Coalition looking for £90bn in cuts

24

Comments

  • clinchclinch Posts: 11,574
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Aneechik wrote: »
    I really can't see how they can make that £90bn without cutting into the NHS budget and pensions. I think people will accept an increase in the pensions age as it's perhaps the most logical of potential cuts since it should have increased with life expectancy all along. Not sure about the NHS, but then they're already committed to not cutting it when they probably shouldn't be.

    You should be able to save serious amounts of money by seriously stopping NHS tourism rather than talking about it. We could also cut the bill by not providing some things on the NHS. Some young chav was boasting the other week about the new DD boobs she got on the NHS because she was depressed. Don't think we should be providing IVF on the NHS. They're is probably a list of other things that shouldn't be on the NHS>
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hume wrote: »
    I personally assume the cuts are necessary but I believe any savings won't be spent on the renewable energy infrastructure we need in order to face the real challenges of this coming century.

    We could save £20bn a year by scrapping the Climate Change Act and ending subsidies to renewables scammers.

    The following link is of a community idea to build a hydroelectric plant to power 50 homes in oxford.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-22114010

    I guess the topic for discussion is do you prefer the comfort of a nanny state (that can no longer intervene) or collective, social responsibility?

    An alternative discussion may be to try and understand how or why it's justifiable to pay 21p/kWh for schemes like this, and where that subsidy comes from. Short answer is it's simply added to our energy bills.

    Another alternative discussion might be why the Bbc is promoting this scam, and glossing over some of the small print. From the Bbc-

    A share offering has already raised £115,000 with investors offered an annual return of 4%.

    Yet the 'share offer' states-

    http://www.wocore.org.uk/images/stories/WOCR/Documentation/WOCR_Prospectus.pdf

    This is a risk investment. Your shares will not increase in value and they may decrease in value. The Directors intend to pay a low rate of interest on shares however it is not anticipated that this will be possible for the first five years. Any investment should be regarded as an investment for social and environmental benefit rather than financial benefit.

    So not even 4% listed in the prospectus, in fact it says-

    You should not expect to receive any interest on your shares

    Instead the money from subsidies will go to community groups, expenses etc etc. Like many similar scams, the purpose is simple wealth transferance. The EA and '50 homes' may end up with free or cheap energy, but the costs are added to all our bills, helping increase energy poverty.
  • twogunthomtwogunthom Posts: 2,185
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Cut back on spending on prisons. No TVs, Playstations, DVDs no luxueries just cells with a bucket.
  • SoppyfanSoppyfan Posts: 29,911
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    Of course when Labour gets it in 2015 massive growth will begin, the deficit will be eliminated immediately along with the national debt, no further cuts will be needed and public spending can rise. Well apparently that's what we are being led to believe! :D

    It will be a very nasty surprise for the Electorate who are hypocrites these days.
  • TardisSteveTardisSteve Posts: 8,077
    Forum Member
    Aneechik wrote: »
    Scrap free bus passes - government can just make a law requiring bus operators to accept pensioners free of charge without remuneration, it's not like they don't make enough profit to absorb the costs - saves £1bn

    how will they tell if someone is a pensioner, do they have carry ID around with them all the time,

    what about disabled peoples freedom passes (again, if their disability is not visible how can you tell that someone is disabled) what about people who used to work for London Transport who get free travel, (Retired Passes) do they lose their passes
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hume wrote: »
    According to an article in the Guardian the Coalition is looking to make further cuts that weren't part of the spending review.

    http://m.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/27/whitehall-3bn-extra-spending-cuts

    I personally assume the cuts are necessary but I believe any savings won't be spent on the renewable energy infrastructure we need in order to face the real challenges of this coming century.
    I am of the opinion the subtext of David Cameron's big society speech was that government can't (or won't depending on how you view it) help you.

    There is endless debate about government policy, but none of the parties can promise a return to full employment or inflation busting spending on schools, hospitals and welfare.

    How can we, the people start looking out for ourselves?

    The following link is of a community idea to build a hydroelectric plant to power 50 homes in oxford.

    http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-oxfordshire-22114010

    I guess the topic for discussion is do you prefer the comfort of a nanny state (that can no longer intervene) or collective, social responsibility?

    You should read that again. It is talking about cutting internal spending. It says that we are heading towards a 90 Billion deficit but if that is true it is because the country is struggling not because of a nanny state.
  • GibsonSGGibsonSG Posts: 23,681
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MARTYM8 wrote: »
    That's the amount by which we will still be overspending by in 2015-16 in spite of the cuts.

