Why all the fuss about a £6bn spending cut?
Discussion
Annual public sector spend is what, £700billion or so.
Why all the fuss about a £6bn cut in spending. That's a little under 1%.
They've probably got that down the back of the sofa.
I expect they could save that on A4 copier paper by changing stationery supplier!
How, with a straight face, can critics suggest this level of cuts could jeopardise the alleged recovery?
Why all the fuss about a £6bn cut in spending. That's a little under 1%.
They've probably got that down the back of the sofa.
I expect they could save that on A4 copier paper by changing stationery supplier!
How, with a straight face, can critics suggest this level of cuts could jeopardise the alleged recovery?
You're right of course. It's small change in the scheme of the UK government budget.
But, and here's the crucial thing, it sounds like a big number. Joe Public haven't the foggiest that £6bn is under 1% of the total budget. Not a clue. Not. A. Clue. They probably don't know that £1bn = £1,000m. On that basis, politicians & journalists like to stir it up for all it's worth if it suits their needs, i.e. painting the Tories as the nasty party or selling newspapers etc etc.
Edited to fix incorrect use of there - 1000 apologies
But, and here's the crucial thing, it sounds like a big number. Joe Public haven't the foggiest that £6bn is under 1% of the total budget. Not a clue. Not. A. Clue. They probably don't know that £1bn = £1,000m. On that basis, politicians & journalists like to stir it up for all it's worth if it suits their needs, i.e. painting the Tories as the nasty party or selling newspapers etc etc.
Edited to fix incorrect use of there - 1000 apologies
Edited by the_smalls on Monday 17th May 23:12
the_smalls said:
You're right of course. It's small change in the scheme of the UK government budget.
But, and here's the crucial thing, it sounds like a big number. Joe Public haven't the foggiest that £6bn is under 1% of the total budget. Not a clue. Not. A. Clue. They probably don't know that £1bn = £1,000m. On that basis, politicians & journalists like to stir it up for all it's worth if it suits there needs, i.e. painting the Tories as the nasty party or selling newspapers etc etc.
Yep. I'm just waiting for someone to say to me that UK debt is £160 bn - I really think most people don't know the difference between the total spend per year and the shortfall between income and receipts.But, and here's the crucial thing, it sounds like a big number. Joe Public haven't the foggiest that £6bn is under 1% of the total budget. Not a clue. Not. A. Clue. They probably don't know that £1bn = £1,000m. On that basis, politicians & journalists like to stir it up for all it's worth if it suits there needs, i.e. painting the Tories as the nasty party or selling newspapers etc etc.
johnfm said:
the_smalls said:
You're right of course. It's small change in the scheme of the UK government budget.
But, and here's the crucial thing, it sounds like a big number. Joe Public haven't the foggiest that £6bn is under 1% of the total budget. Not a clue. Not. A. Clue. They probably don't know that £1bn = £1,000m. On that basis, politicians & journalists like to stir it up for all it's worth if it suits there needs, i.e. painting the Tories as the nasty party or selling newspapers etc etc.
Yep. I'm just waiting for someone to say to me that UK debt is £160 bn - I really think most people don't know the difference between the total spend per year and the shortfall between income and receipts.But, and here's the crucial thing, it sounds like a big number. Joe Public haven't the foggiest that £6bn is under 1% of the total budget. Not a clue. Not. A. Clue. They probably don't know that £1bn = £1,000m. On that basis, politicians & journalists like to stir it up for all it's worth if it suits there needs, i.e. painting the Tories as the nasty party or selling newspapers etc etc.
Good luck explaining that one to the general populous.
The only wy to get this across to the people is to involve them by holding two referendums:
1) We are 1000 billion in debt and the debt is increasing at 150 billion a year. To avoid going further into debt and to pay off some of the debt we already have we must find a total of 170 billion by raising taxes or by cutting government expenditure. How many billion should we raise by more tax?
2) The previous referendum resulted in the people voting for tax rise of X. This means that 170-X will be cut from government expenditure. Choose as many of the following areas as you want for a budget cut.
Add up the votes. Tax. Cut.
The reason that Joe Average hasn't a clue is that politician are deliberately ducking the issue. We had the debate over 6 billion then, very quietly, they admitted to cuts of circa 50 billion. But very few people have any clue that this is only slowing down our headlong rush into the red. Most people think that this is a one off big cut. It isn't, it's tiny and much more is needed and needed permanently.
A referendum would force the issue into the open and give politicians a mandate to actually do something as opposed to sitting like rabbits caught in the headlights, too afraid of voters to turn left or right as the truck load of debt roars towards them.
1) We are 1000 billion in debt and the debt is increasing at 150 billion a year. To avoid going further into debt and to pay off some of the debt we already have we must find a total of 170 billion by raising taxes or by cutting government expenditure. How many billion should we raise by more tax?
2) The previous referendum resulted in the people voting for tax rise of X. This means that 170-X will be cut from government expenditure. Choose as many of the following areas as you want for a budget cut.
Add up the votes. Tax. Cut.
The reason that Joe Average hasn't a clue is that politician are deliberately ducking the issue. We had the debate over 6 billion then, very quietly, they admitted to cuts of circa 50 billion. But very few people have any clue that this is only slowing down our headlong rush into the red. Most people think that this is a one off big cut. It isn't, it's tiny and much more is needed and needed permanently.
