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.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:13 PM

It was tough, but it was needed. I feel they could have done more. The benefits system is still too generous. The 980million overseas aid budget should have been cut. Charity starts at home.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM

"The benefits system is still too generous"

Why?

"Charity starts at home."

It does? Why burden already stretched charities with the appalling changes to social housing legislation and closed-down quangos then?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:39 PM

Do you have kids Bonzo? Do you have, or hope to have, grandchildren? Do you expect all of them never to need any assistance from the state, to never experience serious injury or disability or never find themselves bankrupt and penniless, or otherwise disenfranchised from essential supports?

As the last remaining descendant of a number of quite affluent ancestors, in theory I aught to have been a rather wealthy young woman. But a number of human tragedies conspired to determine that I neither inherited a bean, nor was I blessed with the necessary well-being to forge my own path to material security (Dickens would love it!)

It would be intriguing to know what my upper middle-class great grandparents who buggered off to tax exile with their savings many years ago, would now think about their genetic line dying with me currently wondering if I might be homeless sometime in the near future.
Perhaps nothing much, but then they were Tories.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM

I would expect them to save for a mortgage deposit just as I did in the 70s.

I'm not familiar with this expression "social housing" do you mean Council Houses??

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 01:59 PM

So you can't imagine a scenario where your children or grandchildren are struck with some illness or disability? Or even where they through no fault of their own, make a bad investment on dodgy advise and lose their life savings? Or or or? Considering the affluence of those who came before me, my fortunes have been pretty crumby. Bad luck can afflict anyone. That's what the state is there for, not merely to 'carry' some supposed willfully indigent underclass, but your children and their children too - if and when they need it.

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

I would expect them to save for a mortgage deposit just as I did in the 70s.

And how did the cost of the house you were buying compare with your annual earnings, Bonzo? Two or three times perhaps.   Now it'd be likely to be more like ten times, more in places like London.

"Social Housing" also includes property rented from Housing Associations as well as from Councils.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:04 PM

My son fends for himself and it's his choice to have 3 children. If he's got any sense he will get round the cap on child tax benefit.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

"There will be no jobs for these people to go into except care work? That is a mind boggling thought isn't it?"

It's been this way for years down here in the West Country, CS...and yet...we have to pay 50% HIGHER water rates for those bloody sharks at South West Water.

There ain't no jobs down here, barely above minimum wages..seriously not..Most are on minimum wage, have been for years and years..Care jobs are pretty much all there is. A bit of shop work if you're lucky, but so many shops are closing...

Torbay is particularly badly off. People here are already dirt poor.

Council house reviews? Yup, they should be reviewed from time to time, because someone could be living in one having found a highly paid job, and that's so unfair. I knew a bloke whose parents have always lived in their council house. They struggled all their lives, but when they died he was allowed to buy that house for a pittance, despite having a well paid job at British Telecom. Why?

As for foisting up rents, that's ridiculous. Where the fuck do they think people are going to get the money from?

I know what it's like to live in fear of losing everything, because it happened to my dear Dad. He never owned his house, had a private landlord on the Pinnerwood Park Estate. When he had the money, (in the days when houses there were valued around £2,000) they refused to sell any houses off. When he was doublecrossed by his business partner, losing all, he struggled for the remainder of his days. He'd struggled anyway, just being a humble optician. New landlords took over, sold off most of the private rented housing they'd inherited, for huge sums of money, then tried to inflate the rents of those who couldn't afford to buy in order to get them out so they could sell their houses too.

It was absolute shite. Dad was sick with worry. Luckily people were far more protected, tenants that is, in those days, so they only were able to increase the rent by a small amount, but they tried over and over, to get more money from folks who couldn't afford it.

I saw the worry, the suffering, the insecurity, firsthand..and I remember, when I was about 13 bursting into floods of tears at my friend's house, at the thought of losing the only 'home' I'd ever known. That house was part of me..I'd never known anything else, and now, some bastard had turned up trying to get us out.   I don't think any of us ever felt 'safe' there again..

I worry terribly for all those who are already struggling so very much...

Bonzo, please back off, you seemingly have no idea how so many people are suffering 'out here'...genuine people, good people, people who've scrimped and scraped their whole lives long. Yes, there are scroungers, there always will be, sadly...in every country, and they'll always find a way to fiddle things, but there are many who are going to have such hardship forced upon them....


.....whilst these Bloody Bankers get away with EVERYTHING and give themselves bigger and bigger bonuses!

Levels, I was on the Poll Tax March, as I've said many a time..I'll be on the new ones that will be coming up very shortly too.

There are people out there who have so much of OUR money and no-one, but NO-ONE is making these bastards hand it back, not in the UK, nor the USA, nor Europe or anywhere else...

And they are literally, laughing all the way to their banks...where they sit and slobber over OUR money!!

Revolucion, here we come......

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: bubblyrat
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:14 PM

Of course they are not going to build aircraft-carriers with no aircraft to fly from them !! Assuming that the first one is ready in 4-5 years time, then it gives the Navy that much time to purchase,set up facilities for,and train the air & ground crews of,suitable "off the shelf" combat-ready aircraft.The primary requirements would then be ;

Trained pilots who can land on a conventional carrier.These would be trained (to fly the FA 18 Super Hornet )in the USA, where they could also receive DLP (deck landing practice) aboard US CVAs.Eventually,they would fly / deliver these aircraft to the UK.

A suitable airfield (RNAS Yeovilton) would have been set up to operate Hornets,with a Headquarters Squadron,a maintenance unit,engineering workshops,flight simulators,ordnance storage,etc etc & 101 other necessary facilities,including a Deck Landing Mirror for MADDL practice (Mirror Assisted Dummy Deck Landing ).

Other support,training, and trials facilities would be provided at Boscombe Down and possibly Farnborough.

Pilots would continue to undergo DLP and actually recover to / take off from US carriers in European / Mediterranean waters; by the time the first new carrier is ready,the aircrews should be pretty proficient !!

About 3 to 4 weeks ago,I have been led to believe, a senior Royal Navy ( possibly Royal Marine !) officer left for the USA in order to finalise the purchase of said FA 18 Super Hornets, at about $24 million each, a considerable saving on the JSF at £ 100 Million each !!! An attractive proposition for any cash-strapped government.

Of course, I could be wrong,but it makes good sense to me , and probably does to Mr Cameron & his advisors, but he wouldn't let US know,would he ?? Although it seems to be common knowledge in ---er --SOME circles !! And remember; if it's true,you didn't hear it from me !! Meanwhile ;
    I have serious doubts about the carriers' "Home Ports" ; "Eagle" and "Ark Royal", the navy's biggest ships ever ,at around 50,000tons and 800 feet long,were both based in Plymouth.The dry-dock in Portsmouth was much too small to take them.The only other dry-docks we could use were in Gibraltar & Singapore !!( I was in "Eagle" ).Therefore, I cannot see HMSQE or HMSPOW going to Portsmouth at their current length of 925 feet !! Yes,there IS a dry-dock at Rosyth,where they are being assembled,but ,once completed & fitted out,with their superstructures ,islands and radar antennae fitted, I can't see them getting under the Forth Bridge ---HMS Eagle and HMCS Bonaventure couldn't in 1968--I was there !! And I think even the Plymouth dry-dock would be a "tight fit", it always was !!

       We shall see !!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:23 PM

The idea that "care work" should be seen as some inferior kind of last resort employment which anybody can do, and for which the pay should be minimal is contemptible.

It's responsible demanding work which requires dedication and imagination. And people doing it deserve to get a decent living wage.

(And nobody deserves to be paid more than a decent living wage - but that's another matter.)

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 02:53 PM

The trouble is, McGrath, 'care work' is not regarded as good work to do because you are expected to work damned hard for minimum wage, often doing the most personal things for others.

Now, there's nowt wrong with that, hell we all get to that stage, pretty much, in our lives, and we all need help, care, sympathy and empathy, but most of the people who own care homes make a bloody fortune, whilst treating their staff like slaves....and sadly, often treating their residents merely as commodities to make a big fat income from.

The care home next to me, a home for adults with autism is owned by a group called......'Midas' Homes.

I think that sums it up...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 03:09 PM

The biggest problem of this entire system is that it tends to value want over need. Thus those things that are actually essential to society are undervalued while those that superficially massage and plump are overvalued. Of course once the shite hits the fan, the people that do stuff that people need, might eventually get noticed.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:06 PM

The biggest lie (Goebbels, anyone?) is the blame game. Until the bank meltdown (which followed global capital issues - and at the time of Brown's limitation of regulation the only conservative complaint was that he was not de-regulating enough - so the bank failure is the fault of capitalism and its political mouthpieces) the UK had one of the lowest deficits in the G7.

It is quite false to try to lay the blame for the deficit at the foot of the previous government.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 04:09 PM

Nobel prize winning economist confirms that spending cuts make a recession worse and do not reduce deficits...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:23 PM

Vulnerable 'shut out of society' by spending review welfare cuts

Just about the nastiest cut I can imagine is the decision to take away the "mobility allowance" from disabled people living in care homes. A payment which has made it possible for them to get out and keep in touch with relatives and the world around them.

I rather doubt if many people are going to try to justify that one. I imagine most people who seek to defend the cuts will prefer to ignore it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Oct 10 - 07:45 PM

Disabled people among the hardest hit by spending review

Richard Hawkes, chief executive of the disability charity Scope, said: "The government has not delivered on its promise to support disabled people into work, penalising those on ESA and jobseekers' allowance who have worked and paid national insurance in the past and who now cannot rely on getting the support they need when they need it, in an increasingly difficult employment market. Disabled people and their families do not have 'broad shoulders', so why are they bearing the brunt of these cuts?"

About the mobility allowance cut:

Guy Parckar, acting director of policy and campaigns at the charity Leonard Cheshire Disability, said: "This is a fundamentally unfair change that could have a hugely detrimental impact on thousands of disabled people, leaving many effectively trapped in their homes, unable to afford to go out.

Many people in residential care already have their income capped at £20 a week once their care has been paid for and rely on the mobility benefit to be more independent.

This change will hit one of the most vulnerable groups in society,"    said Parckar.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 07:12 AM

"If he's got any sense he will get round the cap on child tax benefit."

Proposing he becomes a benefit cheat? Nice.

It looks like the proposed bank levy is a white elephant; due to changes in corporation tax big banks might still be better off under the new arrangement. No surprise that Osborne is looking after his own.

Also, 70% of Great Britain is owned by less than 1% of the population; surely a land tax might be a fair way of raising funds from the landed classes?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:20 AM

Could have been much worse.

I still have huge concerns that we don't have a private sector that can operate independently of the public sector, and he is relying on just that. But overall, even allowing for the lies and deceits, he did argue for a much more radical approach, so as I said, it could have been worse...

In fact, there is no good answer, just different shades of a difficult one, regardless of which party is rearranging the deck chairs.

(Oh, the lies and deceits; the ones I can rattle on about from a position of being involved... he talks of not cutting the NHS, just google QUIIP. £15Billion savings being required of The NHS. the Department of Health, which franchises, regulates and "owns" the NHS from its budget is seeing a 33% cut in the small print of his statement. Prior to that, most of the people I work with, myself included, are having roles reassessed. In short, an average £10K wage cut is expected to be announced, so level down the people from different commissions that merged into ours... My cynicism tells me such contradictions amplify around all government departments.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 11:29 AM

Cuts to the mobility payment to severely disabled people in care homes isn't a matter of rearranging the deckchairs,. They amount to throwing them overboard. Not just clumsy, but vicious - and stupid because even Daily Mail readers will find them disgusting.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 02:16 PM

Think I just heard on Beeb R 4 that disability claimants living with someone who has savings will not be entitled to benefit. To take effect a year after the imminent reassessment.

So if my illness should put me in a state of not being able to work, then because my partner has savings I would not be entitled to any benefit?

Why doesn't the government just set up voluntary euthanasia clinics now? Hey... There's a business opportunity. Should set up franchises directly adjacent to rich city homes and charge them to come watch.