    Of course when Labour gets it in 2015 massive growth will begin, the deficit will be eliminated immediately along with the national debt, no further cuts will be needed and public spending can rise. Well apparently that's what we are being led to believe!:D

    If the Tories get in in 2015 massive growth will begin, the deficit will be eliminated immediately along with the national debt, no further cuts will be needed and public spending can rise. Well apparently that's what some slightly daft people believe!

    Lets face it we are screwed whoever gets in.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,645
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    twogunthom wrote: »
    Cut back on spending on prisons. No TVs, Playstations, DVDs no luxueries just cells with a bucket.


    Why not abolish prison altogether and let market forces rip? OK crime would go up but law abiding folk would spend a lot more on window locks, door locks, etc, which would stimulate the economy. Pepper spray could be made legal. Self defence classes would do well.
  • NosediveNosedive Posts: 6,600
    Forum Member
    twogunthom wrote: »
    Abolish MPs expenses and cut their pensions, introduce a 2nd home tax, and include all the bedrooms as extra rooms, also taxable, also introduce a mansion tax. Close all tax avoidance loopholes. Then have a look at banker bonuses and how we can claw back some of that.

    Lol! You'd have to vote BNP for this to happen! (I won't supply any links to corroborate this but a quick internet search'll soon do the trick.)
  • Nick1966Nick1966 Posts: 15,742
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    SULLA wrote: »
    What do you suggest?

    The UK government could chose to stop paying the £51 billion annual interest bill on outstanding government debt.
  • SULLASULLA Posts: 149,789
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭✭
    Nick1966 wrote: »
    The UK government could chose to stop paying the £51 billion annual interest bill on outstanding government debt.

    But then nobody would want to lend us any money
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    how will they tell if someone is a pensioner, do they have carry ID around with them all the time,

    what about disabled peoples freedom passes (again, if their disability is not visible how can you tell that someone is disabled) what about people who used to work for London Transport who get free travel, (Retired Passes) do they lose their passes

    The government can still send out an entitlement card that they show to the bus driver. I believe the way it operates at present (which I may be wrong about) is that the government reimburses the bus companies for the free bus passes they give out, all that would be scrapped would be the money paid to the bus company, the actual pass itself can remain.

    It's the same with TV licences also. The government pay for each one, it seems silly when they can just excuse over 75s from needing one in the first place.
  • AneechikAneechik Posts: 20,208
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    clinch wrote: »
    You should be able to save serious amounts of money by seriously stopping NHS tourism rather than talking about it. We could also cut the bill by not providing some things on the NHS. Some young chav was boasting the other week about the new DD boobs she got on the NHS because she was depressed. Don't think we should be providing IVF on the NHS. They're is probably a list of other things that shouldn't be on the NHS>

    I'm sure there are many things that could be removed from the NHS budget without impacting front line services, but then the government has ringfenced it so they can't do any of them.

    I also know someone that got £2000 of new breastage on the NHS, but that was in 2003 and the PCT might have stopped it now (if they haven't, they should be forced quite frankly, it's ridiculous).
  • humehume Posts: 2,088
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    We could save £20bn a year by scrapping the Climate Change Act and ending subsidies to renewables scammers.




    An alternative discussion may be to try and understand how or why it's justifiable to pay 21p/kWh for schemes like this, and where that subsidy comes from. Short answer is it's simply added to our energy bills.

    Another alternative discussion might be why the Bbc is promoting this scam, and glossing over some of the small print. From the Bbc-

    A share offering has already raised £115,000 with investors offered an annual return of 4%.

    Yet the 'share offer' states-

    http://www.wocore.org.uk/images/stories/WOCR/Documentation/WOCR_Prospectus.pdf

    This is a risk investment. Your shares will not increase in value and they may decrease in value. The Directors intend to pay a low rate of interest on shares however it is not anticipated that this will be possible for the first five years. Any investment should be regarded as an investment for social and environmental benefit rather than financial benefit.

    So not even 4% listed in the prospectus, in fact it says-

    You should not expect to receive any interest on your shares

    Instead the money from subsidies will go to community groups, expenses etc etc. Like many similar scams, the purpose is simple wealth transferance. The EA and '50 homes' may end up with free or cheap energy, but the costs are added to all our bills, helping increase energy poverty.

    Fossil fuels are a finite resource. Whereas renewables aren't (at least not in any measurable way to concern us). The following is a link to an article on this topic. Britain spends £3.6bn on fossil fuel subsidies, in contrast to the £1.4bn it spends on renewables. The benefits of a community scheme will be the community, initially. How is it a scam if the person running the scam informs you up front about the likelihood of no return in the first five years? How are you being duped? Hydroelectric plants have a 90% efficiency rating unlike wind 30%-42% and PV 20%.

    http://ourgreencottage.wordpress.com/2013/01/03/uk-fossil-fuel-subsidies/
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    hume wrote: »
    The benefits of a community scheme will be the community, initially.