A referendum would force the issue into the open and give politicians a mandate to actually do something as opposed to sitting like rabbits caught in the headlights, too afraid of voters to turn left or right as the truck load of debt roars towards them.
I completely agree about the minimum saving of 6bn. I cannot see how they cannot save more! However, I do understand that a lot of the money will be pre-committed and locked into contracts. So clearly its not going to be simple.
But when you are looking at 1.6bn on consultancy and 300m on 'bonus' payments for top civil servants - well its pretty obvious there is more money to save.
But when you are looking at 1.6bn on consultancy and 300m on 'bonus' payments for top civil servants - well its pretty obvious there is more money to save.
Pesty said:
How much is foreign aid? and why is it ring fenced?
With billions of people around the world living in poverty, we have an urgent moral and practical imperative to make our international development policy more effective:* Moral, because it is our responsibility to help those struggling with hunger, illiteracy and environmental instability; and
* Practical, because failed and impoverished states are incubators of disease, insecurity, and extremism, and so represent a clear threat to our national interest.
A Conservative government will focus on improving three key areas of international development.
Edited by i'm no superhero on Tuesday 18th May 01:17
6 billion is a flash in the pan, mere pennies and allready, there are people whining about it.
Public Sector pay needs to seriously reflect supply/demand with the amount of staff available. They have to cost less. Sadly, the pensions liability needs to be chopped into.
The irresponsible system has made guarantees it cannot honour and sadly, they need to be chopped into.
Life isn't fair.
They have a choice. Either they make the cuts, or we really get in the s
t and the IMF do.
Looking at Panorama last night, you can bet your bottom dollar that the front line is the first things to get axed, meanwhile RDA's, super consultants mega-fees, crash barrier replacements and other ridiculous wastes will be allowed to continue.
Looking at the local jobs paper and the amount of crash barrier fkery in Cornwall, this county council will probably only be stopped by a direct bomb hit. It's like giving a 5 year old a machine gun with that lot.
I'm not sure any of them have got what it takes.
Public Sector pay needs to seriously reflect supply/demand with the amount of staff available. They have to cost less. Sadly, the pensions liability needs to be chopped into.
The irresponsible system has made guarantees it cannot honour and sadly, they need to be chopped into.
Life isn't fair.
They have a choice. Either they make the cuts, or we really get in the s
t and the IMF do. Looking at Panorama last night, you can bet your bottom dollar that the front line is the first things to get axed, meanwhile RDA's, super consultants mega-fees, crash barrier replacements and other ridiculous wastes will be allowed to continue.
Looking at the local jobs paper and the amount of crash barrier f
kery in Cornwall, this county council will probably only be stopped by a direct bomb hit. It's like giving a 5 year old a machine gun with that lot. I'm not sure any of them have got what it takes.
i'm no superhero said:
With billions of people around the world not able to eat moon rock, maintain a large military and launch nukes, we have an urgent moral and practical imperative to make our international development policy more effective:
* Moral, because it is our responsibility to help those struggling with large armies and space programs.
* Practical, because India can launch nukes against China one day
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/552...
EFA.* Moral, because it is our responsibility to help those struggling with large armies and space programs.
* Practical, because India can launch nukes against China one day
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/geraldwarner/552...
What puzzles me is that some people I have encountered quite happily watch and criticise people on these TV shows like Bank of Mum and Dad, Spendaholics, Alvin Hall and so on.
Yet if you say to them that the Govt is trying to do the same thing with the country's finances that the experts are trying to do with these feckless idiots they don't get it or appreciate the scale of the problem.
When you ask them what their reaction would be to someone who was overspending by 10k a year and cut their spending by the odd hundred quid then they admit that the feckless idiot would be totally screwed and then they laugh.
When you then prove by simple arithmetic that the few hundred quid of the feckless idiot is more or less the same as 6 billion off UK spending the light begins to dawn how screwed we are and the struggle we face.
Yet if you say to them that the Govt is trying to do the same thing with the country's finances that the experts are trying to do with these feckless idiots they don't get it or appreciate the scale of the problem.
When you ask them what their reaction would be to someone who was overspending by 10k a year and cut their spending by the odd hundred quid then they admit that the feckless idiot would be totally screwed and then they laugh.
When you then prove by simple arithmetic that the few hundred quid of the feckless idiot is more or less the same as 6 billion off UK spending the light begins to dawn how screwed we are and the struggle we face.
£6B is easy - tell all government departments that if they don't spend their entire budget this year, they'll still get the same as last year, ad be given 10% of the underspend as a bonus. That way you would lose the last minute mass spend to ensure the same budget the following year. Should save a fortune!
jimothy said:
£6B is easy - tell all government departments that if they don't spend their entire budget this year, they'll still get the same as last year, ad be given 10% of the underspend as a bonus. That way you would lose the last minute mass spend to ensure the same budget the following year. Should save a fortune!
This is a fundamentally sound idea which should be rolled out.It will never happen
The lack of crash barrier road works would probably save thousands of productive hours as well as reducing the carbon footprint
From my experience in Ed, I'd say that you're going to probably have lots of clucking hens explaining how important every aspect of their workplace/staff/role is. In order not to meet a deadlock, indepenent financial referees are required to work for the government. If it gets left to the staff, you'll just have chaos.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff