BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread

Subject: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

A rather grand title I know, but I'm guessing we're going to have a fair bit to talk about in the next few days . . . Now, we all know the deficit was the fault of the previous government, so can we take that as written? I am really more interested in discussing the cuts, their consequences and the alternatives.

So we'll start with the defence cuts, which sees the flagship Ark Royal mothballed early and two new supercarriers being built. Except . . . the carriers won't have fixed winged aircraft operating from them for a decade). 10 whole years with no carriers, no independent operating platforms for the Fleet Air Arm, save Illustrious which carries helicopters. Argentina will be drawing up plans even as we speak.

Pros: Good for the shipyards in the UK and the communities reliant on them being built - certainly a plus, and as capital projects perhaps not as useful as hospitals or schools but then you can't have everything.

Cons: Cost, not operating fully for 10 years, actually useless against anyone who really wants a big fight (i.e. China and Russia) and international terrorism has rendered them largely obsolete; OK against smaller countries, especially ones with oil that hate us.

Good news: Trident decision put off until 2015, when hopefully it will be dumped in favour of common sense.

Bad news: Defence spending is still 2% of the budget and that's too much for a small country punching way above it's weight these days.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Silas
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 11:32 AM

As your first mistake was in your first sentance, I didn't bother to read the rest.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 11:43 AM

Look, I don't want to discuss who's fault it is, but the cuts themselves.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 11:59 AM

One of the things that intrigues me in connection with "Defence spending" is the oft-repeated phrase about how NOT building certain ships will be MORE expensive than building them. I assume that this would be due to "financial penalties", "cancellation clauses", and the like, and, if so, wonder how companies can get away with insisting upon such contracts - after all, if there be genuine competition for such multi-million pounds (or dollars, Euros, any other currency), should not a Government simply decide to award a contract to a bidder which does not insist on such a contract? Given that Governments can retrospectively change pension provisions, retirement ages, this that and the other when those who are affected are the Polloi/Multitude/Mob/Public at large, I suppose I'm asking naive questions.

Nevertheless, the notion of their building new Aircraft Carriers which will sail around without any aeroplanes is irresistible. Was it Spike Milligan who wrote about tanks without shells, their crew members periodically shouting "Bang!"?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:12 PM

The first sentence doesn't seem too controversial - A rather grand title I know, but I'm guessing we're going to have a fair bit to talk about in the next few days . . .

The second on edoes seem to inducate an unexamined assumption that the assumption that reducing a deficit is all about cutting expenditure.

Enormous extra costs were indeed loaded on to the public purse by the last government's response to the bank meltdown, but cutting public spending to make up for that is only part of the solution to the resulting deficit.

Putting up tax is the other part, with income tax being a far fairer way of doing than VAT, and it's at a very low level at present compared to previous times. 25p for the standard rate would make much more sense, if we're really "all in this together".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:14 PM

The first sentence doesn't seem too controversial - A rather grand title I know, but I'm guessing we're going to have a fair bit to talk about in the next few days.

The second one does however seem to indicate an unexamined assumption - the assumption that reducing a deficit is all about cutting expenditure.

Enormous extra costs were indeed loaded on to the public purse by the last government's response to the bank meltdown, but cutting public spending to make up for that is only part of the solution to the resulting deficit.

Putting up tax is the other part, with income tax being a far fairer way of doing than VAT, and it's at a very low level at present compared to previous times. 25p for the standard rate would make much more sense, if we're really "all in this together".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:36 PM

"The second on edoes seem to inducate an unexamined assumption that the assumption that reducing a deficit is all about cutting expenditure."

The cuts are about dealing with the deficit (at least on the surface - could it be there's an idealogical angle to them too?), nowhere have I said it's the only way they're being dealt with. It's just about the cuts OK?

Good news: The UK nuclear stockpile is to reduced by 25% - hooray.

Bad news: Cameron's just made 25,000 people jobless.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Silas
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 12:45 PM

"Look, I don't want to discuss who's fault it is, but the cuts themselves."


Well dont start your thread by stating who's fault YOU think it is then.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

Posing the question "Can we take that as written?" requires the response "No, we cannot". If you are going to blame the previous government for the deficit they need to be tried and found guilty for it first. That deficit could have happened to any governmnet who was in at the time of the global financial meltdown at the hands of the bankers.

So, without insult nor offence, I am happy to take part in a thread about spending cuts but your first paragraph was about aportioning blame that you now do not want mentioning. That aside... it is the ply of any new government to blame the outgoing one for any troubles.

I am not sure Argentina wil be drawing up plans. We still have an airfield in The Falklands that should be a credible deterrant to any repeat of our last legitimate war (if any war can be legitimate). Getting rid of Harriers seems crazy though nonetheless until JSF is in service (and lots can happen before then to stem their future).

I suppose the next generation aircraft carriers have to carry on or else we get into a Concorde fallacy once again on escallating costs. Who knows what contracts have been handed out with which guarantees? So I guess they are already past the point of no return on commitment to them.

Social housing funding has been cut by 50%. Just at a time when more people are likely to lose their jobs and their homes, they cut back on providing affordable social housing and are again looking to the private sector to solve it.

Of course the BIG news will come tomorrow and I think it may be wise to save further comments until we know exactly wha they have in mind and how Jill and Joe Public are likely to be hit.

The axe should be sharp enough by now as they have had long enough to sharpen it. They have wielded it for some time... here goes

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:03 PM

The BBC licence fee is to be frozen for the next six years at £145.50, it has emerged.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Edthefolkie
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM

That's the first bit of Murdoch payback then. What a cynic I am.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:17 PM

"Well dont start your thread by stating who's fault YOU think it is then."

Fair enough. My mistake.

"Posing the question "Can we take that as written?" requires the response "No, we cannot". If you are going to blame the previous government for the deficit they need to be tried and found guilty for it first."

Ok, my mistake. You're correct.

"That deficit could have happened to any governmnet who was in at the time of the global financial meltdown at the hands of the bankers."

Er . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:20 PM

I am really more interested in discussing the cuts, their consequences and the alternatives.

"The alternatives" to the cuts include other ways of reducing the deficit, such as putting up income tax, or finding ways of increasing the national income, which can in fact mean intelligent extra spending rather than clumsy cuts.

Cuts imposed clumsily are liable to backfire - for example it's estimated that for every pound spent the UK Film Council has resulted in £5 additional film revenue form the UK. So they butcher the UK Film Council...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Charmion
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:21 PM

WRT cancellation clauses: They are included in these massive defence contracts because these project are so enormous that they take over the entire enterprise. If the contract goes away (and the contractor is not at fault), then the company has to find new customers -- and how many new customers do you think are pounding on the gate at a naval shipyard that specializes in aircraft carriers? When new work is found, then the company has to retool and hire new workers, all while it has no income.

There isn't a qualified bidder in the world that would compete for a major defence contract without cancellation clauses.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: greg stephens
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:23 PM

My scheme with the aircarft carriersa is to sail them around showing other countries' flags. Then maybe their aircraft will land on our aircraft carriers, and the brave sailors can jump out and capture the planes. Then we can fight wars using them.And we can ransom the pilots back to their own countries, to help defray our expenses. How brilliant is that?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:32 PM

saw Dispatches last night...

part of it featured how George Osbourne (among others) protect their millions from the tax man and all legally.. Off shore accounts, trusts, etc.

I know that's another thread but unless the uber rich pay a fair tax then ......


well I still think we need riots.... Guy Falkes night is getting near. Maybe nearer than we think.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 02:48 PM

Dispatches

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 03:23 PM

First things to cut should be the tax loopholes.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,mauvepink
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 03:45 PM

Sugarfoot Jack...

...er   ;-)

Well, you know what I meant lol

Thank you for beng so magnaminous   :-)

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 03:53 PM

"First things to cut should be the tax loopholes."

Please elaborate, exactly what "loopholes" are you referring to.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 04:17 PM

Just for a start, this one - Residency loophole 'costs UK £4bn'

Which on its own is several times higher than the maximum estimates for "benefit fraud".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Leadfingers
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 04:28 PM

When members of the House of Lords can commit Fraud and only get theit wrists slapped , and people with more income an hour than most of us get in a month pay less tax than we do . there ARE loopholes that need plugging

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lox
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 04:36 PM

.

    The Dispatches Documentary is very eyeopening.
   
    A little Article from George Monbiot caught my eye.

    George Monbiot.

    The subject of the article is "where" the cuts are being made.

    Quangos that help rich people get richer arent' being closed down,
    even if they have been shown to be hugely wasteful, on a scale
    hundreds of times greater than benefit payouts, but Quangos that help
    the environment or the poor are being eclipsed.