Naww... that won't work because the mobility allowance is needed to get the conscripts volunteers to the inhumation office.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 21 Oct 10 - 02:18 PM

Of course we do have a private sector that, particularly in manufacturing, is increasingly outsourcing to overseas companies exploiting cheap labour. So I suppose the solution to unemployment would be to encourage those who will lose their jobs to move to a sweat shop in a third world state?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:22 AM

What gets me about this whole scenario is the basic untruth behind the reason for the cuts. Blame is being laid at the feet of the Brown administration. The banks collapsed because of their unwise involvement in the US banking system and its insane approach to lending. We (the UK taxpayer) lent the banks over £950 billion to 'recapitalise' (in other words, pay for their recklessness and criminal stupidity). Our deficit in the public finances is now £850 billion. The mathematics is easy; we were a fiscally sound country with well resourced public services until the banks screwed up. The Coalition claims to have placed a levy on the banks to raise £7 billion per year (although their own Red Book figures show that thiey don't anticipate any of this being collected, as the banks will simply use avoidance tactics to make sure the money stays with them). Even if it was collected, it would take over 120 years to pay off the loan, even at zero interest. Try getting those terms from a bank!
Those to blame for this problem are getting away scot free, whilst those with nothing to do with the crisis are bearing the full brunt of the cuts. This is rather like being a parent with two children; one does something really bad, so you discipline the other one.
What is really scary is the apparent view from the government that there is no need to 'dress up' the cuts in some way to give the appearance of fairness. They are unfair, they know they are unfair, they know the disadvantaged will suffer disproportionately, but they make no excuses. We get the grotesque spectacle (to quote Neil Kinnock out of context)of a multi-millionaire Prime Minister with a multi-millionaire wife telling us 'we are all in this together'.
All civilisations decay over time, and Gibbon's 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire' is the primer; what almost always happens is that gross inequality and conspicuous consumption leads to a sense of decadence; eventually the disadvantaged begin to notice, and revolutions happen. I thought this might happen under Thatcher, but she was savvy enough to hide the message and trim the policies enough to avoid it (although it was close around the poll tax and the miners strike). This time, I don't think those in power have enough intellectual ability to see the danger. To the barricades?
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Stu
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:45 AM

"Of course we do have a private sector that, particularly in manufacturing, is increasingly outsourcing to overseas companies exploiting cheap labour."

It's a damning indictment of the intelligence of those in charge this time time round that they don't seem to understand this point. The problem is that it's not just the manufacturing sector that is haemorrhaging contracts to overseas suppliers; the service industries that were to be the saviour of the economy are also being lost to foreign companies who pay their staff next to nothing etc etc. This is of course an inevitable consequence of the lassaize-faire economic approach so beloved by the Tories, and their retrogressive compulsion to allow the markets to regulate themselves (which they are totally unable or desire to do - even though their are dire consequences for society as a whole. This is the fatal flaw in the hands-off capitalist economic model).

Of course, future Baronets and the husbands of rich heiresses don't have to worry about the consequences of this, but the rest of us do. In fact, I wonder if even the sheeplike mass of middle-class toff wannabees, kept in check for so long by the false aspirations sold to them by uber-capitalist media-moguls and porcine politicans, might be jerked out of their reverie for all things material by the fact their police are disappearing off the streets and there will be empty aircraft carriers doing circuits of the island with nothing but bored sailors on the flight deck.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:50 AM

What absolute nonsense I read here, what losers!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:15 AM

Hi Bonzo, thanks for your usual penetrating analysis. Would you care to enlighten us from your lofty position; exactly which parts of my analysis above were nonsense, in your view? Your term 'losers' is an interesting one. I would be grateful if you could supply your definition of 'winners' in the current scenario.
Best wishes
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:22 AM

For Bonzo, read Bozo.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mauvepink
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:15 AM

I have clients who rely on some of the disability benefits just to be able to live each week. Recently I have had two talk of suicide because they cannot cope with all the forms and the judging/decision makers. Some are already sitting in cold homes because they fear the energy bills again. This is a generation who have worked and seen their savings gone on care. I fear for many of them.

Where are the backbenchers? How can these things be pushed through without them being accepted? If the grass roots of the coalition do not agree with what their leaders are doing then how can it happen?

Am I being cynical in thinking that very few of them will be affected in any way over these cuts as they have their wages secure and their pensions sorted? Come the next round of voting and I wonder what memories people will keep of some of the dracaonian measures being taken against some of our most vulnerable in society?

I also know lot of diabled people who want to work. But things just go a whole more difficult for them too as some of the help and incentives they got to be in work are axed or reduced.

All very worrying :-(

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:51 AM

"I also know lot of diabled people who want to work. But things just go a whole more difficult for them "

Too true, I'm afraid. With an even greater number of applicants for every job, disabled people will be at an even greater disadvantage. Unfortunately, the selfish, uncaring attitude of people like Bozo/Bonzo/Boko above, who don't give a shit for anyone but themselves, is still prevalent in our society today - the true legacy of Bloody Thatcher. These are society's real scroungers as they use every trick in the book - legal and otherwise - to minimise the amount of tax they pay whilst greedily grasping their own benefit handouts such as higher rate tax relief on pension contributions.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 07:51 AM

I had hoped that as the father of a child with severe disabilities (who sadly died last year) we could expect that whatever else David Cameron might do, he could be relied on to refrain from targeting people with disabilities when it came to imposing cuts.

I suppose I should have known better.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mauvepink
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 08:13 AM

Perhaps, McGrath, had his child still been living, THEN he would have shown more empathy? I'm not sure but I also think we should not go too far down this path of bringing his personal life into his decisions.

I do agree with you though and understand your sentiments.

He keeps saying, at every opportunity, "Nick and I did not come into politics to do this... " but he dos a good job of showing otherwise. They should be held accountable legally for all the things they said they would not do and which they have gone ahead and done.

Changes were much needed. The deficit certainly needs quelling. There just has to be a fairer and kinder way to do it without impacting the most vulnerable in our society so much. I feel almost certain that suicides in the next couple of years will rise. Perhaps they should have booths erected in the benefit buildings where we can just walk in and have it done...

"Are YOU a drain on our society? Do YOU feel you are taking from the state? Have no fears. Just step inside and we will show you our cure...."

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 08:42 AM

What was the economic model followed after WWII? I'm neither strong on history or economics, but I am aware that we were in shit-loads of debt and that much of what the Tories are claiming we must now cut, was in fact created during the post war period.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 09:09 AM

Here is a video clip with an open letter to David Cameron by "Bendy Girl", a very eloquent lady - Shame on you Prime Minister - and here is a transcript http://networkedblogs.com/9uIGM

"Whilst I'm not a natural Conservative voter, when you became Prime Minister, as a disabled person, I was reassured by the personal knowledge and experience you have of disability that you would fight our corner and that you would protect us. Perhaps I was naive to believe you ..."

That's how I felt, as the father of someone with very severe disabilities. I feel betrayed and kicked in the teeth. This isn't about politics, it's about personal honour.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 10:37 AM

No one can honestly say that there isn't widespread abuse of the benefits system in the UK. That is the reason the government has made it a priority.

I have read the bleeding heart stories above, but what about the other side of the coin ?

Life's fine and dandy for families on housing benefit in London's wealthiest borough, Kensington and Chelsea.

One mother of four is being housed in a five-bedroom, two-bathroom mansion worth £2million – and taxpayers are paying her staggering £1,755 a week rent.

This isn't an isolated case. In fact, there's another family in the borough whose rent is even higher and five councils in Britain pay more than £70,000 a year to rent a property for someone on housing benefit.

What madness this is. We rightly feel sympathy towards anyone who has fallen on hard times but housing them in a lavish style that most of us can only dream about makes a mockery of those who work hard and pay their taxes.

The Government promised to reform the system so these abuses would stop, that is exactly what they have done. Under Labour, the cost of housing benefit has soared from £11billion in 1997 to more £21billion in 2009. The Government promised to reform the system so these abuses would stop. As usual, Labour did nothing but talk about it.

That's because it was in Labour's interest to keep throwing money at anyone who might one day vote for them. There were far too many nice little jobs being created under Labour such as Benefit Advice Officers, Community Advice Centres advising loafers what to write or how to act on during a D.L.A. application. These forms were rarely assessed by medical doctors, civil servants passed the applicant.

The majority of the measures announced yesterday will not hit those of a working mentality, but it will see the lazy, the workshy and the spongers in our society who enjoyed having their rent, mobility, council tax and beer money supplied courtesy of the British taxpayer.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:02 AM

Actully Ritchie, it depends on your definition of 'widespread'. Most authorities (including the government)estimate that no more than 7-8% of benefit claims are unjustified; and that includes mistakes as well as deliberate attempts at fraud. If you mean 'widespread' as in 'reported by the Daily Mail', then perhaps you have an argument. There is another side to your coin too; for every £1 saved by stopping unjustified benefit claims, you could save £50 by closing the loopholes via which the top 10% of earners in this country avoid paying their fair share of tax. Read the Red Book, it's available on line. People taking advantage of the domicile rules alone account for more than benefit fraud. I assume your argument is based on the presumption that everyone should abide by legislation? Why not subject tax avoidance to the same rules as tax evasion, and force the wealthy to pay their share as intended in primary legislation?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:09 AM

So is it fine by Richie Black to take the money from people in care homes that allows them to get out sometimes? Or are they included in his all-purpose category "the lazy, the workshy and the spongers in our society"?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:12 AM

"The majority of the measures announced yesterday will not hit those of a working mentality,

You mean apart from the 500,000 public sector workers due to lose their jobs and the other anticipated 500,000 from the private sector. Of course, they'll be overjoyed - no more work and the life of leisure on benefits.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:34 AM

Benefit fraud is rife in the UK. The government pretends it costs us £1.1bn annually. But the real figure is at least £3.5bn a year.

If you want the true facts, visit this page
http://www.benefitfraud.org.uk/index.html

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:36 AM

Latest estimates are that 750,000 public sector jobs will go, with no visible expansion in the private sector to absorb them. This means a huge increase in the total benefit payed out, thereby defeating the object of the cuts. Add in redundancy costs and the removal of capital investment, and this looks like a recipe for severe deflation. Yes, the moral case for these cuts stinks to high heaven; but the economic case is equally ludicrous.
As I said above, the thing that really bothers me about this whole situation is the apportioning of blame to the utterly blameless; it isn't the fault of people on benefit, legitimate or otherwise, that we are in this mess. It's a bunch of rich, incompetent gamblers who are still trousering vast bonuses depite their abject failures.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:46 AM

Underpayments of benefit payments because of mistakes by the agency amount to considerably more than benefit fraud.
..................

It appears that Richie Black does actually count people in care homes because of disability as ""the lazy, the workshy and the spongers in our society". Just so we know where he's coming from.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:50 AM

Ritchie, I said 'most authorities'. By this I meant either accountable public bodies such as the National Audit Office, the Office for National Statistics etc. or reputable peer-reviewed research; not a nutty self appointed right-wing blogger like John Page, who has never responded to a single academic challenge to his figures. He gets most of his information from the right wing press and wikipedia, then conflates it into an illogical case. If you want to argue this case, go away and do some proper research, rather than repeating half baked rumour. To cite the benefitfraud website as 'truth' is simply laughable. There is undoubtedly benefit fraud, and it does cost money. The case I made was that A) it isn't as much as you, Page and the Daily Mail seem to think, and it certainly is nowhere near as much as the amount of tax that is avoided by the wealthy. Rather than tackling benefit fraud, be it £1.1bn or £3.5bn, why not seize the bonuses from the bankers who caused the mess? Not their salaries, just the bonuses. That's £10bn or so towards the deficit right there.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 11:54 AM

"It appears that Richie Black does actually count people in care homes because of disability as ""the lazy, the workshy and the spongers in our society"

Of course they are - they don't have jobs and some never even get of their backsides and go out.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM

Here's a quote from p17 of the full Treasury report:

"Even after these spending cuts, total public spending (Total Managed Expenditure) in 2014-15 will be higher in real terms than in 2008-09. At 41 per cent of GDP, this will be around the same level of public spending as in 2006-07. Spending on public services in 2014-15 will be higher than 2006-07 levels in real terms."

There are no cuts! What is reduced is the rate of increase in real terms of public spending!!!

Why is the press not pointing this out? Oh, I've just realised why: because the press is a ass. The press thinks that a drop in inflation means prices are falling.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 12:54 PM

Here is the phone number of Conservative Party Headquarters.

The Conservative Party - Contact Details

I've just got through, and the lady who answered put me through to the appropriate department.....they'd gone home. They did at least bother to put their answerphone on. I think they'll probably regret it by Monday morning. Hopefully, they'll ring back, as I requested, and explain to me what the fuck they're doing taking money away from the weakest, whilst the strongest and the richest are still getting Winter Fuel Payments, regardless of if they're million/billion/trillionaires or not.

Bonzo...for your information:

I'm a carer. I look after my ex-mother-in-law pretty much 24/7, as she lives with me. If I earn ONE penny over £433 a month my carer's allowance is stopped immediately.

What I need, of course, is a 16 hour job, because this would enable me to keep my carer's allowance and get working tax credit. But to find a job of 16 hours is sooooooo hard, almost impossible actually.

Many employers won't give out 16 hours, because they don't want people who are only interested in claiming working tax credit, and they know that if you're a carer as well, you probably won't be able to work extra hours for them 'at the drop of the hat', because again, you will lose £200 a month, instantly.

Down here in the West Country most jobs pay basic minimum wage. It's 'tradition' mainly, because Corporate and InUnCorporate Bastards know that jobs are desperately wanted and down here they'll work for peanuts, so even if they can afford more, most won't pay higher amounts because they're mean, scroogish buggers who don't give a shite about anyone or anything, other than their profits.

So, you get jobs for 15 hours, even 15 1/2 hours, or 19, 20...etc...OR you'll get loads for just an 8 hour contract, but they want you to be 'flexible' 24/7..and the job description is 7am to 10pm Monday - Sunday.

Well, fuck that! GEEZ! Things never used to be this way.

Many people down here don't even *HAVE* contracts in the first place, so they have no protection, yet they are STILL expected to be available as and when.   They take these jobs because if they didn't, so many of them would basically starve to death, lose their houses and be out on the streets, almost instantly.

