RE: The final week.

RE: The final week. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

pahunkboy -> RE: The final week. (5/2/2010 10:10:30 AM)
look on the bright side. Y'all are not trying to resurrect Reagan. lol

Politesub53 -> RE: The final week. (5/2/2010 3:20:52 PM)
I have come to the conclusion that the only thing that matters is the deficit. It has grown so large that it can no longer be ignored. Therefore we have two options for dealing with it. Cut public spending, or raise taxes, neither will be popular. The question we need to focus on is which matters most. Sadly spening on sport and culture will be hit first, rather that than health and education. Whoever gets in needs to make an honest appraisal of what can be cut, what taxes can be raised, and what matters most. A show on channel four today mentioned the Royal Commision, which Thatcher stupidly abolished. I think if we go back to that, and get the main parties to agree a national policy, it will be a step forward.

NorthernGent -> RE: The final week. (5/2/2010 3:34:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 I have come to the conclusion that the only thing that matters is the deficit. It has grown so large that it can no longer be ignored. Therefore we have two options for dealing with it. Cut public spending, or raise taxes, neither will be popular. My understanding is that all the parties are fully signed up to dealing with the deficit. The difference lies in the timescale. My understanding is that Brown has the support of the business community with his plan to not endanger the recovery through huge cuts today....but rather wait until the economy is on stronger ground. The Tories of course....as per usual....are going with reduced public expenditure and cutting 'waste' today....the assumption being that they can easily pin point inefficiency.....I'm not convinced they can.

Politesub53 -> RE: The final week. (5/2/2010 3:50:22 PM)
One problem with trying to cut any waste, including benefits, is that it doesnt come cheap. People need to be employed to identify and carry out said savings. For that reason I take the claims with a pinch of salt.

NorthernGent -> RE: The final week. (5/2/2010 4:11:04 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 One problem with trying to cut any waste, including benefits, is that it doesnt come cheap. People need to be employed to identify and carry out said savings. For that reason I take the claims with a pinch of salt. Well....yeah....and those employed are usually consultants...who....by virture of being external to an organisation....are not well placed to identify waste as they simply do not hold sufficient knowledge of the organisation. It is very easy to cut jobs....granted....and it's very easy to do what the Tories are doing and say you're going to cut jobs.....but the key is to cut the right jobs.....the jobs that really aren't adding a great deal of value and can be merged with others....internal managers can identify these as they have the experience....on the other hand internal managers can be very protective over their empires.....which is why consultants come in to add an element of independence.

Politesub53 -> RE: The final week. (5/2/2010 4:16:18 PM)
Not just jobs though NG. Even benefit fraud often costs more to counter, than it saves, in the short term. Unless you have a whole tier of administrators, checking every invoice, the same can be said of the NHS.

LadyEllen -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 4:19:37 AM)
Someone on the Channel4 programme last night (dont remember who) commented that although house building has been neglected for years (deliberately in my view) and the need for social housing in particular is enormous and will only grow, one aspect of the cuts to come would be a stop to all social housing new build. At the same time private new build is stopped by "lack of demand" (people cant afford to buy) and banks not funding the builders. We have to get the housing shortage resolved. It cannot be that a chartered accountant and his full time working wife are unable to afford a house (question on another "meet the people" format TV show the other day) and hence can few others, and it cannot be that we have millions waiting for social housing. At the same time we must reduce the benefits bill which is too large now and only set to rise as there are mass layoffs in the so far mainly unaffected public sector. The millions recorded as unemployed are just the tip of an iceberg comprising 20% of adults below retirement age who are not working, roughly double the number reported for unemployement figures. Plans to reduce the bill by "rehabilitating" those on long term sickness benefits are unlikely to work in my view. Plans to oblige the other unemployed to take jobs are all well and good, but the question remains "what jobs?". That the public purse is paying private landlords with housing benefit monies because there is insufficient social housing is crazy. This must represent a substantial extra disbursement compared to the cost of social housing. What social housing remains is often unsuitable and unsanitary. Meanwhile we have schools in which a substantial number of students are disaffected by the academic courses they are obliged to follow and have been so obliged for years, leading to a situation where we have to import practical skills and trades skills. I think all this comes together nicely. We start a massive building project to restore a social housing stock sufficient to meet demand - proper family housing that allows us to also improve our birth rate - and we pass legislation that exempts this new stock from right to buy. We also renovate the old stock so that it no longer poses health risks to its inhabitants. To do this we bring out of "early retirement" the hundreds of thousands of skilled tradesmen on unemployment or sickness benefit to act as supervisors, training hundreds of thousands more in their skills, including schoolchildren released from school two days a week who frankly are never going to be academics but would take to such work. This releases pressure in the housing market, provides occupation to swathes of people, rebuilds our skills base and provides a national asset which should also bring in rental revenues. The banks will kick up; the housing shortage has pushed prices up - they have lent money (personal loans, credit cards etc) believing that they can recover against homeowners' property if necessary - if the pressure is released then the banks will find themselves exposed and hundreds of thousands will find themselves in negative equity. Some action should therefore have to be taken to avoid such problems. The NIMBYs will kick up. Tough. As long as we dont destroy SSSIs and the like then the green belt has to give once brown field sites are exhausted. Compulsory purchase is not something we should shy away from - we never did in the past. And before we start all this we have to rebalance the country - the pressure on the south east is ridiculous when other areas are empty by comparison. E

