QuoteChancellor George Osborne has unveiled the biggest UK spending cuts since World War II, with welfare, councils and police budgets all hit.

The pension age will rise sooner than expected, some incapacity benefits will be time limited and other money clawed back through changes to tax credits and housing benefit.

A new bank levy will also be brought in - with full details due on Thursday.

Mr Osborne said the four year cuts were guided by fairness, reform and growth.

But shadow chancellor Alan Johnson, for Labour, called the review a "reckless gamble with peoples livelihoods" which risked "stifling the fragile recovery" - a message echoed by the SNP, despite smaller than expected cuts in Scotland.

Mr Osborne ended his hour-long Commons statement by claiming the 19% average cuts to departmental budgets were less severe than expected. This is thanks to an extra £7bn in savings from the welfare budget and a £3.5bn increase in public sector employee pension contributions.

All in all theyre talking about chopping £83billion from public spending over 4 years but our deficit this year is £149billion.

Theyve managed to make everyone miserable without actually doing much about the problem.

Im confused as to why theyre getting rid of so many public sector workers.... nurses/local council etc. etc. etc.

whatever they pay them, they get a good chunk of it back right away through tax, and then they get to tax it again when they spend it, save it or invest it...  and they add to/improve the economy when they do spend it...

so many extra people on the dole, when theres already a shortage of jobs... most will be on the dole for a while - or will be taking a job someone else on the dole would have had...

by the time its all added up.... it would have probably been cheaper to keep them ?


the government must have a plan (hope so anyway) just I still have no idea what it is.... (and I don;t trust a word any of them say)

main thing I couldnt understand is with all the cuts to services in this country they have increase overseas spending and international aid  

Quote from: knightyIm confused as to why theyre getting rid of so many public sector workers.... nurses/local council etc. etc. etc.

some might say why we had so many jobs created under the last goverment in the public sector.

to reduce unemployment and boost the economy ?

I totally agree most council workers are useless sacks of s***

but its better theyre working and contributing to the economy than sitting on the dole ?  (even if what they do is worthless)

Quote from: DEViANCEmain thing I couldnt understand is with all the cuts to services in this country they have increase overseas spending and international aid  

To meet the UNs target of using 0.7% of national income.  Its such an old model of deciding contributions.  But yes, it is very controversial, I dont see how you can justify it when cutting public sector jobs.

Quote from: knightyto reduce unemployment and boost the economy ?

I totally agree most council workers are useless sacks of s***

but its better theyre working and contributing to the economy than sitting on the dole ?  (even if what they do is worthless)

i dunno... the money that pays council workers come from the same fund that pay the unemployed. Thats without the overinflated
pensions they all get, as well as golden handshakes & early retirement options - also as its they arent working for a company, there
is no profits or targets as such.
Every public sector I have worked in have been overloaded with staff.
I know one council that has had a permanent rollout in operation for the last 6 years. As soon as they install the last machine, its time
to replace the first one. All based on a 2 year cycle. Complete waste of money.

Quote from: knightyto reduce unemployment and boost the economy ?

I totally agree most council workers are useless sacks of s***

but its better theyre working and contributing to the economy than sitting on the dole ?  (even if what they do is worthless)

Thats an out dated socialist model. Why not just have the government employ everyone and then problem solved ?
The truth is, public sector workers are a drain on the economy and under labour 1 in 4 people worked for the government, which is mental.

^^^ I agree

but its better than firing them all when most of them have very little chance of getting a job



good example, local Nissan factory gets millions in "grants" every year (or every other year) - sometimes they tart it up and say its for something else, but everyone knows its because they employ so many people
(was built after shipyards closed down and unemployment in the area was crazy high)

Quote from: Sam

Quote from: knightyto reduce unemployment and boost the economy ?

I totally agree most council workers are useless sacks of s***

but its better theyre working and contributing to the economy than sitting on the dole ?  (even if what they do is worthless)

Thats an out dated socialist model. Why not just have the government employ everyone and then problem solved ?
The truth is, public sector workers are a drain on the economy and under labour 1 in 4 people worked for the government, which is mental.

But the present plan is an outdated conservative model pulled out again and given a new lick of paint.

Reality is the productivity of the few is more than enough to supply the needs of the many. If you dont have a lot of people employed by the state they are all effectively sitting on their butts at home, still being paid but doing nothing.

Then there are huge numbers of people in telesales and finance based jobs just pushing money around. None of those actually contribute anything physical to our world. Truth is most of your real product is produced in China and the far east.