Meanwhile, we're also paying TWICE the amount that you do for our Water..a life-giving substance which we should all be paying exactly the same for...

But hey, don't let that put you off your second home in the West Country, with its pretty beaches and quaint villages..Just don't look too deeply behind the curtains..

Come to Torquay and see the people here, the hard, line worn, worry worn faces, the missing teeth of the young men and women, the drug addicts, the drinkers, the used and the abused.

We have become the Land That Time Forgot down here...And meanwhile, our Mayor (spit!) wants to build another Casino, another posh hotel...whilst his town is dying on it's feet and his people get angrier and angrier...

The Mayor and I exchanged many emails, but trust me, he thinks he's the beesknees...and doesn't give a fig that so many folks here loathe him for what he's done..

Anyway, I digress...

There are many disabled people down here, and I guess they're now going to be suffering even deeper, whlist those at the top toast their toesies in front of their fire, fires which they have probably lit with crisp, clean £20 notes from their winter fuel bill, so they can laugh at how much they're given when they're already rolling in bucket loads of dosh!

And as for The Daily Mail.....

Well, today their main headline was about the Royal Family getting an increase from all these cuts and tuts....and how disgusting that is, in a time of such finanacial need. inside this paper they discussed the total unfairness of the new pension age of 66, the crapness of the University fees..etc..etc......amongst many other things. In fact, they are NOT happy bunnies. So maybe there are some in here who need to read what they're actually saying, rather than cling to the old idea of 'The DAILY MAIL!!!!!!!!' as they tend to think of it.

I read a variety of papers, depending on which way the moon is glowing at night, so I don't suffer from Newspaper Prejudice as some in here do.

We should be on the streets about so many things...And how dare they raise the pension age, for who the fuck is going to employ me or pretty much anyone else at 60, let alone 66? There are no jobs. And HOW are the young to get *any* jobs if all the old folks have them...????   Talk about dividing a society up...Yeesh!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:03 PM

"Rather than tackling benefit fraud, be it £1.1bn or £3.5bn, why not seize the bonuses from the bankers who caused the mess? Not their salaries, just the bonuses. That's £10bn or so towards the deficit right there."

Err, I guess because they don't want to?

Anyway Lizzie Cornish, I do hope you can walk your talk because very soon the proles will need loud mouths like you to help them get very upset. The day of serious street politics is fast upon us.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:16 PM

And, Bonzo, you find me a place that could care for my ex-mother-in-law almost 24/7 for less than £8 a day, for that is what you get as a carer, £53 a week. And if I were caring for 2 or more people, I'd still get exactly the same amount.

What is does is force people to find work for longer hours, so they can survive. You end up having to leave those you're caring for, for longer hours. For many of those hours, you actually end up working for absolutely nothing, because over £200 of your wages goes to making up the money you lose from your carer's allowance.   It's shitty. The Carer ends up exhausted. The Cared For ends up NOT being cared for and left alone. But that's what life is like out here in RealityLand, rather than 'I'mperfectlyOKsowhyshouldIgiveatossaboutanyoneelseLand, Bonzo.

So, if I were you, I'd bugger off to Argentina and stay there,..taking 'Richie Black' with you and that way the two of you won't ever have to sniff down your noses at those you deem to be scroungers or undeserving of help.

Thank you.

(and she went off muttering "Bastards!" under her breath...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:31 PM

"Anyway Lizzie Cornish, I do hope you can walk your talk because very soon the proles will need loud mouths like you to help them get very upset. The day of serious street politics is fast upon us."


Trust me, I'm *trying* CS. I went to put some messages on BBC Breakfast News Facebook page today, but...the bastards have banned me from there too!!!   Yeesh, I've never even signed up to that page until this morning.....I know they banned me from the FB BBC Radio 2 page, because I dared to ask them why the fuck they were playing Des O'Connoer songs, rather than Show of Hands 'Arrogance Ignorance & Greed'....

Someone told me they ban you from every single site they have....

I'd rip my clothes off under Nelson's Column if it would do any good, but trust me, doing that with *my* body would only make people achieve new Olympic Gold Records for running away, rather than staying and listening... ;0)

BBC Radio Devon's still open to me though....and it was a lady from down here who went on there about the Poll Tax, all those years back, stating how wrong it was and how we should all be making a protest..and within days it had been taken up by all BBC local radio stations, finally making it to the main guys up in London a very short while later...

And the rest...is now history.........I went on the march they had in Plymouth, thousands of us, all peaceful, apart from a small rent-a-mob...but we did it, hundreds of thousands of us, all around the country....

And when I went on Radio Devon a while back, about South West Water and what thieving buggers they are, many people phoned in to agree with me. Trouble is I got all tearful on the phone, because I get so angry, so passionate about all the shit that surrounds us at present..so I lose my oomph a little...Always been that way, darn it...tears come way too fast...

I guess they came that time because I mentioned Dad, said how this was so NOT the world that he and his friends went to war for....

I found John Trudell the other day, saying how Germany may have lost the war, but the Nazis won it...Oh did I AGREE with him, from the other side of my screen here!

'Anthem for Dissent' by Ron Bankley and Splitting the Sky is just the greatest video out there on Youtube imo, and I post it whenever I can in places..tell everyone about it, spread the word...and I SO wish others would do too, although perhaps they do...

I know that this can't go on..this apathy, this bloody British Silence...because we are now fighting another Battle of Britain, one that is taking part within a Third World War, where the enemy is within, all around, silent, velvet gloved, evil...far more evil than any enemy that has ever gone before....

It's going to need the whole damn world to stand up against these guys, such is their intense power...

For years I've had to be careful, because my children were within the age of The System, and deep in my heart was a fear that if I became too outspoken I could have risked my children being taken from me. Well, my son hit 16 this year, and he is the youngest of my two kids, so now he's safe...

All I need to do now is get my voice out, but it's so damned hard to do that...which is another reason why I get so fooked off with those who took my voice away...

Sorry, digressing again..angry because I see people meekly accepting this shit, which means the bastards will yet again get away with so very much and that makes me seethe...

I'm my Father's Daughter, and I know that Dad, if he were alive today, would be aghast.....

"Some things, Liz, are so evil that you have no choice but to make a stand and fight against them.."

His words, about Hitler, have never left my head...or my heart....

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 01:48 PM

"I dared to ask them why the fuck they were playing Des O'Connoer songs, rather than Show of Hands 'Arrogance Ignorance & Greed'...."

Heh..
I'm tempted to start a thread for songs for the upcoming revolution.
I mean after all if the people are going to mobilise, they need some folk songs to do so with hey?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 02:01 PM

Excellent idea...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 02:34 PM

Health charities attack benefit changes

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 02:47 PM

And another thing; there is a cynical manipulation of this issue to make the public believe that the only solution to a fiscal deficit is to make cuts in public spending. Since most public spending is supposed to benefit the poorest (ha ha!) then the poor suffer most via this approach. There are two possible solutions of course; one is to cut, the other is to collect more tax. If you use a progressive (rather than regressive ) approach to taxation, then the rich pay proportionately more, and cuts are unnecessary. We could start by collecting the correct rate of tax from the wealthy, and look again at shifting from regressive taxes like VAT and into progressive ones, like income tax. And we could tax the crap out of the banks until their debt is repaid, and nationalise them if they refuse to cough up. Once nationalised, they could be forcibly broken up into proper local banks who, if they get into difficulty, can be allowed to go bust. (With this as a possibility, banks are less likely to gamble on dodgy risks; in the current scenario, they knew they couldn't lose).
With the vicious tossers we now have in power, the second approach was not contemplated, even for a second; no, the poorest must pay.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:12 PM

"And another thing; there is a cynical manipulation of this issue to make the public believe that the only solution to a fiscal deficit is to make cuts in public spending."

Not just that, but it's a right-wing wet dream!
Ooh, look Capitalism has destroyed the economy and because a supposedly 'lft-wig' party were in power at the time, nobody noticed that it was Capitalism wot did it, bloody brilliant! Now we can easily railroad the stupid public into destroying all those inconvenient public services they like so much! Hip Hip Hoorrah!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 03:39 PM

street politics... march in London and other large cities

special education teachers, parents and children, carers and their charges,

We need a celebrity organiser

If Bob Geldorf could do it for G8... who then for GB?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

We need to march in our City Centres, Tam, and gather at our War Memorials..

All it takes is just ONE person to start the ball rolling, but..that person has to have access to Radio, TV or Newspapers....and therein lies the difficulty.....

Unless....unless just phoning up various newspapers might do the trick...?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:32 PM

Those "genuinely" disabled will have nothing to fear. The government will means-test the handouts and the tax credits, this is aimed at cutting fraud and simplifying the system.

Millions of people simply believe it does not pay to work due to the generous handouts provided by the previous government. Welfare spending now accounts for a staggering 1/3 of all public spending. It is fact that the benefits bills had soared by 45 per cent under the previous government.

The best one has to be the one-year limit put on sickness benefit claims, also abused is the working tax credit, thankfully these are frozen for three years. Regarding the mobility allowances for people in care homes, research has shown that the payments were never or rarely used for transport by the claimants or transport was provided by 90% of the homes in the study. Some recipients tended to horde the payments.

We have to ensure that work pays, there will be a new cap on benefits that will ensure that no family can receive more on benefits than they would if they were in work.We owe that to the hard working young couples that pay their way through life rather than leech.

Housing benefit payments are another thing that is greatly abused, they will be slashed by increasing the age threshold for the shared room rate from 25 to 35. Why should we house people who decide not to work for a living ?

Frankly I thought the government did not go far enough, the finances of this country are in a mess thanks to Labour, attacking agreed rewards to successful executives in finance sounds more like childish jealousy. If you want to employ the right people that can make you money, then you have to reward them.

Regarding irresponsible street protests, they went out with the sixties, why burden the police with such nonsense, and who will take responsibility of those elements within who smash windows and deface public property like we witnessed on numerous previous gatherings ?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM

"and gather at our War Memorials.."

I mentioned the huge debt we experienced post WWII, which the post war government responded to by building much of the social infrastructure we now value greatly, including the NHS for example.

The Great Depression which preceded WII, caused people to starve to death (as indeed they do under Capitalist systems) this was one of the reasons people got a bit bugged by it. So after the war the UK thought they;d do things a bit differently. That's all over now though, because a minority coalition of disparate parties has "decided" on the behalf of the electorate that they'll do as they please. Nothing new there then.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:04 PM

I recently saw a news interview with a youngish man with Parkinson's Disease... obvious tremors and muscle weakness and he failed the new incapacity reassessment trial in his town Burnley. He got a 0 score.   

"Anyone who scores below 15 points in total will be deemed fit for work and placed on jobseeker's allowance, which in some cases could result in a reduction in benefit of about £25 a week."


Ok... so if there are so many already on JSA and only so many jobs to go around.. what are these retrained disabled people supposed to do. They are going to need more support in order to work (let's ring the mobility and disability access bells again). Where is that money coming from? Not from the government. Not from the private sector. Certainly not from bankers making donations to charities.

from this link
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11510726

SNIP

"We believe that this test is fundamentally flawed," Richard Hawkes, chief executive of Scope, said.

"It asks people to do things like pick up a coin off the floor or can they take their pen out of their top pocket. The test does not ask people what previous work they have done, it doesn't ask people what support they might require in the work place."

There are already concerns about the way incapacity benefit tests are being conducted.

The Citizens Advice Bureau (CAB) has reported a 57% increase in the number of people challenging the outcomes of their tests and mental health charity Mind says that, in 40% of cases, initial verdicts are being overturned at appeal.

"From all the claimants I have met, I believe the vast majority have been genuine," CAB's Paul Hogarth, who has supported 60 people at tribunals in Burnley over the past year and won in 85% of cases, told Today.

"It comes back to the fact 'is the pressure on the medical professionals to fail the vast majority of these claimants or is it going to be a genuine assessment?"

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:09 PM

"Those "genuinely" disabled will have nothing to fear."

Oh please.........

Come down off your holier than thou throne for a moment, and come live in the REAL world with those who lie awake at night worrying about their disabled children, parents, or paying their bills.

Tell that to the many people who's only respite from caring was to know they could leave their needy loved ones in a special day unit, to allow them a few hours or a whole day of freedom from caring 24/7.
Tell them that, when these special units close down, as they're already talking of doing down here.

There are many "genuine" people out there who are already doing exactly that.

And you may not have noticed, but......there are hardly any jobs out there and the ones that do exist are already being followed up by a whole gang of desperate people.

You're not Nick Clegg are you?
Or...David Cameron?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:13 PM

This is all bollocks, you would be happy without a doubt if there was another labour government doing exactly the same - they had no solution to the disgraceful deficit they built up. All these changes were going to happen anyway.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:13 PM

"Regarding irresponsible street protests, they went out with the sixties, why burden the police with such nonsense, and who will take responsibility of those elements within who smash windows and deface public property like we witnessed on numerous previous gatherings ?"


The (peaceful) Poll Tax marches got the dreaded Mrs. Thatcher to do away with the Poll Tax, and it was the beginning of the end of her reign.

