[Closed] Spending review - who's watching/listening?

[img] [/img]

yep nothing like hearing a person who has lived his life without the need for the state removing it from the poor whilst making them pay for the mistakes of the rich....we hould be more like the french and riot at this sort of thing.
We need to know where the cuts will be applied within budgets really to make a decision not just the cuts themselves.
Think I ticked all the boxes there 😉

What - and listen to that thick ignorant lightweight tell a pack of lies?

It's like a nightmarish cross between Kafka and Dickens.

Impenetrable and abusive.

Go on then, one more time: [url=

People[/url]

Just had a look at the BBC website.

It says that there will be cuts of 25% on average across Whitehall departments.

Then it sets out a whole list of cuts, none of which is above 25%

So either the BBC doesn't understand what "average" means, or there's something we've not been told yet?

41% decrease in budget to Culture, Media and Sports. Thats more than 25%.

I think that figure takes into account the removal of proposed spending increases as well.

Only thing I'm pleased about is the rescue of the Presbyterian Mutual Fund as my Mum had her life savings in there

Other than that, mleh

This seems to sum it up quite well:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/oct/18/conservative-financial-crisis-opportunity

I am loving the silence on this thread as all of the armchair political pundits wait for opinions to plagiarise to emerge from the actual political pundits.

I already have my opinion that I have been shouting since this all kicked off

Its ideologically driven cuts. The tories are taking this as an opportunity to destroy the state sector and move from our moderate tax moderate spend economy to a very low tax low spend economy with non universal services.

Its a figleaf for the end of the NHS by fragmentation and privatisation.

It will do untold damage with at least a million more on the dole queue and thus will reduce tax receipts thus negating the savings

Science and high tech has been a driver in our economy in recent times - so cuat support of R&D - just stupid.

Its not even logical - as we saw from the defense stuff. Why do we not need carrier borne aircraft for the next ten years but will need them after that

What we can hope for it the Lib Dems regain some backbone and principle and let the coalition collapse.

If the government department I worked in for 8 yrs was a good representation then if you cut the right staff you could have got rid of 50% of staff, still get everything done and still finish early on a Friday.

That won't be the ones that they'll cut though...

What? They've lowered taxes?

backhander - Member

What? They've lowered taxes?

They will do in a couple of years, but only for the richest 10%, when they sell the banks off, they will give everyone a little bit, but then take it back from the majority under another guise.

We're all in this together.
[img] [/img]

http://www.leftfootforward.org/2010/10/george-osborne-andrew-mitchell-philip-hammond-dispatches-investigation-into-tax-avoidance/

I am loving the silence on this thread as all of the armchair political pundits wait for opinions to plagiarise to emerge from the actual political pundits.

Unlike you of course.

My opinion is that yes there is waste in the public sector - but a massive sudden knee jerk cut is an incredibly inefficient way of going about it. Attacking and demoralising the public sector is also counter-productive. The idea that the private sector is going to magically produce jobs to take up the slack is utter nonsense - especially given that many companies rely on public sector contracts.

I'm not going to read any replies but I can guess what they are:

Moan moan bleat bleat unfair hateful I'm emigrating, etc

I'm not going to read any replies but I can guess what they are:

Why don't you shut up then?

What Jambo said... but that was the bit I worked in ... and ironically I have no doubt that they will all be fine while the frontline people who actually do stuff and deal with the public and earn a pittance will be the ones stuffed. 🙄

Why don't you shut up then?

Miserable sod aren't you?

Moan moan bleat bleat, etc

But happy to dish out your dubiously "researched" opinions to all and sundry.

That won't be the ones that they'll cut though...

Exactly - it's the same people who have allowed all the waste to happen who now get to decide what gets cut - I'm sure they will make all the right decisions and not just look after themselves and their own.... 🙄

But happy to dish out your dubiously "researched" opinions to all and sundry.

Rather than just copying and pasting like you do you mean?

Sorry for caring about society and people's lives/jobs etc - I guess we should all be incredibly self absorbed like you, then the world would be a better place eh?

Aren't these cuts only taking levels of spending back to 2007 in real terms? To me that means that either they are not actually that bad (NHS has no cut backs) or what the bloody hell has "prudent" Labour being doing with our money in the last couple of years?

Who's Gideon, I thought George was giving the speech, is he sick?