    Osborne and Cameron are a couple of evil shitbags.

.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 05:32 PM

This government has prepared the way extremely carefully for this event. We all must agree that the deficit is unsustainable and has to be cut.

Too many here are scaremongering. The cuts will be fair - hitting everyone from the rich to the poor. We can't carry a sizable number of people who chose not to work on our backs any longer. Neither can we allow a lavish lifestyle to teenage mothers and those who claim they are too ill to do any kind of work. Labour have already decided not to fight every cut, accepting perhaps that having spent months electing a new leader, it is simply too late to try to kick against the idea of tackling the deficit that they created.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 05:54 PM

hhmmm saw an interview on the news a Burnley resident with Parkinson's failed the new incapacity reassessment.... the test is so weighted that even though he has marked weakness and tremors he somehow managed to get a 0 score. You have to make 15 in order to be deemed unfit.

0 means completely ft for work. He said " he wished it was true."

so based on that test he loses his incapacity. I missed a bit of the interview, but something was said about medical opinion will not be considered in the reassessment.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 06:02 PM

from the Daily Telegraph

http://www.lancashiretelegraph.co.uk/news/8442324.Burnley_incapacity_benefit_tests_start_today/?action=complain&cid=8845359

Paul Hogarth, of Burnley Citizens' Advice Bureau, said he was unhappy at the form the tests took.

He said: "We do have a number of concerns about the testing process.

"We don't believe the test is fit for purpose. It doesn't assess people in the reality of work.

"One of our clients received zero points and was told to go back to work, but within weeks they were diagnosed with terminal cancer with only weeks to live.

"Another client couldn't read or write but the medical professional failed to pick this up and they were sent back to work."

The CAB in Burnley has represented 60 people who were passed fit to work at tribunals in the past year, with over 80 per cent of appeals being successful.

and this in the north where the number of jobseekers far exceeds available jobs

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 06:04 PM

scuse me correction the Lancashire Telegraph

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 06:27 PM

A pity it wasn't the Daily Telegraph reporting that.
............................

The cuts will be fair - hitting everyone from the rich to the poor.

For the truly rich the cuts will not even be noticeable. For the people in the middle, they will be a relatively mild nuisance. For the people at the bottom they will be devastating. That's one definbition of fair...

"This government has prepared the way extremely carefully for this event." That is very true. But the care was primarily about spin and public relations.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lox
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:20 PM

"The cuts will be fair - hitting everyone from the rich to the poor"

I know people preparing this stuff in Witehall.

What they tell me combined with the information provided by George Monbiot (amongst others), makes it quite clear that low earners are going to punished for this while the richest are going to be pretty much left alone and then rewarded with tax breaks.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lox
Date: 19 Oct 10 - 07:39 PM

Virginia,

You'll find this funny!

I got a letter in the post last week telling me that my incapacity benefit was being stopped for some reason or other.

The irony? ...

I do not receive and never have received or even applied for incapacity benefit.

Closer inspection revealed that there was a wrong digit in my National Insurance number.

So presumably someone elses incapacity benefit was stopped because I am fit to work. ... ?!?!?!?!

I wrote to them of course straight away to point out this error, but I wonder how many new similar stories will arise out of Osbornes new punishment for not being able to read and write well enough to fill out an application form properly.

Of course the transfer of resources out of failing schools into schools that are already doing fine should exaggerate the whole matter nicely a few years down the line.

No one is that stupid. This is being done on purpose. I had forgotten just what a bunch of remorseless fuckers these guys are.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Turner
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:19 AM

All the points are relevant, look whatever you think, the problem is only going to get worse for Joe Average. Those that lived through the last session of cuts, know whats coming, my whole point is, the rich will stay rich and the less well off will be worse off. Its no good saying, "Oh it will be allright" no it wont for those down the scale of income.
The greed of most people is as much to blame as the bankers are.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:30 AM

Including shite hawks like Wayne Rooney and all the other greedy millionaire footballers who take off the poor.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM

Aha, some good news.
As a pensioner, all the goodies will still be there.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:24 AM

Danny Alexander has just been on the TV. He's gone native as per the rumours.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:34 AM

490,000 jobs to go in public services. More when you consider the businesses which rely on them. Where's the growth?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:44 AM

How many of those 490000 jobs are hanger on jobs?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arnie
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 09:51 AM

Don't worry - the private sector will create sufficient new jobs to mop up the ones lost in the public sector. I know this to be true 'cos Osborne said so.