The 60s are coming back, in case you haven't noticed, but this time, not just in date, but also in age....because it's that generation, MY generation (i'm 55) that's severely pissed off BIGTIME, because we remember better days, in a world that cared, in a time when life was far easier, far less competitive, farfarfar less controlled, far more intelligent, diverse and individual.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:17 PM

Those " genuinely"   disabled will have nothing to fear.

Clearly I misjudged Richie.

I'll spell out some of the information that has been in the links he evidently didn't bother to open, and in the media reports he hasn't troubled to read.

People in care homes who have been ruled eligible for the higher rate severe disability allowance are "genuinely" disabled by any standards. The Disability Allowance has two parts - there is a "care" component and a "mobility" component. People in residential care do not receive the care component, or any other benefits - they are passed directly to the care home. However there is one exception, the mobility component, which is payable to the person with the disability. They can use it to buy a powered wheelchair perhaps, or to pay for a taxi to take them out, or to enable a relative to visit, and so forth.

And that is what it is now going to be taken away from them. Not because of anything they have failed to do, or anything they have done - but because the government have the power to do it and have chosen to use that power.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

VTam, I have been on 'sick benefit' in the past - and as you know it wasn't for a bruised knee or something. It's exceedingly hard to qualify.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,folkiedave
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:20 PM

The tug that dragged the £1,000,000,000 submarine was due to be cut in the defence review.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:28 PM

Bonzo, do you actually listen to folk music or are you just an attention seeker? I for one feel seriously tired by your self-promotion. If you don't dig folk music, how about taking your breast-beating down the club? There are enough specialist enclaves for the penurious of wit to suit you without wasting your important time here surely?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 05:37 PM

CS... I was just pointing out it is going to be near impossible to qualify with the new reassessment test. If that man with Parkinson's was deemed fit for work... and the man with terminal cancer with weeks to live was deemed fit...

The new reassessment test is a one size fits all test and is an insult to people who have varied abilities. Many charities and the Citizen's Advice Bureau agree.

THE BENEFITS TEST
Claimants are put through a variety of tasks and are awarded points, with anybody getting more than 15 being deemed unfit for work.

The tests include:

Being able to go up and down two steps with support from another person or a handrail
Having to sit at a desk for 30 minutes without getting up
Raising their arm to the top of the head as if to put on a hat
Raising their arm as if to put on a coat or jacket
Picking up a moving 0.5 litre carton full of liquid
Picking up a £1 coin
Completing a simple task such as setting an alarm clock
Walking more than 50 metres without stopping
Pressing a button, such as a telephone keypad
Turning the pages of a book

How do any of these tests apply to an actual job?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 06:57 PM

Well, a lot of them are things that might be useful skills in a lot of jobs - but in themselves wouldn't add up to you being able to do the job, or even any job.

After all, a chimpanzee would probably be able to pass all those tests, and score well over 15 points...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: BTNG
Date: 22 Oct 10 - 08:55 PM

The likes of Bonzo3legs and Richie Black are simply wind up merchants who really have noth of any substance to contribute to a useful discussion, therefore they need to be ignored.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:28 AM

Those of us who have an overdraft at the bank; how about offering to clear it on the same terms as the banks clear theirs? I.e. zero interest, no pressure to pay and a loan term of 120 years?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 04:35 AM

Well said Richard Black.

"Bonzo, do you actually listen to folk music? "

Well actually yes, we were at the opening night of the Show of Hands tour last week - and your point is?????

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:54 AM

hhmmmm Bonzo at the Arrogance, Ignorance and Greed tour. Checking out the opposition?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:54 AM

or did you think you could pick up some tips?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 06:28 AM

Well actually I just went to listen to the music, if that's alright with you!!! Opposition - they are fellow musicians, what they sing about is of no consequence, I just happen to believe that they make one of the best sounds in folk music.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 07:58 AM

"what they sing about is of no consequence,"

LOL! What a complete oaf you are, bozo. It's the whole point. Just shows how out of touch with reality you really are.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:33 AM

You see as usual, leveller's type needs to resort to public insult, he obviously went on the same course as easby.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Tunesmith
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:37 AM

Mr Cameron - and Gleggy - talk about every strata in society being asked to clear the country's debt, but surely that isn't fair!
Here are figures drawn from the H.M. Tax Office:

"93% of all wealth in 1999 was held by the top 50 per cent of the population"

Surely, any moral person would say that the 50% of the population, who possess 93% of the wealth, should be asked ( i.e. made) to clear the debt and not the 50% who are managing on only 7% of the country's wealth

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 08:38 AM

B3L - what then is the point of writing lyrics at all?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 09:08 AM

"You see as usual, leveller's type needs to resort to public insult, he obviously went on the same course as easby."

Ah, glad to see that I'm a "type". Bozo, as you seen to enjoy humiliating yourself in public, why shouldn't anyone else join in? It's such FUN!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 11:56 AM

Bonzo, I was interested in your comment about SoH being 'fellow musicians'. I've never seen a post from you about music without some overt reference to right-wing political views. What do you play? What sort of songs do you sing? Do you gig at all? Professionally? Is it possible to come and see you play? I'd love to see the reaction to your view of the world in the average folk venue.
Your response to the leveller above is also interesting; remember your comment that all that had been said by others on the thread was (quote) 'bollocks'? Isn't that just a little bit insulting?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 03:37 PM

"sn't that just a little bit insulting?"

I think we should assume that was the idea.

It's as well to remember on the Mudcat that all it takes is a click on the name at the head of a post, and all our previous posts can be revealed. It can be quite enlightening, as mandotim pointed out there.
.................

This thread is drifting somewhat, as threads do. But drifting into a squabble rather than a diversion.

Meanwhile the cuts are with us, and the question of what to do about them. My inclination is to pick out the monstrosities which cannot be defended, and which bring into contempt people who try to defend them, rather than just a broad front denunciation of the cuts across the board, which can make it easier for the perpetrators and their friends to dodge.

And the issue of the decision to take money from people in residential care is just such a monstrosity which cannot be defended". That's not the reason I keep on coming back to it - I do that because it's such a disgusting policy, and one that will directly hurt people I know. But it is also a decision which has the capacity to do real damage to those responsible, and where there is a real possibility that it could cause the coalition ranks to waver, and that a reversal of the policy before it takes effect is on the cards.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 23 Oct 10 - 05:44 PM

Crow Sister,
I think you asked about how the UK reduced its deficit after WW2. I found this interesting paper from the IFS

MEASURING THE UK FISCAL STANCE SINCE THE SECOND WORLD WAR

See page 6 therein. The debt was reduced by a combination of inflation, economic growth, and low annual deficits in the 1950's, but also because it was so big it would have been hard not to to actually borrow enough to keep it that high (that's what they seem to be saying).

I guess the difference between now and is that there are many more places investors can put their money now (not just UK Gov bonds), and we had competitive manufacturing industry to help growth.
cheers
KP

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:41 AM

Thanks for flagging that up KP, I'll take a look and see if I can understand.

Otherwise, just announced is the sell-off of publicly owned forests and woodlands for a measly 1 billion. I guess that's to ensure that there's no public land remaining where all those who have had their homes repossessed or been evicted, can go to erect a tent to kip in.
Kinda weird, because I was thinking about the tent cities that have been springing up in America and musing on how soon it would be before public land in the UK bares witness to the same kind of thing. But seems there won't even be a ditch for folks to park up in shortly.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: SPB-Cooperator
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 05:58 AM

There is nothing like a tent to seriously get up the noses of the property developers who think that they have a God-given right to cream off the biggest chunk of the welfare budget in charging massive private rents.

Living for free on common land must surely be seen as stealing from the rich property owners, a bit like the poor in the middle ages being hung for poaching rabbits - as an aside I wonder if that is where the expression better to be hung for a sheep rather than a lamb come from?

Maybe the less wealthy should be content to sleeping ten in a room - think of all the HB the property owners would get for that, and of course the right would point their fingers at those living in overcrowded conditions as being benefit scroungers.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lizzie Cornish 1
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 06:32 AM

The thing is, all this happening and NO-ONE is taking a stance against it!

I'm so fed up of writing on messageboards about all this crap...

Yesterday I got half the folks on my bus discussing everything that's happening, and they're all as angry as we are. They said how fed up they are with it and how they can't see a way out...
And I said..

"Hey, WHEN was the last time you sat on a bus having a conversation like this?"

"Well...never." came the reply...

"EXACTLY!" I said..."And THAT is what is difference, THAT is what is starting to happen. We are ALL beginning to TALK to each other as never before...and with that, because of that, change *will* happen."

The Stiff Upper Lip and the Mustn't Grumble of the past is starting to fade *into* the past...And it's that attitude which has kept us all so silent for so long, and let these bastards get away with all they have...

Selling off our forests and woodlands is just about the final straw for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mauvepink
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 07:02 AM

One has to believe that the government would listen to anyoe who takes a stance. They never listed to the people over the Iraq War and, it seems, they never listend to the people in this last round of electioneering.

How soon before they introduce laws that will take away the right to gather on streets and complain about all that is going on? How soon before the very Police forces they are cutting down have to defend their policies on the sreet? Will we see more innocent pedestrians beaten and knocked down on the pavements of Britain? They are not listening to the Charities Commission. They are not listening to the experts who tell that this WILL impact the poorest the most. They will not listen to anyone who is not singing their song. They are listening to each other.

I still have no idea how this can be done if the backbenchers - who I see as our possible saviours - rebel and make them listen. People will remember all those who have betrayed their election promises.... but then again, maybe not.

We are rabbits caught in the headlights of an oncoming juggernaut and juggernauts tend to take no prisoners. They will clean the prisons out of criminals and make criminals out of those who try and bring change by peaceful means. I am becoming scared and so disillusioned the more I see and hear from people around me. Is anyone else scared of the immediate future?

I have less to be frightened of (I think) than most of my clients. It's having a terrible effect on some of them. When will they start listenin to the people gai?

mp

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 11:50 AM

I'd like to express my admiration for what Mandotim has said above, totally nailing the big lie that the deficit is something to blame the Brown administration for. At the time of reduction of bank regulation the only complaint that the cuntservatives had was that it did not go far enough. Well where would we have been then?

But, mauvie, try to gather and complain anywhere near Parliament or Downing Street. You'll soon see that any right to do that was taken away several years ago (and the po-lice also use antiterrorist legislation to back themselves up).

We already know that the po-lice will use violence against and even kill protesters (and people just trying to get home)

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: VirginiaTam
Date: 24 Oct 10 - 12:24 PM

that's why you don't demonstrate outside parliament... you demonstrate outside the fat cats homes.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:49 AM

"...nailing the big lie that the deficit is something to blame the Brown administration for."

How does that work, then, Richard Bridge?

Let's see... Labour came to power in 1997 inheriting a fairly healthy economy. When they left power 13 years later there was a huge deficit. If it's not "something to blame the Brown administration for," then who? The banks? But the banks were operating under a regulatory regime introduced by Mr Brown. The buck stops at his desk; anything else is sophistry.

I realise that to one of your ideology all economic woes must be laid at the door of capitalism; but (leaving aside the fact that "the banks" is not the same as "capitalism") it's still sophistry.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 05:11 AM

Ringer; it would be helpful if you dealt in facts, rather than mythology. The bank regulatory regime was tightened under both Blair and Brown, (though clearly not enough) with the Tories complaining all the way that deregulation was a better idea. Please read my post above; prior to the bank-generated financial crisis, the UK economy was indeed healthy; The bank bailout cost £950bn (and growing), and our current deficit is £850bn. Even the mathematically challenged should be able to work out that the current deficit is entirely the responsibility of the banks and their reckless and self-interested approach to lending and buying bad debt. Until the banking crisis, we were actually repaying national debt at a healthy rate. The banks were indeed subject to a regulatory regime; but the reason for the crisis was that they operated in such a way that they ignored the first commandment of banking, which stands above any external regulation; the rule of prudence, that says 'thou shalt safeguard thy depositors money'. To that extent, it is not necessarily capitalism that is to blame; it is the version of capitalism practised in the USA and the UK. This version emphasises short-term personal and corporate gain over long-term economic growth. If you really want to know more, read Will Hutton's excellent book 'The State We're In'. I'm happy to debate this with you, but not on the basis of ill-informed posts like your latest one.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:05 AM

But you neglect to point out the mistakes in my post, Mandotim. If it's "ill-informed", as you say, you should be able to do that. Until you do, all your verbiage looks like BS to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:12 AM

OK Tim, thanks for the explanation about the banks. Makes sense. 950 billion loss caused by the banks.

What doesn't make sense, is during the 13 years of Labour in charge, is why the f*** didn't they make sure the situation with the Banks couldn't happen?

Tony Blair and Gordon (I am Mr wonderful) Brown, were supposed to be so good, how come they f***** up on the Banks? They had 13 years to put stringent measures in. In those 13 years the Conservatives were not in power, so can hardly be blamed for such a f*** up.

I know you socialists think you are gods gift to the world, but we as a country have a 950 billion loss on our hands and are having to pay the cost. Not f*****g Blair and Brown. Oh no, they are set up for life and very wealthy, laughing all the way to the bank.