The example of the NHS - the cost of running it has increased massively - mainly because people are living longer and we are having more expensive treatments that weren't previously available. And don't believe that the NHS is having no cutbacks - complete myth.

Sorry for caring about society and people's lives/jobs etc

Sorry for not feeling the need to shout about how caring I am about people's lives and jobs - see I don't think there's any need to shout about it.

I bet you also shout about any charities you donate to as well?

Look up both these words:

Sanctimonious
Pious

They will do in a couple of years, but only for the richest 10%, when they sell the banks off, they will give everyone a little bit, but then take it back from the majority under another guise.

Grum and Matt: Good god. You 2 should really take a long hard look at yourselves. Your bickering is now beyond pathetic.

[i]Don't swear please! Mod[/i]

Sorry for not feeling the need to shout about how caring I am about people's lives and jobs - see [b]I don't think there's any need to shout about it.[/b]

Well **** me, that's a first, eh Mat.

Surf-Mat - Are you alright today? You seem particularly objectionable?

< pulls up comfy chair and flicks kettle on! >

Unlike you of course.

Ahh, grum old chap, can always rely on you.

Personally I reckon that we have been prepared over the last few months for some seriously nasty axe wielding and having set our expectations so low, have actually provided us with a best case scenario (i.e. within the 25-40% range that they were asking people to plan for, they have come in at more the 25% end).

This was tactical and probably fairly sensible. They have made some of the right noises by protecting the NHS and Education, though not universities which fits in very well with their elitism agenda (though I do tend to agree that if everyone goes to university then who is going to do all the real work?). They have talked about investing in Science which pleases me.

They have also (apparently) found £6billion that they can cut from Whitehall and have reduced the size of the treasury by a third, which is both impressive and unlikely.

Welfare was always going to take a kicking but we are not too clear on what they are going to do yet. I do like the idea that those on benefits will be limited to the average working families income though it remains to be seen whether they come good on this claim.

I reckon they have made a lot of the right noises, penalise the banks, look after the elderly, downsize the military, simplify the benefits system, axe chunks of Whitehall. Details were not so forthcoming so we will have to wait and see what the small print says but those complaining about 40% cuts will be cut off mid stride and our dear NHS (The UK's largest employer) is looking pretty safe.

Now all we have to do is have a massive boom in employment and zero inflation and we will be laughing. (as if).

Grum and Matt: Good god. You 2 should really take a long hard look at yourselves. Your bickering is now beyond pathetic.

I call it as I see it. They guy is a tool - never contributes anything other than boasting about himself. Anyway - I'm off for a nice walk in the Dales now.

Mat, you're always up for an argument, aren't you? AntiSTW-man, the lone voice of truth, crusading against the baa-ing masses of STW.

Well, everyone has opinions, and you're absolutely entitled to yours. But - and it's just a suggestion - why not find somewhere that you like a bit more? You know, the sort of place where you agree with people on more than the occasional point, where you can feel a little more at home.

Or is there a masochistic streak to you which makes you come up with a nugget of nonsense on a daily basis?

Any ideas where the private sector will generate circa 500,000 jobs? Are we going to have a massive increase in our exports or something?

Any ideas where the private sector will generate circa 500,000 jobs?

We could swap all of the brooms in the country for toothbrushes, that would do it.

Certainly never been a Tory supporter but the cuts seem quite fair to me. God knows how we have got into a situation where state spending has doubled in 10 years and thats not including the bank bailout. Where is all this money going!! There seems to be far to much waste and people living off the state. There needs to be a wholesale review of what we actually think the states responsibility is. What makes me really sick is that because there are so many people scrounging off the state in all manner of ways, the people that really need the money (child carers, soldiers with their legs blown off, handicap people, cancer suffers, proper asylum seekers) don't get what they need. Its a bloody disgrace. Why are we paying for people to get more on benefits than the average family earns, bloody madness. Your life and lifestyle is your responsibility and not the states. The state should only help out people that have had a shitty stick of luck thrown at them and should be the last line of support, not the first as is now the case.

TJ - Where are the 40% departmental cuts that you claimed were going to happen?

You were absolutely adamant!