DCWoody -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 9:37:02 AM)
Talk of efficiency savings is bollocks, IMO....just code for cuts without actually saying cuts. There may be some areas where money can be saved without much effect on service....the merging of health authorities in the NHS for example.....but there aren't many. Labour haven't been intentionally wasting money, every incoming government since suffrage was extended, and every defending govt, has announced plans to cut waste. IMO the three big things the next parliament (assuming it's either tory or tory/lib alliance that lasts more than a year) will do to balance the books are: VAT rise (not ideal, but better than a big NI rise, and more acceptable than income tax), reform of public sector pensions (long overdue, definitely needed, no downsides IMO), and reform of the welfare system. Possibly income tax changes/rises with a lib coalition instead of major welfare change. If libs are in power, probably the best chance we'll get for a while of legalising ecstacy &/or cannabis...cut the prison bill, tax income....but probably won't happen. This probably means we're in for strikes from the public sector. There are I think some geoists in the libs, but realistically I think housing in the UK is going to go the way of the continent, owning your own home simply not being seen as that important, a requirement, the norm.

NorthernGent -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 10:53:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 Not just jobs though NG. Even benefit fraud often costs more to counter, than it saves, in the short term. Unless you have a whole tier of administrators, checking every invoice, the same can be said of the NHS. For clarity....it is right to look to job cuts and efficiency....the trick is going to be to cut the right jobs....one does not necessarily follow the other. But....I do agree with Brown...in that let's be careful before slashing here...there and everywhere. Get the economy on steadier ground and take time to find the right jobs to cut. It's well documented that there is much restructuring in local government at the moment but it's being rushed through and that's dangerous.....no use in saving money today only to find that you've lost your most productive workers and therefore lose value for money further down the line.

NorthernGent -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 10:54:49 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: DCWoody Talk of efficiency savings is bollocks, IMO....just code for cuts without actually saying cuts. It's happening as we speak....in local government.....and the argument goes that local government can provide the same services for less money through job cuts....which I agree with....but not if it's rushed through.

NorthernGent -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 11:01:55 AM)
I'd just like to make a point here that many people will find surprising. Part of my previous job was performance management in the public sector...local government to be precise. One of the performance measures was staff absence. In the department where I worked absence was 75% LOWER than the average in the private sector (figures provided by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development). Surprising eh considering the Tory press. Overall....the figure was 50% lower. No massaging of the figures involved.

pahunkboy -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 11:33:10 AM)
I wish we had channel 4. They block out US viewers.

LadyEllen -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 11:42:27 AM)
No Hunky, only you and a select few others have been delisted. Cant have you finding out what we in the illuminati are up to after all, and Channel 4 carries secret codewords to activate various plots and schemes of intricate and far reaching effect, devised by the head of the Order in Rome, in response to the news we control. E

pahunkboy -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 11:47:53 AM)
E. I do not pay the TV tax. Therefore, channel 4 content is restricted. happily I also do not get cable. I save $63 a month.

LadyEllen -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 11:50:19 AM)
You'd best get your wallet out then - HM might send the boys round if you dont pay up; living in the US is no excuse given she owns the place as trustee for the pope. E

pahunkboy -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 11:53:05 AM)
in that case BRING me my checkbook. I will render payment in a jiffy.

LadyEllen -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 12:06:23 PM)
HM doesnt accept dollars Hunky - gold or Sterling only E

pahunkboy -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 12:16:26 PM)
then they can pry it from my cold dead hands. PMs up today. YEAH! To the MOON!

Politesub53 -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 2:10:43 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I wish we had channel 4. They block out US viewers. The Queen said she didnt want you watching her tv channels. [8D]

pahunkboy -> RE: The final week. (5/3/2010 2:13:14 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Politesub53 quote: ORIGINAL: pahunkboy I wish we had channel 4. They block out US viewers. The Queen said she didnt want you watching her tv channels. [8D] Thats because I would vote her out.

Page: << < prev 3 4 5 [6] 7 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875