Discuss

I'll get my puke bowl.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:17 AM

Oh by the way, I think all our Political parties are a load of shite, and couldn't run a business to saves their lives.

I vote for the party that can offer the best options at the time, whoever the party is. At least I vote.

This time, I voted against Gordon Brown. What an utter load of shite he was.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:23 AM

This thread is going around in a loop. Half of those contributing must live in cloud cuckoo land or just anti-establishment throw backs from the flower power era.

Yes there are genuine disabled people who deserve all the help they can get. On the other hand there are young couples (many live in my area) that have three kids, rent paid, council tax paid, heating allowance, school uniforms paid for and a generous weekly handout. They can visit the local bars three nights and will never work as it just doesn't pay them.
Is that fair ?

An astonishing £192 billion is spent on welfare payments each year, a figure which ballooned by nearly half during the free-spending New Labour years.

The Chancellor announced concrete plans to take hundreds of thousands of people off benefits, and put them into work, he will give himself scope to deliver meaningful tax cuts in the run-up to the next Election.

It is time to reward young industrious couples struggling to pay their way and who contribute to the economy and reward for their sacrifices.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:31 AM

Evidently Ringer dashed off that response to mandotim's post without actually reading it with any attention.

The primary responsibility for financial crisis was that of the banks, both in the UK and in other countries, particularly the USA. The policy of regulation, backed by the Tory opposition, was a contributory mistake. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives have anything to be proud of in this respect, because both were united in favouring that policy (except that the Conservatives criticised Labour form not carrying it even further).

However even without it there would still have been a major global financial crisis, and it would still have been necessary to incur enormous costs in order to reduce the damage caused to this country.

The question of how we got here, and who is to blame is important enough, but it is not immediately relevant in deciding what are the right things to do now.

Imagine a shipwreck in which a group of survivors decide that the only answer to the problem of survival is to start eating other members of the crew - and when others object, they dismiss those objections, on the grounds that the people objecting had been responsible for steering the ship on the rocks.

I think that the priority should be protecting the interests of those who are liable to be eaten.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Lox
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:31 AM

"The Chancellor announced concrete plans to take hundreds of thousands of people off benefits, and put them into work,"

By reducing the amount of public sector jobs and by shrinking the economy as a whole thus initiating huge numbers of redundancies in the private sector.

So there will be more unemployed - and less social welfare to look aftr them.

Genius!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 06:43 AM

Er; I think I acknowledged that banking regulation should have gone further under Labour, and at no point did I praise Gordon Brown. What I was seeking was balance; it's fair to blame people when they are in the wrong, and to the extent that they are wrong, but not otherwise.
OK Ringer, some simple corrections; you claim Labour inherited a 'fairly healthy' economy. This depends on your definition of 'health'. If you mean 'balance of payments', then yes, the Coservatives had reduced debt over their term of office (though not by as much or as fast as Labour did prior to the banking crisis.) If you mean structural health, that's a different matter; the Tories systematically destroyed manufacturing in this country, leaving a gross over-reliance on service organisations and - significantly - financial services. That structural weakness is a major factor in our current problems, along with the equally systematic destruction of medium-sized companies. (Contrast Germany, which places great importance on manufacturing and the 'Mittelstand' companies). And yes; Labour didn't do enough to restore our manufacturing base, but fair analysis shows they didn't destroy it in the first place.
I explained about the different versions of capitalism as a way of correcting your view, but you don't seem to have understood this point.
I also pointed out the error in your analysis of banking regulation, and the responsibilities of banks irrespective of regulatory frameworks. Banks have grown to see 'making profits and bonuses' as their prime function; their 'mission', if you like. Whilst this may be ok for many commercial organisations, banking has traditionally had a different function in the economy, which I described as the 'first commandment'.
This is a complicated situation we are in, and reading and careful analysis is of value when trying to understand the issue. I'm not taking the standard left-wing line that says 'it's all the Tories fault', or 'down with Capitalism'; that's not helpful, but neither is spouting the opposite as a right wing knee-jerk response to a logical argument.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Patsy
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 07:33 AM

>I had hoped that as the father of a child with severe disabilities (who sadly died last year) we could expect that whatever else David Cameron might do, he could be relied on to refrain from targeting people with disabilities when it came to imposing cuts.

I suppose I should have known better. <

Here, here, I see he has conveniently forgotten his situation with his child but I expect he was fortunate enought to have a big enough silver spoon in his mouth to pay for it. Ordinary people are not as fortunate and as always Mental Health and caring profession gets hit the hardest time and time again for the people who need help the most. I agree there are some people out there who make it bad for everyone else but it shouldn't be assumed that because someone is unable to fill out a form properly without making mistakes that it is the peron's fault and be fined how ridiculous. You will have autistic people up and down the land being fined especially as with my son the diagnosis wasn't properly confirmed until 3/4 years ago. If someone fell through the net again he/she could find himself/herself in all kinds of difficulties. Lucky he has a team now who will speak out for him now but others might not be so lucky.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 07:42 AM

Am I reading the latest correctly - pensions to go UP to a uniform £140 per person per week? No means testing (but taxed)?

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/State-Pension-Set-To-Rise-To-140-A-Week-For-Everyone-Under-New-Government-Plans/Articl

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:15 AM

That link to sky doesn't work. This one to the BBC does - Vince Cable vows 'decent' state pension for all

It might be a "vow" by Vince Cable. But he and his party colleagues have already demonstrated that "vows" by Lib Dems are not worth very much. And "not worth very much" overestimates their value.

At most it can be seen as "an aspiration". A "long-term plan".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:34 AM

I'm afraid I can see only BS still, Mandotim. I asked you to point out the mistakes in my post -- all you managed was a quibble about my reference to the economy in 1997 as "fairly healthy".

And all your guff about capitalism, and Tories backing regulation, is irrelevant: you haven't addressed my main point, which is that governments are ultimately responsible for the economy (are you not familiar with the expression, "the buck stops here?"). No one but a fool denies that the banks were at fault, but the government, under whose regulation the banks were acting, have ultimate responsibility. Voters understand this ("It's the economy, stupid").

Governments are quick enough to claim credit when the economy surges (as did Mr Brown, hubristically preening himself over 137 -- or however many -- consecutive quarters of growth), but they can't run away fast enough when things get tight ("It's America's fault"). Even though American sub-prime lenders may have provoked the crisis, our last government was guilty of introducing a regulatory regime which allowed it, guilty of not having seen it coming and terminally guilty of not having provided, in the fat years, for the inevitable lean years to come.

Would you, or the condescending McGrath of Harlow, like to try again? Tell me why the last Labour government isn't responsible for our current economic woes.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:46 AM

Why condescending? You mean I don't get hot under the collar about disagreements but try to keep reasonably polite?

How I'd put it would amend your formula: No one but a fool denies that the government, under whose regulation the banks were acting, were at faultNot an enormous difference really.but banks have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions".

But for the Tories to talk as if they had not backed deregulation all the way and then some is breathtaking chutzpah.

But more significantly, the issue now (and the one the thread is set out to discuss) is not how we got here, but what should be done now, and what should not be done.

Is it actually true that there is no alternative to eating the weaker members of the crew ?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 09:48 AM

Why condescending? You mean I don't get hot under the collar about disagreements but try to keep reasonably polite?

How I'd put it would amend your formula, Ringer: "No one but a fool denies that the government, under whose regulation the banks were acting, were at fault but banks have the ultimate responsibility for their own actions". Not an enormous difference really.

But for the Tories to talk as if they had not backed deregulation all the way and then some is breathtaking chutzpah.

But more significantly, the issue now (and the one the thread is set out to discuss) is not how we got here, but what should be done now, and what should not be done.

Is it actually true that there is no alternative to eating the weaker members of the crew ?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:40 PM

The url is too long to put in the blickymaker.

http://news.sky.com/skynews/Home/Business/State-Pension-Set-To-Rise-To-140-A-Week-For-Everyone-Under-New-Government-Plans-Says-Daily-Mail/Article/201010415771707

I'd have been more cautious had I known it was an article in the Daily Wail that was the source.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:49 PM

It seems your only response to careful, informed argument in ridicule and abuse, Ringer. I'm sad that that is the case, but hope that you feel able to read around the subject a little more. I recommended 'The State We're In' as a first reference, but you might also want to read 'The New Industrial State' by that arch-capitalist J.K. Galbraith. It's an old book, but he effectively foreshadows the current problem; that in an era of global corporations and unfettered movement of capital, the actions of elected governments can be rendered irrelevant. This has been demonstrated several times; I for one did not blame Norman Lamont for his financial crisis; that was engineered by George Soros and his cronies in the world of currency speculation, and there was little or nothing the UK government could do. In the same way, what happened recently in America was governed by American regulation, and there is nothing to stop banks worldwide from dabbling in deregulated markets where there is a dollar to be made. It's hard to see how one government alone can act to prevent this kind of thing if the corporations are free to go elsewhere and carry on.
You have a touching faith in the ability of elected governments to control things; if you were Gordon Brown, what would you have done?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 01:58 PM

For 'in' read 'is' in the first line above. Sorry.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 02:06 PM

Pension income is simply added to all other income and if the total is above the personal allowance, tax will be paid. You will be aware of course that most types of pension plan have the option of taking a tax-free cash lump sum before exchanging the residual fund for a series of payments. Ordinarily up to 25% of the fund may be taken as tax-free cash - hooray....a nice little pot to spend!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Oct 10 - 04:11 PM

Does that haver anyuthing to do with any of the previous posts or the previous discussions, Bonzo? Or have you posted it in the wrong thread?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 03:58 AM

I think Bonzo is referring to Richard Bridge's post earlier about the rise in pensions under consideration. Please bear in mind that a government Green Paper means 'we are thinking about this, but no promises'. The statement actually says 'we are thinking about a Green Paper'. This is about spin to soften the cuts in care services for the elderly. Don't hold your breath on this one, it's unlikely to be delivered before the coalition tears itself apart; it's a LibDem idea, and the Tories hate it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 04:28 AM

"It seems your only response to careful, informed argument i[s] ridicule and abuse, Ringer."

I don't know how you can discern that, mandotim, as there has been no "careful, informed argument" -- not, at least argument against the point I made, which was about the responsibility of government.

"[I] hope that you feel able to read around the subject a little more."

Now you're being patronising: you imply that I only take a view contrary to yours out of ignorance.

"You have a touching faith in the ability of elected governments to control things."

What on earth can I have said to make you think that? I have no faith in elected governments to do anything other than generate hot air. I believe, on the contrary, that there is nothing so bad that government interference cannot make it worse.

Nonetheless, when things go tits up, the government, which claims to be in control and sets up regulatory regimes ostensibly to keep businesses on the straight and narrow, must take responsibility.

One thing I'd have done if I had been Gordon Brown would be to have acknowledged I'd got it wrong & apologised. That's why I'll never make a politician.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 05:01 AM

This wagged bunch of socialist "let's have a wevolution" weeds burble on and on and on o have they nothing better to do?????

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 05:04 AM

""One thing I'd have done if I had been Gordon Brown would be to have acknowledged I'd got it wrong & apologised. That's why I'll never make a politician."

I would say that if Gordon Brown had resigned 6 months earlier than he got the boot, Labour may well have stayed in power.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 06:05 AM

One area the government must re examine is overseas aid. 980 million went out of Britain last year.

Pakistan has a multi-billion dollar nuclear program and a space program FFS. Perhaps they can re-allocate some funds to feed their people.

Africa has been a den of corruption for years. The money doesn't seem to reach those in need and those monies given usually ends up in new military hardware for the government.

France, Germany and Spain give a fraction of what we do in foreign aid, the UK has the highest retirement age and lowest pension, maybe the government could learn from this and look after it's own people first. The EU policies on handouts must also be reviewed.

As Mrs T. once said, something like, "we are not asking for charity, merely for some of our own money back". That was before Ghengis Blair, bless him, signed much of it away again.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Guest mandotim abroad
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 06:10 AM

Ok Ringer, if you try not to feel patronised, I'll try not to feel frustrated at your refusal or inability to engage with informed debate. I'll ask in simpler terms then; if you had been in Gordon Brown's position at the time the banking crisis hit, what would you have done about it?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 11:22 AM

hi

There are several mentions here about the proposal ( it is no more than that) to simplfy the pension payment structure.

There are no real details yet, only an estimate that a figure of £140 per week for everyone over the pension age. As usual there are no figures or plans of what this might entail or cost are available.

Now that might sound fantastic to some but remember -:

It is only a proposal and mainly by the LibDems !!!
Even if it is agreed by the whole Government;which is doubtful it will not be ready for introduction until the next election in 5 years time.

Many pensioners who also paid into earlier schemes will probably be on nearly £140 per week by then. Winners are likely to be women who did not pay National Insurance for what-ever reason. So this announcement hailed as a fantastic benefit for all pensioners is not quite what it is being made out to be.

There are already murmurs of discontent about the thought of people who haven't contributed getting as much as those who have.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 11:28 AM

Nobody seems to be talking about the cuts, just about stuff which might (or might not) be interesting. How Thatcher and Brown might have done better is history, along what what would have happened if the Battle of Waterloo had gone the other way. Fascinating stuff,but nothing to do with more immediate matters....