You stated that these evil TORY cuts were:

Simple fact. Some depts will be less than 25% - but as 25% is the overall cut wanted then some depts will be 40%

In fact, the cuts announced are [b]lower[/b] than the cuts that were proposed by Labour, got that, [u][b]lower[/b][/u]

You ran around for weeks playing chicken little, whilst some of us pointed out that you were talking shite, and that overall government spending was actually going to [b]rise[/b] over the next five years - but no, you were adamant know it all runs around spouting chicken little panic stories from the left wing tabloids.

You repeatedly stated that the intention was a 25% average budget cut!

You were wrong!

admit it!

My niece works at Derby Uni and her boss readily admits that half the staff under him are either useless or lazy but he has no power to get rid of them. Consequently his department is virtually split into two - those that work, and the old guard who shove paper around waiting to retire.

Guess which will have to go when the cuts kits come?

nick - sorry to disappoint but there's unique quality of moaning on STW. A certain "edge" that no other forums have.

There are also some genuinely bright people who are great to argue with.

As for being a lone voice of truth - hmmm, never thought about that one.

Off to boast about my new title on another forum... 😉 😆

Any ideas where the private sector will generate circa 500,000 jobs?

The public sector could borrow a ****-ton of money and create them!?

So that spending review was aimed at getting people into work was it...

My missus was swithering about going back to work after her maternity leave finished. The cut in the amount of the childcare element of the working tax credit from 80-70% means that she is better off not working. Must be a hell of a lot more like that too.

Zulu - actually I am completely vindicated in what I said. ?This is exactly as I predicted

these cuts are far greater than those proposed by labour and are averaging around 25% with some depts as high as 40 % - exactly what I said as I was quoting the tory party and their propaganda organs.

Ok - it looks like the actual average cut is around 20% not 25%

Dept of sport media and balh is 41% cut.

I'm fairly sure that you said that the cuts on average would be between 40 and 25% actually and were suggesting that it wouldn't be towards the lower end...

actually I am completely vindicated in what I said. ?This is exactly as I predicted

TJ, you should go into politics mate, you would fit right in.

# About 490,000 public sector jobs likely to be lost
# Average 19% four-year cut in departmental budgets

close to waht I predicted

Business, Innovation and Skills

Annual budget: £21.2bn

Outcome:[b] Annual cut[/b] of 7.1% year.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Annual budget: £2.9bn

Outcome: 8% annual cut

Simple fact. Some depts will be less than 25% - but as 25% is the overall cut wanted then some depts will be 40%

Is what I said as nicely quoted by zulu

Now the figures are slightly less than that. The average cut looks to be around 20% some depts well over 30% and some 40%

Sounds fairly much as I predicted.

I can't do compound interest

If you could then you would realise that the effect of it would be to bring the average cut down.

30% of x-30% is less than the original 30% of x.

Is what I said as nicely quoted by zulu

Now the figures are [s]slightly[/s] less than that

Sounds [s]fairly much[/s] nothing at all as I predicted.

Seriously......

TandemJeremy - Member
Outcome: Annual cut of 7.1% year.

thus its pushing 30% over the 4 years ( I can't do compound interest )

Nope: 0.929 * 0.929 * 0.929 * 0.929 * = 0.745 eg 74.5% so a 25% cut.

so thats well over 30% over 4 years

Its still pretty much in line with what I predicted. Which is unsuprising seeing as I was quoting tory mouthpieces.

Edit - ta for the lesson in compound interest.

I shall call you the eel from now on TJ.

LOL - TJ just admit that you're disappointed that it's not the 40% across the board that you were suggesting it could be because that was one of the projections the depts had been asked to come up with 😉

TJ, see if you can pick out the inconsistencies in your own reply!

# Average 19% four-year cut in departmental budgets
[b]close to waht I predicted[/b]

Zulu - actually I am completely vindicated in what I said. ?[b]This is exactly as I predicted[/b]
these cuts are far greater than those proposed by labour and are averaging around 25% with some depts as high as 40 % - exactly what I said as I was quoting the tory party and their propaganda organs.

Ok - it looks like the actual average cut is [b]around 20% not 25%[/b]

Dept of sport media and balh is 41% cut... [i][u]in administration costs[/u], not overall budget![/i]

Call me what you like

What I said would happen is pretty much what has happened not suprising as I was quoting tory spokesmen
Average of 20% not the 25% I quoted and dept cuts up to 40%

I think the point being made TJ is that you were being rather dramatic as usual and trying to talk up your case beyond what they'd said would happen which as it turns out (suprisingly TBH) seems to be exactly what they have said now...

