Just beginning to get my head around some of the detail, but today the "cobbled together" (for the sake of leftie luddites) government announced it was cancelling an £80m loan to Sheffield Forgemasters.
The cut was not surprisingly labelled by the Opposition as an attack on jobs. In fact 180 will not be created now.
Well, a simple bit of arithmetic will tell us all that £80,000,000 divided by 180 = £444,444 per job. So, what I want I want to know now is, what ROI did the previous government expect on this "loan"?
Another cut annnounced today:
Rollout of the Future Jobs Fund: £290m
A fund to support job creation for young people who were long-term unemployed which aimed to create 150,000 jobs. Councils, charities and social enterprises were encouraged to bid for a share of the money.
Strangley, this equates to the more modest and acceptable sum of £1933 per job, but we have to make savings where we can.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
how much saving will that be when weighed against benefit payments?
slashing investment in training is not a forward thinking idea, get shot of all the quangos first then see how much has been saved and how much more needs to be saved.
I think saving £444,444 per job is going to offset any benefit payments for 180 folks.
Not too sure about the future jobs fund though. However, if some of the £370m saved can find its way into some form of economic stimulation it may not be so detrimental.
Fact is, our finances are in a mess well beyond the imagination of most of us, so cuts have to be made. It's good to see the government getting on with it, and, so far, no tax increases.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
the company involved with the big grant/loan was developing products for our nuclear power industry.
whether the grant/loan was viable we will never know now.
Ross Miller
- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,699
How about canning Trident replacement, immediate saving of £15-20bn (MoD figures) plus a saving of a further £2-3bn in running costs per annum over its estimated life of 30 years, plus saving the finance interest payable on the original purchase cost.
Or how about cutting funding to quangos by 10% each year for 5 years? this would save close to £41bn over the life of this parliament.
Do both these and you save somewhere between £66 & £76bn over the next 5 years.
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 660- Registered: 14 Mar 2008
- Posts: 3,205
KCC Road budget for new projects cut from £7 million to £3.9 million,more people on the trains then!
If you knew what I know,we would both be in trouble!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Ross - I think you will find that a purge of quangoes is under way. A fair few have been abolished all together, 6 in education so far.
Before you can get rid of Trident you need an alternative nuclear deterrant. Personally I would like to see nuclear tipped submarine launched cruise missiles, used from the hunter killer subs, with 2/3 more hunter killers built. I am told that these have been banned though by a treaty, if so then we may find Trident is the most cost effective alternative. A study into that will be done.
Ross Miller- Location: London Road, Dover
- Registered: 17 Sep 2008
- Posts: 3,699
Good re Quangos
I do not need an alternative to a strategic wmd delivery system - I see no need or purpose to it
"Dream as if you'll live forever. Live as if you'll die today." - James Dean
"Being deeply loved by someone gives you strength,
While loving someone deeply gives you courage" - Laozi
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
A unilateralist ehhhh....
I thought unilateralism went out of the window years ago Ross.
So you would leave us defenceless in the face of nuclear armed North Korea and maybe soon Iran, to mention just two unstable and hostile powers among many.....or do you just expect the Americans to defend us?
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
barryw,scare mongering again are we.agree with ross ,but do need something better,cheaper to run than tridant.
Well according the HSE, under the previous administration, conkers were considered very dangerous, even banned in some places. So perhaps we could all arm ourselves with a conker and some string to fend of any nasty attack we might get from terrorists or rogue states?
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
Sid
It wasn't HSE that banned conkers that was a myth.It was some obscure Head Teacher who banned Conkers because of his/her fears over Health n Safety it was then taken up by the media who 'juiced' it up to make it sound like a HSE directive.
As for nuclear weapons why don't we scrap Tridant and simply pay the Yanks a yearly retainer (sub-contracting as the Tories like to call it) that in the very unlikely and dreadful scenario of of a nuclear attack that they will protect us.
As if Britain would ever launch a first strike nuclear missile...I ask you!!!You are living in cloud cuckoo land.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
MAREK;
Funny isn't it, people don't like to hear the truth, and well done for bringing it out on the conker issue.
Not the Govt or H and Safety exec. oh desar that will stop people moaning now.
Doesn't the truth get in the way !!!!!
BAZ;
I'v always wondered about this Trident bit, one nuclear attack and we all gone anyway, spending all this dosh on all this stuff, is it worth it.
Iv never been a great CND fan of old, but do wonder would it make any difference if we had fewer?
ROSS;
QUANGO'S
As long as the right ones go, there were some good ones, maybe changing the good ones to be more accountable in some other form?
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I do not envisage a first strike but we do need a deterrant against both attack and nuclear blackmail. These countries newly acquiring nukes are unstable with leaders that are frankly nuts.... For us to disarm while these regimes get these weapons would be madness.
Alec Sheldon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 18 Aug 2008
- Posts: 1,036
#15 "These countries newly acquiring nukes are unstable with leaders that are frankly nuts", how about Bush then?.
Good grief, I`m in full agreement with Barry again. That`s twice in one day.
Where are my pills?!!
'Kent Police is facing £20m of cuts over the next three years, including an extra £2.7m this year.
Kent Police Authority said the tighter budget would not be at the price of a reduced policing service, or officers being cut from the frontline.'
Perhaps they could start with the speed trap on the A2 Dover bound at the Woolage turn off.
Yes, I have got the license back and yes, I am still annoyed!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
will the government cut red tape for the police?
only then will there be decent front line policing.
mind you if kent police can lose £.2.7million this year without reducing the policing service there must be a lot of waste.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Alec - Bush was not nuts, not exactly a good president but not nuts and there is no way that you can compare a country with all its checks and balances like the USA with Iran and North Korea.
Howard - there are plans on that and no doubt more will be forthcoming...