Such as: what cuts (if any) are wrong, what cuts (if any) are right, and what alternatives might exist?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 12:45 PM

Or, indeed, what cuts? See my post of 22 Oct 10 - 12:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

What cuts? Well, for a start the HEFCE budget for funding higher education is being cut by 80% (not a misprint, 80 percent) from 2012-13, meaning the burden of higher education is removed from the government and placed squarely on the student. No-one seems to be asking whether the consequence of this (fewer people in higher education than any of our developed nation competitors and restricted access for those without the funds or ability to bear the debt) is a good or bad thing. There is some window-dressing about students from disadvantaged backgrounds, but early research indicates that this won't make any difference. Given the rise in importance of knowledge economies, it would seem sensible to take a long-term, strategic view and encourage as much access to higher education as possible, and fund bright young people in the same way you would any other strategic asset.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:06 PM

Ringer refers us to the post where he or she wrote "There are no cuts".

Of course many of the cuts as yet are "proposed cuts" which need parliamentary approval. (Not all - the executive can do a lot of things without asking parliament). But I don't think that was what Ringer meant, in the light of the fact that the post went on "What is reduced is the rate of increase in real terms of public spending!!!" Which of course doesn't in any way remove the fact that within this overall public spending numerous cuts are proposed affecting the lives of people.

Including the one I have telegraphed repeatedly - a proposal to take away from tend of thousands of people who are severely disabled and compelled to live in residential care homes the mobility component of disability living allowance, which has given them a small regular sum which can allow them to have some independent contact with the world about them.

"There are no cuts"... And the earth is flat.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 26 Oct 10 - 02:11 PM

John Maynard Keynes. Simples! We KNOW it worked before.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 09:11 AM

hi

Of course there are cuts. They are happening here and now.

The special budget last week identified which Government Departments would face cuts in their budget and what these would be as a percentage figure of their last budget figure.

These figures are then passed down to the indivual councils who have to decide how they are going to implement these cuts. This is only just starting to be done.

However make no mistake!!! Cuts are being implemented. In the North West there are reports of council services of all kinds being considered for being cut. This includes police, prison services and other front-line activities. Patient care services are under pressure as the money has not been allocated. Charities are being underfunded etc etc.

I can give you an example of one that has happened to us this week. My wife suffers from glaucoma and has to visit hospital four times a year for tests and treatment. These visits have always been conducted at our local hospital about a mile from our home.

This week we have been informed that my wife's next appointment has been cancelled and a new one made at another hospital some 20 miles from us. We have also been told that all future appointments will be at that hospital. We were told that local services are being cut because of the Government's recent directive.

My understanding of the Financial deficit directive was that the NHS is to be ring-fenced and front-line services will not be affected !!!

The Government speaks with forked tongue....

cheers

M

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 10:44 AM

RB: "John Maynard Keynes. Simples! We KNOW it worked before."

It might have worked before but what's important is *how many* people "KNOW it worked before"? My guess is the answer to that is 'very few indeed'. I spoke to a bloke the other day who believed that 'double dips' are caused not by cuts but by *investing* in the countries infrastructure. A few days ago I asked on here what economic model was followed after the second world war. I'd never heard of Keynes but by putting two and two together (ie: that *despite* the country being in penury as it is now, much of the welfare state / social housing / NHS etc. was in fact *built* during that period) I realised there must be something up with the idea being forced down our necks that 'austerity measures' are the only possible solution. My grasp of UK history is pretty slight and my grasp of economics even moreso, but I bet it's still better than the average Hello reader. And it's those people that make up the bulk of the electorate.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 12:16 PM

Total tax giveaway to Vodafone - 6 BILLION quid

http://blogs.thisismoney.co.uk/2010/10/vodafones-6bn-tax-bill-let-off-and-the-7bn-benefits-cuts.html

I feel that petrol emotion.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Oct 10 - 08:13 PM

Vodafone are just the tip of the iceberg when it com es to tax dodging - Secrecy deal with Switzerland could let Britons avoid £40bn in taxes

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 04:12 AM

Well that makes it plain exactly how much "we are all in this together".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 05:38 AM

You are twisting the facts to suit your lefty twidging. Nothing wrong with a registering a company in say the BVI.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 07:05 AM

MikeL2 asks about the pledge to protect NHS frontline budgets.

NHS frontline budgets are derived from PCT budgets. They have been told to find £15 Billion in savings. The economy drive is known as QUIP, (may not have got that quite right, but google it or visit the HSJ website for more info.)

On top of the £15 Billion direct NHS savings, the Department of Health budget is being slashed by 33%. Many pump priming monies for starting new better ways of delivering NHS services come from this budget.

So.. it is a bit difficult for NHS leaders at present. You have Ministers taking away more money than most of the other government departments, and back benchers crying that the NHS should shoulder more savings.

Delivering that agenda whist Ministers rattle on about cutting out management. My view, based on having chaired a couple of NHS trusts etc etc is that rather than too many managers, (which to be fair, in head count I agree,) there is not enough management capacity to deliver.

On the plus side. 15 years ago, I was asked to look at NHS governance, having been CEO of a group of manufacturing companies, (or fatcat, as some prefer to label us,) and have been involved ever since. I have seen huge improvements, not only in safety / quality / outcomes, but also efficiency, cutting waste, channelling resource to where it can do most good, and importantly, bringing clinicians into managing and taking responsibility for their work. The NHS is in many way a good news story. It is easy to get all Daily Mail and find examples of people being let down, but with 1,000,000 patient to clinician decisions every 36 hours.... if you filled a newspaper every day with examples of genuine fault that is devastating for a patient, that is still a success rate of 99.9998%.

I wish Sheffield Wednesday could achieve that..

Spending cuts? La La Lansley is risking buggering up the one thing that is improving in the public sector, mainly in spite of rather than because of Ministers.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:35 AM

http://blogs.forbes.com/parmyolson/2010/10/28/behind-vodafones-multi-billion-dollar-tax-flap/

Bonzo, did you say you were an accountant?   The world and its dog knows that the principal reasons for any business (that does not have a large local market) to incorporate in Liechtenstein, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Caymans, the BVI, the Netherlands Antilles (so that you can do a "Dutch Sandwich") or Delaware or indeed Belize are to avoid tax, to avoid disclosure, and to avoid regulations.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 11:47 AM

Oh dear, even arch-Tory Bonkers Boris has come out against the government cuts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11640219

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:05 PM

Seems like the footballers have found a way of tax avaoidance as well.

http://www.independent.co.uk/sport/football/premier-league/premier-league-stars-using-loophole-to-save-millions-in-tax-2118289.h

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 12:59 PM

"The world and its dog knows that the principal reasons for any business (that does not have a large local market) to incorporate in Liechtenstein, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands, the Caymans, the BVI, the Netherlands Antilles (so that you can do a "Dutch Sandwich") or Delaware or indeed Belize are to avoid tax, to avoid disclosure, and to avoid regulations."

Is that all a failed solicitor can muster?? You would certainly be required to advise your clients to incorporate in such places if appropriate.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:17 PM

Bonzo; when you say 'nothing wrong with registering a company in say the BVI' do you mean legally wrong or morally wrong? I guess you mean legally; in which case you may be a successful accountant, but in my view you are a failed human being. In terms of value to our world, Richard Bridge is worth a hundred of people like you.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:18 PM

"if appropriate" = to avoid tax, disclosure or regulation.

Condemned out of your own mouth.

As you should know, a solicitor is not required to advise on anything unless it is within his retainer, and I have always refused to advise on tax "mitigation". Indeed a solicitor is required by the SRA not to advise on anything that is not within his competence, and I always make it quite clear that I do not advise on tax at all.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:32 PM

Registering a company in a tax haven should be re-categorised as tax evasion rather than tax avoidance, and punished accordingly. The same should goes for any artificial contrivance for avoiding tax, if the primary reason for setting it up is to get out of paying tax.

And there is nothing in the least "left-wing" about saying that. In fact it should be implied by any politician venturing to say "We're all in this together".

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:44 PM

PS. I have enough work to do, teach at two or three universities some of the time, am able to deliver what I think are fair charges and don't have to try to skin my clients, have a reasonable size house with a very small remaining mortgage, some other assets, 13 guitars 4 mandolins 2 PA rigs a nice warm sounding old HiFi (although I miss my Radford STA100 valve amp) a big TV and enough money to run my three lovely old volvos and feed Benjamin my border collie cross and go to folk fests in the summer in my little old caravan. I've got the best tree brugmansiae for many many miles around. I'm still fit enough to cut the wood for my logburner.

My accounts department is me when I'm in the dining room. My litigation department is me when I'm in the laundry room with the photocopier. Benjamin is the receptionist and I answer the phone. My conveyancing partner who earns far more than I called it "idyllic". There is absolutely no way I'd go back to central London practice.

Failure? What failure?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:48 PM

I wonder if any of the Tory numpties in government and on this board have ever read Adam Smith, the great and ancient guru of the right? Smith advocated free market economics, but he wasn't an economist; he was a moral philosopher by both education and inclination. He always qualified his view of markets by saying that they would only be acceptable in what he described as a truly moral society. That's the root of the problem now; the amoral, venal nature of those making decisions in banks, media and government means that markets are truly free; free to ride roughshod over those unable to defend themselves from the excesses of those with power and money. Smith must be turning in his grave to see what has been made of his ideas.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:53 PM

F****** hell Mandotim, aren't you able to come up with your own ideas, instead of refferring to what, the almighty great this person and that person say. Boring.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM

Adam Smith lived in the 1700's.

What relevance does that have to the way the world is today. He would have a nervous breakdown if he had to deal with today's issues.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:09 PM

Meanwhile, UK boardroom pay leaps 55%

Oh - Arthur - think about it. Adam Smith values no longer apply so there is no point on relying on the free market nostra that others say he proclaimed. Is that simple enough?

Mandotim's comments are rooted in learning and understanding.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: alanabit
Date: 28 Oct 10 - 02:24 PM

Oddly enough, the sainted Margeret Thatcher declared herself an admirer of Adam Smith. I do not think he was the only writer whom she had a singular interpretation of.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:45 AM

"Oh dear, even arch-Tory Bonkers Boris has come out against the government cuts:"

Aha, seems I spoke too soon - Bonkers Boris has done a complete about-face (I'd say 'cahnge of mind' but Boris doesn't have one)- seems he can't decide what he wants more: to be re-elected or be seen as a good toe-the-line Tory. Hand up who's suprised about this?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:11 AM

Arthur itus; it's a pity you don't value history, particularly the history of ideas. I have plenty of ideas of my own, you'll find some of them in this thread if you take the trouble to look. One of the problems with 'having your own ideas' is that some of them just aren't very good. The ratio of good ideas to bad ideas can be improved by learning about what works and what doesn't, and reading the works of important thinkers contributes to this, in combination with experience and mistakes. So much better than just spouting random ideas based on nothing more than blind prejudice, don't you think? A wise friend (a historian) once told me 'History repeats itself; it has to, because nobody listens!'.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Guest mandotim sans cookie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:18 AM

Sorry; guest above was me.
Tim

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:26 AM

"Failure? What failure?"

Ah, but you see, instead of ridiculously desiring a decent quality of life which suits your personal priorities, you should be aspiring to own a much larger house (preferably a kinda faux mansion thing with "look at me, I'm a very important person" electric gates) with a new 'designer' kitchen and bathroom every three years and you really aught to stop going to those common DIY folk festivals with hippies when you aught to be having power lunches with suits in the city instead. Come to Essex RB, that'll learn you to sharpen up your sloppy attitudes!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: theleveller
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:49 AM

"Is that all a failed solicitor can muster??"

Coming from someone who lives in a shit-hole in Croydon, that is so, so funny!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:01 AM

It was strict adherence to Adam Smith principles that led to the Irish famine. However, the bit they failed heeding was that flexibility may also mean micro market control. Or in other words, if you see people starving, your particular interpretation of market control is not working.

In the 1840's, Adam Smith principles were revered to the extent that they couldn't possibly be wrong in any given situation, despite the fact that a) they were in many cases, and b) Smith himself spoke of the dangers of lack of pragmatism.

So, for me before I retired and sold my shares, Adam Smith did rather well for me. Now, although I have no needs I cannot sort myself, I am involved in health and social care, and so my thinking, my strategic advice etc most certainly isn't in the Adam Smith mode. Horses for courses. Social equality can only be delivered if the country can afford it. In order to afford it, money has to be a driver.

There is nothing wrong with the noble aims of socialism, nor the noble aims of market economies. I personally feel that you need market economies in order to provide a social policy. I am not convinced this government has got it right with their radical approach, even if fairness is the aim. I don't hold with the idea that there is a sub agenda to make more people poor and miserable, I do accept that there is a culture of not contributing to society as a lifestyle choice, and someone, some time has to address that.