(who's got a link to the thread - can't seem to find it)

So you're ~20% inaccurate?

From BBC:

Culture, Media and Sport

Annual budget: £2bn

What's being cut: Budget cut 24% over four years. A[b]dministration costs to be cut 41%[/b] while core arts programmes will see a 15% fall in funding. Free museum entry to remain in place. BBC licence fee to be frozen for next six years. Corporation will also fund World Service and BBC Monitoring. [b][u]Adds up to equivalent of 16% savings over the period.[/u][/b]

Come on TJ - wheres the much vaunted 40%

Clubber - I never said that - look at the quote from em that Zulu kindly provided.

Zulu - I am far closer to it that you were with your - "there will be no cuts mantra" - like to admit you were wrong?

I fully admit I said 25% average and its nearer 20% I did alsoi say that it was possible there was an element from the torys of say X % cuts then when you go for Xminus a bit cut people will be relieved.

clubber - no as usual people were and are claiming I said things that I have not. Read the quote from Zulu that I said.

Had Labour come up with proposed cuts for clearing their own mess up?

That's just a single quote - I'm talking about the thread. Give me a link and I'll happily quote (or retract should I be proven wrong...).

I have no idea what thread you are talking about. That quote from Zulu is and was always my position.

Maybe, maybe not. Assuming we're talking about the same thread, my reading of your comments was that you were suggesting that the 40% option that depts had been asked to prepare a report on was the position that they were driving to take and that 25% was just a lowest starting point.

Zulu - how about the 50 or 60 % cut in social housing?

TJ, you're floundering!

Labour's proposed cuts amounted to 20%, and did NOT protect the areas ringfenced by the coalition.

Lets get this straight TJ, once and for all

i) [b]The Evil TORY coalition cuts are [u]lower[/u] than those proposed by Labour[/b]

ii) [b]The Evil TORY coalition cuts are not the 25% average that you claimed they would be[/b]

well clunbbber that not what I have ever thought or said. People like to make up stuff they think I have said or will say

I merely quoted the troy spokesmen who said " average 25% some depts 40% Not far from what has happened is it. There is still detail to come out yet

Zulu - that is simply factually wrong. Logic failure as well.

clunbbber?

Let's settle this - thread link, please!

Despite the hype today's announcements mean very little. The real detail will be revealed as departments announce what programmes they are planning to cut.

clunbbber sounds more friendly does it not? 🙂

Fat fingers.

I guess that zulu held onto the most damming quote he could of mine. I really doubt you will see anything more than that.

heh, only on STW can 16%=18%=20%=25%=40% (especially funny when dealing in £bn)

incidently, black is actually the same as white and fish is the same as chips

Call me a thicko (and people often do!), but can someone explain how these cuts will work?

Scenario A)
If department 'x' currently has a budget of £1m, and have to cut by 10%, they will operate on a budget of 900k in year 1. In years 2, 3 and 4 does their budget get cut by 10% each year meaning they will operate on £656,100 in year 4.

Or..

Scenario B)
If department 'x' currently has a budget of £1m, and have to cut by 10%, they will operate on a budget of 900k in year 1. But in years 2, 3 and 4 will they still operate on a budget of 900k rather than the original £1m. But its still called a 10% cut as is lower than where they started?

Ta!

Scenario A usually and in the examples TJ quoted/calculated (incorrectly) above.

our dear NHS (The UK's largest employer) is looking pretty safe.

is it ****! I find the news about Thatcher in (a bupa) hospital today of particularly awesome irony and bad timing.

 

our dear NHS (The UK's largest employer) is looking pretty safe.

No chance - though that's the same regardless of which power-hungry self-interested bunch of [s]greedy sods[/s] politicians had got into power...

Zulu - that is simply factually wrong. Logic failure as well.

[b]Hahahahahahaha[/b] - like saying that the cuts are "[b]exactly as I predicted[/b]"

Come on TJ - break it down, which of the following is [u]factually wrong[/u]:

i) The Evil TORY coalition cuts are lower than those proposed by Labour

ii) The Evil TORY coalition cuts are not the 25% average that you claimed they would be

I suppose that actually they're not wrong, they're [u]exactly as you predicted.[/u]..