The present situation is about as artificial as you can get, and storing up issues for tomorrow. The problem wasnt caused by socialism, but the economic system as a whole and mostly by the banks. If you want something to blame then its CAPITALISM at fault here.

The question is do we need to cut back this hard? Thats very difficult to answer, but overall I think not.

Quote from: SeriousBut the present plan is an outdated conservative model pulled out again and given a new lick of paint.

Reality is the productivity of the few is more than enough to supply the needs of the many. If you dont have a lot of people employed by the state they are all effectively sitting on their butts at home, still being paid but doing nothing.

Then there are huge numbers of people in telesales and finance based jobs just pushing money around. None of those actually contribute anything physical to our world. Truth is most of your real product is produced in China and the far east.

The present situation is about as artificial as you can get, and storing up issues for tomorrow. The problem wasnt caused by socialism, but the economic system as a whole and mostly by the banks. If you want something to blame then its CAPITALISM at fault here.

The question is do we need to cut back this hard? Thats very difficult to answer, but overall I think not.

People sitting in a government office doing nothing wastes more money than if they were sat at home on job seekers allowance. People are paid (a much smaller amount than a full working wage) while they look for work, there are a small minority who are exploiting the system.

Also you are talking utter nonsence about banking and capitalism. Capitalism has bought many nations out of poverty, it gives people access to funds which are essential for growing their business or governments that want to improve their country. Banking is a vital part of moving money between people, thats its main role.

We need more private enterprise to make money and pay tax and less expenditure on public services to clear down out debt. The american housing crash has meant this has become an issue sooner than I would otherwise have but the simple fact is that we have been spending more than weve been earning. That needs to change.

Quote from: sexytwAlso you are talking utter nonsence about banking and capitalism. Capitalism has bought many nations out of poverty, it gives people access to funds which are essential for growing their business or governments that want to improve their country. Banking is a vital part of moving money between people, thats its main role.

Its shoved quite a few countries into huge debt doles and their people into poverty. Capitalism is a double edged sword that will just as easy cut you as anything. It keep the rich getting richer and the poor begging for food.

Overall, like any weapon, it has to be controlled or it causes horrible problems.

QuoteWe need more private enterprise to make money and pay tax and less expenditure on public services to clear down out debt. The american housing crash has meant this has become an issue sooner than I would otherwise have but the simple fact is that we have been spending more than weve been earning. That needs to change.

A true blue Tory. I tend to agree that Labour were putting too much spending into government agencies, they should have cut back spending a lot earlier. Unfortunately if you cut back too much, too fast you end up in recession, something you equally want to avoid as overspending.

I am in an odd position, I am one of the people actually doing the cutting. I work for an NHS trust and I have to say, the amount of waste and stupidity that estists in public service is ridiculous. We spend millions per year, and people dont know what on - I agree, losing jobs is awful, and for the most part, unneeded. Renegotiating contracts, not paying millions to private consultants, not paying £150 per hour, 45 hours per week, for three years for a consultant is obvious.
The waste exists before losing people, its the easy option to cut staff, but you can make them work harder and better and save what we need to save.

I didn't realise how little I understood about the economic impacts of a large state, about how our economy works until watching this programme on Channel 4.

I think there were two main points in the programme that shocked me:
1) The Mint has been issuing currency for a while that the country doesn't actually have the funds for, thereby devaluing the pound (hence rising inflation).
2) Just how much money the state is borrowing in order to keep the country running in the way we have\had become accustomed.

After watching that programme the current spending cuts really don't seem to go far enough.

Quote from: Dj-Liam-G on January 12, 2011, 13:46:39 PM
The waste exists before losing people, its the easy option to cut staff, but you can make them work harder and better and save what we need to save.

100% agree. NHS purchasing has been and I believe still is a total farce. money wasted all over the shop. I can't remember where I read it, but one of the medical equipment suppliers for the NHS were selling the NHS surgical screws at >£10 a piece. These screws were identical to b&q screws (50 pack for <£5), the only difference being they were sterilised and packed up in a sterile environment. So why not steralize in house? get someone who knows what they are doing to steralise the screws. Job created, money saved. Failing that, approach B&Q and ask them to do it for the NHS for an extra 50p per screw..

This is but one example. I'm sure there are many others.

From my experience in the public sector (mainly council, but NHS also) I have found restrictions as to who the public sector can purchase from. They are never the cheapest and staff are tied to purchase from them.. Where is the sense in that?!

The only explanation I could come up with is these suppliers are favoured by the public sector bosses, who deem it necessary to feed said suppliers with high profit margins, whilst ignoring cheaper, legitimate alternatives. IMO that = corruption.