I just think their approach is relying too much on a private sector led revival, when that means selling goods and services to countries with equally large overdrafts. Where will we find the customers? their naivety is concerning, and to make it worse, I also think Labour are pushing too far in the "let the general recovery paper over the cracks" direction. To be fair to Labour, they have the luxury of opposition. If they were in power, it wouldn't be much different...

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:09 AM

MandoTim
Yawn

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Guest mandotim sans cookie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:01 AM

Arthuritis: yawning? I think this little man is tired! Off to beddy-byes for you, and let the grown-ups discuss important things.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:30 AM

"The same should goes for any artificial contrivance for avoiding tax, if the primary reason for setting it up is to get out of paying tax."

I assume you don'thave any ISAs, then, McGrath?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 07:52 AM

MandoTim, I am yawning at you. You are so boring.

Just get real and stop looking back. Start looking forward. Come up with some good sound modern ideas that will work and are what you think and not what others think. Try to be inclusive.

I'll get me walking stick LOL :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Richard Bridge elsewhere
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:07 AM

Actually, I'm flirting with the dark side, on a course on corporate insolvency (and bored).

I can't be arsed to go and hunt for it on this tiddly netbook I'm using but I saw, in, I think, yesterdays papers, an economic thinktaknk saying that the UK had started to exit from recesion very quickly, because we had "thrown the kitchen sink at it" but that the recovery was now faltering.

That makes the prime suspect for any looming problems this bunch, and the prime candidate for a sensible policy tax and spend.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 08:27 AM

Nothing too exotic or artificial about ISAs, so far as I am aware. I wold hope that the rules operating them ensure that they don't unfairly reduce the amount of tax I pay on my income, and would welcome any changes needed to ensure that that is the case.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Ringer
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:13 AM

So you do have some ISAs, then?

The whole purpose of ISAs is that no income tax or capital-gains tax is payable on them; they are therefore "artificial" in your sense. I'd have thought that someone who could say (with a straight face), "Registering a company in a tax haven should be re-categorised as tax evasion rather than tax avoidance, and punished accordingly. The same should goes for any artificial contrivance for avoiding tax, if the primary reason for setting it up is to get out of paying tax," would have put his spare cash in a taxable savings vehicle, since he obviously regards tax-paying as so virtuous an activity.

Myself, I think I am a better judge of where my money should be spent than is any politician. When someone takes my money against my wishes I regard it as no less objectionable if he happens to be "the government" than if he is a thief.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:42 AM

hi SW

Many thanks for the explaination of the breakdown of the allocation of Departmental Budget Cuts.

However my point really was that the message that the current Government appears to be getting across ( or not as the case may be) was that the NHS Frontline Services would be protected at all costs.

We know that is blatantly untrue by the many cases of such service cuts being made and planned to to made.

It appears to me that it is a case of "Creative Accounting" where duplicity and deliberate confusion occurs.

IMHO the Spending Review has been ill-conceived and they are making it up as they go along.

Having been in opposition for so long the Government is finding it difficult to understand that you can't just keep coming up with policies that you don't have to own and to live with.

Thanks

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 09:54 AM

For all the pious buggers;

The Inland Revenue do accept voluntary contributions.



Thought not.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 11:49 AM

Arthuritus; you're yawning at me; I'm laughing at you. I asked you to read some other comments on the board; couldn't be arsed, could you? Read any of the stuff suggested? No; don't want to know anything that challenges your one-eyed view of the world, obviously. The reason for looking back is to learn, and avoid making the same stupid mistakes. As for original ideas; you haven't said anything so far that I can't provide a reference for. You haven't read any of the authors, but your ideas are not original. I'll try one more time to show you why history is important; try reading 'The End of History and the Last Man' by Francis Fukuyama, a much respected right-wing American academic. It's a challenging read, but it might help you to understand why what is happening now is merely a different version of what has happened before, and why outmoded solutions such as those proposed by our government will produce the same results; i.e. long term failure.
I don't understand your comment about 'try to be inclusive'. Can you explain?

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Jim Carroll
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 12:55 PM

"MandoTim, I am yawning at you. You are so boring."
Is this really from the feller who believes that the answer to life, the universe and everything is to write to him MP?
Jim Carroll

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:26 PM

I have no ISAs.

I pay my tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:43 PM

LOL it is indeed Jim

Mando Tim
How do you know if I have read all the posts. I have indeed read every post.

This thread is all about telling the present government how fucking stupid they are and that they couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery.

Well I happen to agree, but I have no idea how to get us out of the mess we are in. Neither did the Labour government.

So come on, you seem to know what's best. Spill it baby.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 01:57 PM

I do have ISAs. The stocks and shares ISA took a huge hit at the start of the international recession, but slowly, taking time, it is coming back. The cash ISAs are not really worth much in reality, as the difference between gross and net on annual interest on the limit you can put in is about a few pints of beer.

All this about ISAs being tax evasion?? What the Hell are some people on? Tax is what the government needs to do the work we ask of it. The rules on tax are whatever the government says they are, so having ISAs is nothing to do with evading tax liability. The ability to have an ISA has the same standing in law as the ability to pay tax. It is part of the overall tax rules.

If anybody tells you they don't have ISAs as part of a holier than thou stance, tell them to 1) grow up and 2) tell them to stand still whilst you take pity on their warped view of the world.

Oh, and 3) refer them to my thread up the page that says the Inland Revenue accept voluntary contributions over and above your due.

That should shut them up for a while whilst the adults are talking.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:25 PM

Quote
If anybody tells you they don't have ISAs as part of a holier than thou stance, tell them to 1) grow up and 2) tell them to stand still whilst you take pity on their warped view of the world.

Unquote

I don't have any. I couldn't afford them even if I wanted. You must be wealthy.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:43 PM

"tell them to 1) grow up"

This must be your favourite phrase!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 02:47 PM

hi Arthur

I am not wealthy but I do have ISA's. You don't need to be wealthy to have ISA's surely ???

If you have a bank account with anything in it you can transfer it into a cash ISA account, And you will then qualify for tax free savings on the interest you will have earned on that account. The maximum has just been increased to £5100 per person.

There are also Stocks & Shares ISA's which are slightly more complicated but we don't have any of these.

ISA's are a legitimate Government perk to encourage people to save. It is not tax evasion/avoidance.

As SW says the return is very low but it is available to anyone who wants to save a few bob.

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:18 PM

I hear what you say Mike, but we live from hand to mouth and do not have anything to put on one side.
That's life and I am not complaining.

However, when I listen to some of the crap posted on here, it makes me want to puke.

We will have to live by whatever we get dealt, irrespective of what any government has to hand out.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:55 PM

But they won't think twice about spending far more than the average person puts in an ISA on booze (they know who they are!!!), rent, cigarettes and holidays in England!!!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:01 PM

Well I don't smoke or drink

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:23 PM

ISAs are made tax attractive by the government for political purposes.

Loopholes (tax avoidance) are drafting errors.

Evasion is lying.

Yes, there is a difference, for the benefit of members of the colonies who know no better.

I still don't do any of them. I grew out of it and decided to pay my dues. Not gifts. Dues.

The figures above that I gave stand. We are not "all in this together". The Brown government was in surplus before the bank crisis. The bank crisis was caused by greed and and political limits on the amount of regulation that the prophets of greed had whipped up. Tne conservatives' only complaints on bank regulation was that there was STILL too much of it.

The polluter should pay - but he doesn't. The rich in Vodafone have been given £6 BILLION. The rich tax cheats with loot stashed in Swiss banks have been let off £40 BILLION. The fat cats have put their own pay up 55% while screaming that the poor should be made poorer.

There is a solution that will work. Tax and spend. Far more elegant than Desai's proposals of today for time limited cash to force consumers to spend!

Another might be to nationalise banks without compensation and for the government then to use the money therein on say infrastructure.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Medway
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:51 PM

I can only imagine that our Americans friends must look at the British members on this site and see them as winging miserable old moaners that are satisfied with absolutely nothing in their lives.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 04:58 PM

Arthuritus; how do you know if I'm boring? You've never met me or anyone who knows me! If you've read every post, then you know what I think should be done. Unless, of course, you are choosing to ignore those posts that you don't agree with. You admit you have no idea what to do about the present crisis, but you feel qualified to criticise anyone who offers information or ideas. Why not take the hint, get some education and formulate some coherent ideas of your own instead of spewing bile over those of other people. Here are some ideas to be going on with;
1. Make tax evasion and avoidance the same thing, and collect the tax due from those who don't pay their fair share. Start with George Osborne and his family trust, include bank bonuses, stop loopholes for premiership footballers etc. and make tax avoiding companies like Vodaphone either cough up what they owe or have all their UK assets sequestered. Pursue tax avoiders through the courts and apply the same draconian penalties proposed for benefit fraud. This measure alone is enough to reduce the deficit by the Tories target amount over one parliament. Prosecute accountants who encourage their clients to avaid tax. Once the deficit is down to manageable levels, reduce corporation taxes, but only for companies that can demonstrate that the money they save is going into reinvestment, not dividends.
2. Freeze an amount of UK bank capital equivalent to the taxpayer bailout, and prevent this money from being moved abroad. Set a fair rate of payback and interest to the taxpayer, perhaps 15 years to pay back the entire sum, and pass legislation to make it illegal for a bank to trade unless they meet this obligation. Any bank that refuses to play ball should be nationalised immediately with no compensation to shareholders.
3. Instead of slashing benefits, apply a progressive tax regime to all income (including benefits), with a threshold for tax exemption at or around the level of net income on minimuum wage.
4. Increase the minimum wage to a point where the employed no longer need to be in receipt of benefit to achieve a living wage. This would prevent employers riding on the back of the taxpayer by paying low wages and leaving the benefit system to pick up the rest of the tab for their employees' work.
5.Restore top tax rates to pre-Thatcher levels and place severe limits on the movement of capital abroad.
6. Use a significant proportion of the increased revenue to invest in infrastructure projects, training/retraining (compulsory if necessary) for the long-term unemployed and further and higher education. This investment is necessary to ensure future competitiveness in a knowledge economy, and investment in infrastucture (eg fibre optic cabling for broadband) provides employment, thus reducing welfare costs and increasing tax revenues.
7. Reconstitute the Industrial Training Boards and place a training levy on employers which they can avoid paying if they carry out effective training for their employees. Proper apprenticeships should receive a high weighting for rebate.
8. Place restrictions on personal credit, with a mandatory 20% deposit for any credit purchase and a salary check for all loans above £5000.
9. Do some proper research into the level and types of benefit fraud (at the moment no-one knows what the level is, apart from the Daily Mail, apparently) and tackle the true fraudsters without penalising those in genuine need.
10. Take a long-term view of health spending and invest heavily in health promotion and public health initiatives. Raise the price of cigarettes to £10 per cigarette. In 20 years time health spending will be reduced by 35% in real terms (W.H.O. estimate)

The rich and the large corporations will squeal and try special pleading; this should be ignored, as history (remember history?)tells us that they will not actually be able to do anything about it without risking their own wealth even further. They will claim that paying people more will cost jobs; history (there it is again)tells us that economies that specify a proper minimum wage create jobs at a faster rate than those that don't. Bankers will claim that large banks are too big to allow them to fail; fine; nationalise them and break them up into local or regional banks, with a remit to serve their communities. History (damn, again!) says that this type of banking system is much more resilient in the face of global financial crises.
Come on Arthuritus; I showed you mine, now show us yours!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:02 PM

"I can only imagine that our Americans friends must look at the British members on this site and see them as winging miserable old moaners that are satisfied with absolutely nothing in their lives. "

A lot of them are, especially the lefties who cannot tolerate any other views but theirs - they are all here, the same half dozen, some fatter than others!!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:29 PM

ooh you dirty devil Tim

In actual fact you are not far from my ideals.

I would add that all people who have to go into a care home, should not have to sell their home to meet the costs. It should be free.

I would also invest in the health service and get rid of the burocrasy (can never spell that right). I would put all wards in control of matron's who are qualified and who will run the wards.
If people have an appointment at 8:00am for an op, they are in the operating theatre at 9:00 and not have to wait all day to be told to come back another time (that is disgraceful). I know, i have been there.

Apart from that we are in agreement.

However there isn't a Government who has the ability or understanding of what we need.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:38 PM

Oh I would like to add that any young person who can't be arsed to get a job, should be drafted into the army and sent to the front.

Any asbos should be treated the same.

Stop the 24 hour drinking culture and give the police the power to bang those drunken twats into the cells and fine them heavily so they can't afford to drink.

Give us the power to kick fuck out of anybody who dares to break into our homes, without any comeback from the law (scumbags).

Give teachers the right to discipline the couldn't give a fuck youngsters and stop them being disruptive.

We have sunk into a lawless society and we need to get a knicker grip on things.

There said my peace and stand by it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:42 PM

@ the incompetent accountant:

Given the insanity apparently breeding in the USA right now I take that as a badge of honour.

Incidentally, I am quite satisfied - save that justice is not being done to those who steal from the poor to give to the rich. I am however angry - particularly at those who failed to learn "noblesse oblige", but also at the wilfully stupid and sociopathic aspirant lower middle class busily trying to pull up the ladder yet here displaying their own human failures.

