Public spending cuts ?
Posted by Michael Fallon, MP for Sevenoaks, at 11:47, Thu 2 July 2009:
There's been an argument at Prime Minister's Questions four weeks running about the likelihood of future cuts in public spending - whoever wins the election. Tax receipts are lower because of the recession, so there isn't more to spend and the government is too indebted already to borrow more. If public services have to be squeezed, which ones ?
Comments
Commenting on this message is now disabled.
Posted by Mrs J. Shepherd, 12:37, Thu 2 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
This is really difficult! To my mind, it's more of matter of finding the actual 'fat' on budgets, so that none of the essentials of public services are wounded. For example, I have seen huge waste and profligacy in conference and meeting budgets, in both central government and local government. Many salaries at upper levels are too high. The quasi regional government bodies could go! Also, pruning of museum and galleries' budgets is an obvious target area.
We need more money, not less for mental health services, especially for adolescents, and we need serious funding for maternity services. I would support cancelling Trident, if the savings are put right back into the Defence budget. Crime and justice budgets should be protected (i.e. police, courts, prisons etc).
Posted by Elizabeth McLaren, 16:51, Thu 2 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
For a start, give MPs a fixed salary and a house in each constituency to live in which should be funded by the taxpayer. In London there should be a one bedroomed flat for each MP for the time when Parliament is sitting.
Local government wastes billions, not millions, on IT provision that has been ordered by people who are not properly qualified. Their spending should be co-ordinated better; there are too many Heads of Department doing the same thing and far too many jobs.
We were promised fewer Quangos and hangers on - this has not been met. And as for the government's handling of the failed Bankers salaries and bonuses. Words fail me!
Posted by Victor Southern, 20:57, Thu 2 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
It is necessary to trim benefits for long-term unemployed who simply refuse to work although able and capable.
The myriad hangers-on who run quangos on the fringes of the NHS must be removed. That is pretty much what Elizabeth McLaren has said above. We have to stop the multiplication of entities - these bodies sprout yet more quangos, almost automatically.
Conferences must be largely held electronically - travel of hundreds to a central destination is unnecessary.
There is no need to cut front-line services.
We should also stop all PFI contracts since many of these are designed only to enrich political donors or others in the buddy network. We should call a halt to sell-offs of assets and abrogate such ridiculous outwork contracts as military training, defence of military bases, repair of military equipment - these mostly seem to have been entrusted to French or Canadian firms.
Police must resume responsibility for the security of their own premises as also for the transportation of prisoners to and from courts.
Revert to borrowing only for capital works - current expenditure must be met by current income. That is called prudence. The rest is called commonsense, a virtue which used to be in plentiful supply.
Posted by Michael Thompson, 21:59, Thu 2 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Which services should be cut is a very tough question. That cuts are required is surely beyond doubt, whether or not this is the case it is staggering that the government will not have a spending review before the election. They should address the deficit now.
Healthcare is a sacred cow in the UK, and probably with good reason. Having attended hospital for my children's births, their encounters with A&E and my parents ailments I can understand why. For the health service to be worth doing, it must be done well, and that takes funding. There may be savings available from the bureaucracy, but not the front line.
Defence is another sacred cow. However here in my view the position is less clearcut. I am persuaded by some commentators that some of the big ticket items (Trident / carriers and their aircraft / Typhoon) are weapons for a different era and that some of this money would be better directed at equipment for troops, better armoured transport, helicopters etc.
On the other hand, things that can be cut - ID cards! The uber communications database! Cross-rail?
Tricky questions.
Posted by Howard Chinner, 18:02, Fri 3 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
The UK has a population of some 59 million. The USA has a population of 306 million. So the UK is 19.28% the size of the USA.
The US House of Representatives has a total of 435 members. If the UK House of Commons was reduced to 19.28% of the size of the House of Representatives, it would shrink to 124 members from its current 646 members.
The US Senate has 100 members (2 per State). If the House of Lords was reduced to 19.28% of the US Senate, it would only have 19 members (against a current membership of over 700)!
Enough said!?
Posted by John Buery, 23:34, Fri 3 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
Tough Question and needs tough thinking. All "replacements / enhancements can wait and should be postponed. Things do not become obsolete overnight (Trident comes to mind).Where new capital expenditure will aid recovery, jobs or the country, it should continue, especially if millions have allready been spent(Crossrail / Thameslink/2012 olympics etc). But where new untried schemes which will cost billions have not started, they should be scrapped(ID cards, biometric passports etc). Internal Goverment expenditure should be looked at by external bodies, and consider providing residency in Westminster and removing second home allowances- provide a driven car service where necessary and remove travel allowances. All expenses claimed should be taxable, as for the ordinary worker and the tax raised goes back in the coffers. Pensions should largely be paid for by the eventual recipient, just as mine was at 13% before I retired and thereby cut the ordinary taxpayers cost - they would have more to spend and therefore extra revenue for the government.
Posted by carole ford, 22:49, Sun 5 July 2009: (Is this post abusive?) #
It is obvious that cuts will be necessary. Trident should be cancelled. Much money is wasted on corporate pensions etc - I read today that the Director General of the BBC gets a pension of £8 million - this is public money. No MPs should have second home allowances if they live within commuting distance of London. My MP has a second home but almost every person in his constituency who works in London (even his nearest neighbours) commutes daily. For those living unreasonable travelling distances a night with B&B should be provided in a reasonable standard hotel. Another option would be to provide a second home allowance and when that MP retires the whole increased value of that second home is repaid to the tax man.