As regards defence cuts - why is the UK expected to 'punch above our weight'. The Spanish, Italians, Germans, Danish etc. don't punch above their weight but seem to be as secure from external threats as anyone else in the EU. Also, one aircraft carrier can be taken out with one missile, so where is the point in spending £5 billion other than to provide local employment? The answer would seem to lay in building a few more smaller ships with helicopter-carrying capacity. And I wouldn't bother sending the army out to fight anyone else's war either unless it's definitely a Nato operation or in defence of one of our dependencies - I think there are a few still left.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:29 AM

Robert Preston just said that the private sector hires cheaper workers from Eastern Europe. What about the private sector companies dependent upon government money? Affordable housing and Building Schools for the Future cuts mean developers and construction companies lose. More redundancies.

New government is expecting many of the people being made redundant to go into the care industry.   The pay is low. Some people are not fit physically or emotionally for this type of work. Who protects the vulnerable from being abused by care workers employed by private companies?

Fewer prison officers and fewer police officers means more criminals on the street. This nonsense about providing good correction and rehabilitation. Who will provide it? There will be no jobs for these people to go into except care work? That is a mind boggling thought isn't it?

Not looking good.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:38 AM

Can someone explain the economics to me? 490,000 public sector workers are going and private companies reliant on government contracts will be cutting jobs so, inevitably, unemployment rates will rise as well. With a shrinking jobs market many of these people will be claiming benefits long-term instead of paying taxes and, of course, spending less. So where's the saving?

Wouldn't it have been more sensible to try to boost the economy before making such drastic cuts? Sounds like basic business sense to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:56 AM

Exceptionally sensible cuts.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 10:59 AM

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:25 AM

52 with limited mobility and working for county council heritage and arts....

hhmmm

See you guys on the street. I should go mark out my spot for cardboard box home now.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:33 AM

I have friends who work for quangos. Not managers or bosses, but down on the street frontline people offering help to some very, very vulnerable people many of whom slip through the welfare and healthcare nets. These small organisations are being cut because their managers are being paid too much - the people who are at the pointy end do this because they want to help, there's no big money or ladder to climb for them.

This is the perennial problem with the Tories. They can't seem to understand that some people choose a vocation because they believe in public service, in working for a common good in unglamorous and often quite harrowing jobs. My wife worked for 14 years in the NHS and the people she worked with were dedicated and caring; I know social workers, teachers, drug outreach workers, nurses and policemen and women who will never be rich in their chose professions but are committed to making society a better place. A friend I bumped into this morning has worked for many years for our local authority, and I asked her about the mood amongst the staff and she said it was grim; they felt like the clock was about to be turned back 10 years.

This isn't the big society - those people are out there doing that and Cameron knows this (if he doesn't he needs to take his head out of his arse). This is the systematic destruction on idealogical grounds of the state funded apparatus that was established to make society better, to engage and reach out to those in need and encourage those who make their living serving their fellow citizens.

Somewhere in a swanky private hospital in SW5, closeted from the filth and grime of ordinary working people who fall ill, an ailing old lady hears the news of the spending cuts, allows herself a wry smile and begins to feel a little bit better; after 30 years her plan is finally coming together . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:52 AM

"See you guys on the street."

You certainly will, VT - remember the Poll Tax protests!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Silas
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 11:58 AM

Good post SJ.

Agree with every word.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:05 PM

"I should go mark out my spot for cardboard box home now."

I have decidedly twitchy feelings about the present govts. proposed changes to social housing. They want to eliminate secure tenancies and replace them for fixed term tenancies which will require regular reviews to determine if you are 'needy' enough to still require your home. They also intend to cut social housing by 50%. Reading between the lines it seems they intend to complete the dismantling of social housing initiated by Thatcher. With more people out of work and on low incomes, where are they going to live?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:06 PM

EDIT:

They also intend to cut [funding for] social housing by 50%.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:34 PM

As Malcolm Tucker would say: Fuckity-hell

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 12:56 PM

The other thing I meant to add was that they plan to increase rents in social housing to virtually match private rents. As I said before, where will this leave those on low incomes? What of those who you cited previously, such as those who work in the care industry for example?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:05 PM

A great number of half empty glasses here. You'll all just have to get on with it now.