@ the rheumatoid (or osteo) cripple:

In the interests of a level playing field (and incidentally it looks as if the government has come around to my view of using the tax system to claw back family allowances - albeit not geared) the rational thing to do would seem to be to calculate the benefit costs of those in care homes (of every kind, eliminating the current differences between accommodation and nursing care etc) and make those taxable (but with a deferred recovery against estates - Recovery From Estates Division could deal with that).

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:45 PM

PS - well said mandotim - I might differ on some details but hte overall thrust is good.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 05:57 PM

So to get back to an issue I've raised before:

Does anybody care to justify the proposal to take away the mobility payment to people with disabilities who have to live in residential care homes?

It won't go away.

......................

As for ISAs, the point is,they aren't dodgy schemes set up by crafty accountants trying to get round the law, they are a way in which the government tries to encourage people to save.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:04 PM

"Does anybody care to justify the proposal to take away the mobility payment to people with disabilities who have to live in residential care homes?

"

No

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:06 PM

I've really enjoyed watching Screaming Lord Sutch videos on Youtube this evening.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:08 PM

Blimey I remember seeing him live in a night club in Birmingham, many many many years ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:16 PM

So Arthuritis draws the line somewhere short of endorsing the full set of cuts. Good for him.

How about other members of the George Osborne Fan Club?

"I'd do anything for love - but I won't do that..."

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 06:25 PM

Hey Mcgrath, I am not an Osbourne lover. However somebody has to do the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 01:50 PM

I saw Lord Sutch & the Savages many times between 1962 and 1965 - infintiely more fun than worrying about a proper government trying to undo the complete hashup of the previous labour mob - although the no smoking law was very welcome.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 30 Oct 10 - 06:14 PM

Taking away the mobility payment from people in residential care is not undoing what the Labour Government did - this was introduced by the last Conservative government back in 1992.

Still I supppose that's no reason for Bonzo not to welcome it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 08:03 AM

Richard III just mentioned nationalising the banks without compensation.

I suppose by that logic if I lost my Jag I could just drive off in one of your knackered old Volvos and if you complained, shoot you.

As I type, I notice the Google ads below the text box. They are for tax advice companies... Gives me a giggle anyway.

I note someone else complained when I said that ISAs are not tax avoidance. His complaint was that he couldn't afford to save. Well obviously my comment wasn't aimed at you then.

Reading many posts in this thread, I see envy wrapped up a a strive for equality. I have two issues with equality;

1. Orwellian concerns about some pigs being more equal than others.

2. A recent bill that this government saw fit to carry through but was presented prior to the election by Harriet Harperson, possibly the most irrelevant yet dangerous Minister this country has seen.

I am a firm believer in equal opportunity, but not some of the more sinister interpretations of equality put out by people who would claim to be of the liberalish left.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 08:59 AM

I can see a few posts indicating a preference for reducing inequality in society, but I can't see any of these "the more sinister interpretations of equality" - if there are any I don't think they can be "many posts in this thread".

Too much inequality is bad for everyone. It messes up just about everything in society. The happiest societies seem to be those where the level of inequality is relatively modest, significantly lower than the UK (or the USA).

As for nationalising banks without compensation, I can't really understand where compensation should come into it, when the institutions in question go broke and have to be bailed out, with us having to take over their debts.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 11:53 AM

Returning to McGrath's residence "loopholes", I would suggest that you read the rules set out in the HMRC website. The "loopholes" as you call them are in fact the law, law reviewed annually no doubt by the last labour governments with few changes being made. Get your facts straight.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:12 PM

If the reviews don't stop people getting out of paying tax they ought to, the reviews aren't adequate. No matter which party is in power.

There needs to be a position that if a scheme reduces tax liability it's counts as tax evasion, unless it can be proved that it has some other valuable consequence which cannot be achieved in another way which involves paying tax.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,Steamin' Willie
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 01:33 PM

Perhaps my point is that nationalising banks is the same as getting rid of them and returning to a barter system. Banks are not national institutions, they are international, so you would be just saying "Screw us to make sure no other country claiming to be a Western democracy interferes with the system."

That is not agreeing with, liking or condoning banks with the morals of a dog on heat, it is just stating a fact.

Anyway, as a retired CEO in the private sector, chairing one of these quangos that are being abolished and now interfering in a quango that is not being abolished, I reckon I have seen enough to at least say this;

if you say nationalise banks, you clearly want banks to exist. So as well as owning them, (as has been the case,) you want banks to be RUN by the government? If you just want them to own them, then it is in the taxpayers' interest for banks to amass huge profits through the means they know best ie the stunts they are accused of pulling. If however you want them to be RUN by civil servants...

Let me tell you something. the quango I am doing work for started 18 months ago, bringing together three commissions into one. You can imagine the workload, new instructions via new legislation, harmonising pay / conditions etc etc, reducing headcount whilst keeping the shop open. What a lot of work eh? By six months in, the website proudly announced the following;

1. All equality schemes had been approved.
2. Lesbian, gay transsexual group had been set up and had their first meeting.
3. A poster was in the London canteen celebrating black history month.
4. the Chairman had left and all the top posts announced last month are now being reviewed.
5. the BBC stops seeing us as the oracle, and starts questioning us instead.

Now.. I would expect the above to be in there somewhere, but at that point, it was all the new glorious leaders had managed to announce. No working policies adopted, no assimilation of workforce, no harmonisation of practice, nothing. Everybody on legacy contracts and hoping for the best.

Is this how a bank would be run?



Oh, regarding loopholes. Tax is an arbitrary system and what is taxed at what rate is set out in law. This is revised annually as some things are not happening as intended. The intention of ministers is not always what is written into law and what we call loopholes is a media term for legal minimising payment. Moral choice? Doesn't come into it.

I have always used tax accountancy firms to ensure I pay what I am legally required to but no more, not a penny more.

I am therefore in the same position as somebody who collects child benefit but if they thought about it, could live without it. I am the same as somebody who lives in South Yorkshire and gets subsidised public transport. The same position as somebody who visits the Science Museum but doesn't make the voluntary donation.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:07 PM

"Oh, regarding loopholes. Tax is an arbitrary system and what is taxed at what rate is set out in law. This is revised annually as some things are not happening as intended. The intention of ministers is not always what is written into law and what we call loopholes is a media term for legal minimising payment. Moral choice? Doesn't come into it."

Absolutely, but the usual misguided lunatics who post here don't agree - more fool them.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:25 PM

I've no problem with that summary. I don't believe in the idea that morality is the way to get people to pay more than the law requires. I gather David Cameron believes that.

Morality is for guiding people as to what they do with what's left over after paying tax.

So far as tax is concerned, the way to deal with it is to set the rules in such a way that people can't avoid paying tax by clever ploys. Call them "loopholes" or "legal minimising schemes", either way, the thing is that, if we can block them and raise more tax, that's in everyone's interests. Including the people who take advantage of them. A somewhat more equal society is better for everyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:42 PM

You then are freeloaders - worse indeed than the benefit claimants you despise because you cost the country more.

The principle in IRC -v- Westminster is part of the problem.

The duty to contribute to society is not purely a statutory construct. It is the basis of a workable society. Humans are fallible, but the English principles of statutory interpretation and precedent have ossified the ability of governments to collect the taxes that are part of their manifesto commitments. It is thus the avoiders who undermine a participatory democracy.

The place to start would be a tax code built on the principle that it is the duty of the citizen to contribute - reversing IRC -v- Westminster, and greatly widening the principles in IRC v Ramsay (1981) followed by Furniss v. Dawson (1984) and indeed putting such principles on a statutory footing.


In European VAT law the principle of "abuse of right" may be used to neutralise avoidance schemes. http://www.taxbar.com/documents/Abuse_of_Rights_II_WHA_-_the_Elephant_on_Closer_Inspection_HLM.pdf

This should be brought in generally to UK tax law.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 02:59 PM

hi arthur

I hope that you didn't think me pompous and denigrating by my comments about ISA's.

I was not trying to be clever like some people here.

I understand your position only too well and sympathise with you and any others in your situation.

Cheers

Mikel2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: MikeL2
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:04 PM

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs - PM
Date: 29 Oct 10 - 03:55 PM

< But they won't think twice about spending far more than the average person puts in an ISA on booze (they know who they are!!!), rent, cigarettes and holidays in England!!!!! >

Hi bonzo I often struggle to try to understand what ( if any ) points you make but I just for the life of me can't fathom out what the hell people taking holidays in England have anything to do with anything !!!!

Cheers

MikeL2

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Bonzo3legs
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:05 PM

Bridge thinks he is very clever by quoting endless legal bollocks - nobody takes any notice of you lad!!

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Arthur_itus
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:16 PM

That's alright Mike :-) I understand.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 03:32 PM

"In European VAT law the principle of 'abuse of right' may be used to neutralise avoidance schemes...This should be brought in generally to UK tax law.

Legal bollocks? Sounds like common sense to me.

The notion that there's nothing that can be done to drastically reduce "legal tax avoidance" seems ridiculous - and very suspicious as well. It has the appearance of self-serving camouflage. "They would say that, wouldn't they."

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richie Black (misused acct, bad email)
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:15 PM

Something is wrong when a hard working couple have less coming in than a couple on benefits. There has been some ridiculous examples of scaremongering and stories of sheer fantasy used on this thread, Bonzo seems to be the only one talking any sense.

Take an example, Imagine a family living in a £2.1million luxury townhouse in one of Britain's most exclusive addresses at a cost to taxpayers of £8,000 a month.

Abdi and Sayruq Nur and their seven children moved into their three-storey property in a fashionable area of London last month because they didn't like the 'poorer' part of the city they were living in.
Mr Abdi Nur

Mr Nur, 42, an unemployed bus conductor and his 40-year-old wife, who has never worked, are now living in Kensington despite the fact that they are totally dependent on state benefits.

They live close to celebrities, including artist Lucian Freud, singer Damon Albarn and designer Stella McCartney, and their home is just minutes from the fashionable Kensington Place restaurant which was a favourite haunt of the late Princess Diana.

The family's new home is believed to be one of the most expensive houses ever paid for by housing benefit, which is administered by local councils but funded by the Department for Work and Pensions.

Rules currently allow anyone who is eligible for housing benefit to claim for a private property in any part of the country they wish.

The £2,000 per week is paid directly to Mr Nur and his family, who then pay their landlord.

Under coalition proposals housing benefit for a four bedroom home will be capped at £400 a week, or 21,000 a year.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:38 PM

One in every eight people who receive housing benefit are in fact unemployed. The vast majority are either pensioners or in low paid work.

It's just not true that people can just pick a posh house where they want and get housing benefit for whatever the landlord chooses to ask. In fact it's hard for people on housing benefit to find a landlord who will rent to them - it's also true that there are landlords who take advantage of this to jack the rent they charge to housing benefit tenants while providing dumps which they'd never be able to rent to private tenants.

There's life beyond the Daily Mail.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:49 PM

Mr Nur, 42, an unemployed bus conductor and his 40-year-old wife, who has never worked, are now living in Kensington despite the fact that they are totally dependent on state benefits.
They live close to celebrities, including artist Lucian Freud, singer Damon Albarn and designer Stella McCartney, and their home is just minutes from the fashionable Kensington Place restaurant which was a favourite haunt of the late Princess Diana.


Intriguing. Damon Albarn of middle-class upbringing seems to be the only member of that group who have actually had to work to get where they are. I guess being paid for being someone's kid is a good job if you can get it.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 31 Oct 10 - 04:55 PM

Too dim to follow, Bonzo?

As for the elective rent, actually, most councils do already limit the amount they will approve for rent. For a while I had a very long standing friend lodging with me - it was a condition of his bail while awaiting trial for attempted murder, eventually knocked down to GBH for which he got a 2 year suspender. He was a hero in the defence of his country - SBS - shot for the Navy at Bisley - dangerously bipolar (if I told you of his experiences you probably would be too) crippled with a degenerative spine disorder. No chance of working (at least without killing his supervisor if the bipolar flipped). Rent capped well below the market figure.

Likewise his mate - an ex tankie with a damaged hand where he had shut the tank lid on it (!) and degenerative bone conditions in his feet.

The council would only pay the same for them to live in my house (which is quite nice as those who have been to the Lower Coke Winter Sings can testify) as in a council flat on Rat Island in Gravesend.

Mind you, you'd ahve to pay me quite a lot to live with some of the naighbours (sic) in Kensington.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: GUEST,KP
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 12:18 PM

Some nice sites here showing debt numbers.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=206

http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=2000_2010&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=b&fy=2009&chart=G0-total&bar=0&stack=1&size=m&color=c&title=UK%20National%20Debt%20As%20Percent%20Of%20GDP

National debt rose from £300 bn in 2002 to £500 bn in 2008, and then to around a £1000 bn in 2010. About £150 bn of latter is direct financial intervention in Northern Rock etc.

KP

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: mandotim
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:02 PM

Total cost of the bank bailout (excluding Northern Rock) stands at £1050 billion, and climbing.

Subject: RE: BS: Spending Cuts UK - The Thread
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 01 Nov 10 - 01:28 PM

Doesn't that exceed the market price of the banks at the time? In which case we own them, without any "compensation" being needed.