Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
here wot you say howard
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
even with 3 ears
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
Ah now Keef those postings above will kill the thread off as they are just terrible one liners and they dont give anyone else anything to respond too.
(But in fairness to you though Keef you do do many solid postings, but I have to be consistent in my grumblings)
Thats my ongoing point about one liners, we're a small forum and the other members need something in a post to respond to...other wise you get nothing.
Its all gone a bit quiet generally in this Members Forum anyway... Oh dear!
Guest 643- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 1,321
Paul I think you've hot the nail on the head there. The reason it's all gone quiet, I believe, is because of all these inane one line postings and also the sarcasm that has been rife lately, particularly from the labour faction who are seemingly poor losers. We have on the one hand postings from the likes of Bern, BarryW, Phil, Andrew, Howard etc making good discussable (is that a word? lol) points but we have on the other hand certain others, and they know who they are, who just want to disrespect anyone who doesn't agree with them or who speaks against them. I have to say that I've kept away for this reason because these people spoil the homely and welcoming ambiance of the forum. Let's hope we can now get back to a friendly forum like we had before without all this silliness.
There's always a little truth behind every "Just kidding", a little emotion behind every "I don't care" and a little pain behind every "I'm ok".
Sid Pollitt
Yeah me too. But these people have as much right to post as me so I'll have to put up with them.
The topic is cuts to public spending I think. Anyway, the red book indicates a growth in spending of -0.1% and the winners of last week's faction off have said they will make cuts of 10%. That will probably mean crude cuts and the rabies challenged are calling for even more cuts.
So at a time when there has been a rise in unemployment the opposition are planning to create more if they win the general election, I'll remind you that Cammoron said at Voice 09 that they'd [crudely] scrap the Learning and Skills Council. This seems to me to be shortsighted and crude; you lose your job and you can retrain and learn different skills that help you and the country or you find yourself out of a job due to crude dogmatic cuts and you get called a sciver. Funny old world init?
Sorry I ran to over one line in this.
Steady on Lad..........we'll be going polysyllabic next, and where will that lead? Next thing you know we'll be conversing, and that's a slippery slope towards discussion................possibly even (gasp)......debate!!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Actually Sid the Institute of Fiscal Studies in its report into the budget exposed Darling's slight of hand. You should look at my previous post to see the detail but from April 2011 the Red Book makes clear that there will be budget cuts.
Here is a link again to save you having to find the previous post:
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/3687378/the-truth-behind-that-10-percent-cut.thtml
You your self described -0.1% as growth, that actually means negative growth (the minus sign...) in other words cuts. I have also said how the 10% figure came about and as a result of the Health Secretary's statement this morning this means there is no diffference between the two parties on cuts, both are now saying exactly the same thing.
I personally think that is unfortunate because a much larger level of public spending cut is needed, I say 20% over 3/4 years. I would also difffer over Health, I would not ring fence health spending. The only budget I would protect is Defence.
Sid Pollitt
Der, I do know what I posted, I do know what a minus sign is and means. I've calculated that the 10% savage cuts would amount to over £25 billion and I cant see how frontline services wouldnt be affected.
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
You had better ask your own Government about that as the 10% is based on their spending plans over 3 years from April 2011. The 10% is allowing for the fact that Burnham has now said they will copy the Conservatives in ring fencing health so that imposes a 10% cut elsewhere.
There is a massive amount of waste in the budgets due to unrestrained spending over 12 years and there are many, many expensive projects that can be cut out as well.
This is why I urge a 20% cut over 3/4 years.
We must have a much smaller Government doing a lot less and leaving us all alone.
I have to say again: there are people "on the frontline" who shouldn't be there, who don't deliver, who are a liability, and who need to be sifted out. their loss won't damage the organisations, rather they will enable to organisations to deliver services more efficiently. Clearly other levels of management also need to be sifted, but don't be shy of losing poor "frontline" staff. One decent worker is worth several liabilities!!!
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
I quite agree Bern. I personally would not ring fence health.
There are opportunities to re-evaluate health care delivery: not to reduce it, not to remove the right to free-at-the-point-of-delivery, but to re-evaluate how we deliver it in the modern age. Care and support has been transformed in recent years: the addition of, for instance, assistive technology has reduced the need for too many hands on workers and increased privacy and dignity for people with mild-moderate support and health needs. There will always be a need for hands on support, and there is no substitute for personal contact, but there are many alternative ways to manage and they should be embraced, not feared.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
i have doubts that will happen bern, the deadwood in the health and education services are protected by being in large organisations.
the dedicated ones inadvertently cover for them.
the problem as i see it is, the reds will just lob shed loads of money at each without any real targeting and adopt a holier than thou pose, whilst the blues will just slash spending, hurting the public, but still leaving the deadwood in place.
the public get conned every time by our betters, setting up patients groups and the like, to kid us that we have a say.
Guest 674- Registered: 25 Jun 2008
- Posts: 3,391
I think spending will be much more controlled now
and both parties will have to be more up front on there plans
they both need the support of the public
Howard, my experience is that the deadwood gets promoted to avoid confrontation. It's pitiful.And, as you say, we end up paying, one way or another.
Howard, my experience is that the deadwood gets promoted to avoid confrontation. It's pitiful.And, as you say, we end up paying, one way or another.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
being pedantic here, shouldn't the word "sciver" be "skiver"?
sid and roger say otherwise.
another word here "polysyllabic", does this refer to a parrot that refuses to talk?
actually i know a good bernard manning joke about a bloke with a stutter that bought a parrot from a pet shop where the owner had a stutter.
not suitable for here though.
