes I will follow your lead and save it for another thread pausing only to say how much I once more admire the even handed approach to the issue and the way you have held up your own appeal and managed to see both sides whilst leaving it for another thread 🙄

You are now at the point where you are immediately contradicting your own views. Is it any wonder you are viewed in such a manner, by so many, on this forum?

Honestly I really cannot take another appeal to authority as they are fallacious, everyone knows this, and a sign of muddled thinking.Amusingly they are often not even true as in this case.

IMHO you should ask why so many of the forum feel this way about you. Unfortunately you will conclude it everyone elses weakness and not your own.

ninfan - millions of 'ordinary' Iraquis would agree with you. Bliar certainly got things done there.

Bet you a quid in the poppy tin that you voted labour in 2005 despite this.

e, Labour's spending may possibly have been affordable but for the crises but following it they should have reigned in spending but they did not. They where at the controls of the plane and aiming it straight for the ground.

Thank God they didn't reign it in. The slump we experienced in 2008 would have been much much worse if the government had rapidly slashed public spending, laying off 500k public sector workers in the middle of a recession. Pulling billions out of the economy mid slump is insane.

The great irony is that the current national debt is easily affordable, we pay less in interest now, than we did under the last Tory Government, so spending all that extra cash to help soften the 2008 crash was and still is quite affordable. There is no fiscal imperative to reduce the debt in a hurry, we've been paying more in interest (as a % of GDP) for most of the last 100 years.

ninfan - you lost your money, as it happens.But it's not relevant anyway, because in 2005 he hadn't revealed his homicidal tendencies in full.

Indeed FF but you are missing the important bit. In order to get away with what you identify, goverments have to rig markets to steal from investors. Much better than a default because few people are capable of understanding what you are doing (see above). So if government stealing is OK in your moral code, everything is fine and dandy

>$470 bn of state theft in the good old US of alone. And they get away with it because the public is either unaware of gullible

Jambas, your stamina for feeding is extraordinary!!!

THM: what's this state theft you keep referring to?

(And are you chewkw in disguise?)

In order to get away with what you identify, goverments have to rig markets to steal from investors.

That's certainly an interesting interpretation of monetary policy. Personally I see the role of government as proving economic stability, if this reduces investors returns at some point, then it's a price well worth paying.

THM: what's this state theft you keep referring to?

I'm guessing the fact that QE pushes down Bond prices or something similar.

Seems a price well worth paying to me, certainly preferable to closing 10 major hospitals and putting another 5m on the dole (which would be a very mild scenario had the government kept the deficit at the same % of GDP in the aftermath of the 2008 crash).

Keep those thoughts - your country need you

Gov policy requires subterfuge to be successful and so far they are getting away with it as they did in the past. Hence all the debate focuses on the wrong area of policy which is a great relief to those in power

The powers that be take us for fools and they are largely correct in this case

(And are you chewkw in disguise?)

Not quite as incomprehensible but he does have a tendency to speak only in hints and insinuations and never saying exactly what he means - last few posts being classic examples of his style

Not quite as incomprehensible but he does have a tendency to speak only in hints and insinuations and never saying exactly what he means - last few posts being classic examples of his style

Because he can't justify his position with any evidence!

I am sure he can explain why its theft with an economics 101 basic course whilst patronising us for being too stupid to understand 😉

JY, indeed save it for another Israeli thread, father and son ambushed and shot today and a Jewish group targeted by a sniper while visiting a holy site and a Jewish businessman stabbed in Milan in a race motivated copy-cat attack.

Nothing about Israeli agents invading a hospital and shooting dead an innocent man? Thought not.

FF, on the contrary just that blood donations and tracing staff member in Paris are bit more important.

As was getting a tennis racket restrung !

tracing staff member in Paris

And you say I troll

Is this part of the A level economics syllabus that helps all your students get A and A * ?

No silly they get A* because he teaches them stuff not in the spec.

QE shafts everyone except the rich and those in power. Media manipulation paints it as something that helps the economy and is good for the country as a whole, but it increases inequality and everyone from the middle classes down suffers.

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/2014-05-13/obvious-reason-qe-doesnt-work

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2013/11/qe-wall-street-bailout.html

http://anotherangryvoice.blogspot.co.uk/2012/08/what-is-quantitative-easing-explained.html

Few links if anyone is interested.

Weather forecast correct

he does have a tendency to speak only in hints and insinuations and never saying exactly what he means - last few posts being classic examples of his style

I am sure that last one is massively funny and really clever as well

Some facts relating to child poverty in the UK...e.g. [i]As a direct result of tax and benefit decisions made since 2010, the Institute for Fiscal Studies project that the number of children in relative poverty will have risen from 3.6m to 4.3 million by 2020.[/i]

For more info... http://www.cpag.org.uk/child-poverty-facts-and-figures

Some[u] facts [/u]relating to child poverty in the UK

Institute for Fiscal Studies [u]project[/u] that

Well, it is a fact that they projected it ...it's also a fact I like your posts, they make me chuckle.. 😀

Ninfan, they are (unsurprisingly) less dramatic than the abstract might suggest.

Recent and long term trends also fail to fit the intended narrative too. But hey....

@THM ...wow, what part of the info on child poverty seems OK to you? It was improving until 2010...then flatlined and is now projected to get worse again..

Recent and long term trends also fail to fit the intended narrative too. But hey....

Spelling correct. Superfluous "too".