    If by 'community', you mean directors and pals, you're probably right. If you mean the community in general, they'll be the ones paying for the subsidies via their energy bills. They'll also be paying the interconnection costs for other 'renewables' and for gas generation when those renewables aren't producing.
    How is it a scam if the person running the scam informs you up front about the likelihood of no return in the first five years?

    Why is the Bbc pumping a stock claiming 4% interest when the share offering directly contradicts that claim?
    How are you being duped?

    Through my electricty bill. Prospective 'investors' may also want to check out..

    http://www.charity-commission.gov.uk/Accounts/Ends25%5C0001135225_ac_20110331_e_c.pdf

    When LCWO set up WOCoRe it expected to rely on WOCoRe for the major share of its ongoing funding..

    ..This situation will enable the funding agreement between WOCoRe and LCWO based on WOCoRe’s income from electricity generation to be formalised in a Memorandum of Understanding; this has already been drafted but not yet signed. In addit ion the partnership involves an agreement whereby LCWO will be receiving a regular small income from WO CoRe for use of the LCWO name and logo.


    So this is the 'social investment' people are expected to make. Bankrolling the charity. Oh, and they're doing the logo licensing thing, just like Starbucks. Oh, and they have a Mann or 2 on board. I'm sure they're no relation though.
    Hydroelectric plants have a 90% efficiency rating unlike wind 30%-42% and PV 20%.

    Actually that all depends on a number of boring details like flow rates, head heights and not this-

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17091256

    WWF's freshwater spokesperson, Rose Timlett, said: "This is a drought we've seen coming. Rivers ...have been dry since September 2011.

    But you'll notice the hydro scam focuses on claims that we'll be getting more wet weather.

    You may also want to check out this bit-

    http://osneylockhydro.co.uk/shareholders/performance/

    Osney Lock Hydro is predicted to generate more than 159,000 kWh of clean electricity annually. That’s equivalent to the electricity used by 50 homes


    Which is an impressive statement given the proposed Archimedes Screw is a max 49kWe. So just less than 1kW per home, which is much less than homes usually use. Then-

    The majority of the electricity generated by the hydro is planned to be sold to the Environment Agency, with the remainder exported into the national grid.

    So 159,000 x 21p from the FITS gives £33,390's worth of electricity a year. The EA won't (or shouldn't be) paying that because that's way over normal utility rates.

    A year is also usually 8760 hours, so the 49kWe generator is only expected to produce an average 18kWh a day. Much less than the 90% efficiency rating you think.

    It also says-

    Cost of installation (ex VAT) £550,000

    So at least 17yrs to pay that back, yet-

    Crucially, we aim to generate over £2 million of community benefit from the scheme during its forty year lifetime.

    Err.. how? It'll take 60yrs at current FITS rates to generate £2m, and the generator would need to be replaced at least once over that period. Ok, so this is a classic Green trick to try and pump 'renewables' scams by suggesting 'benefits', then applying artificially high price tags to them. Almost makes them seem affordable. Much like claiming 'renewables' are modern innovations.. but Archimedes' screws are even older than windmills.

    But this little scam neatly demonstrates why the country is in such a mess. It's fundamentally unsustainable and could only exist with a steady injection of subsidies. Yet you seem to think we should throw more of our money at these scams.
  • Rastus PiefaceRastus Pieface Posts: 4,382
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    90 billion in cuts? it took me a while to remember where this figure of 90 billion pounds has been mentioned before, and then i found it:

    if gordon brown had been capable of listening to advice, then we would not need to be looking for cuts on this scale:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/8569367/Labour-spending-Gordon-Brown-and-Ed-Balls-ignored-warnings-and-wasted-billions.html

    from the article:
    A confidential document presented to the Cabinet in January 2006 asks: "We've spent all this money, but what have we got for it?"

    It warns that the efficiency of the public sector needed to improve rapidly and insisted that "spending growth will slow". The document drafted by civil servants also says that "ineffective spending" must be "closed down".

    However, Gordon Brown discarded the advice and embarked on a £90 billion increase in spending when he became prime minister.

    The expenditure meant that the economy was left facing a record deficit as the effects of the recession were felt.


    cheers gordon, cheers ed balls. and to think, people will still vote for balls in 2015. you get what you deserve.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    twogunthom wrote: »
    Cut back on spending on prisons. No TVs, Playstations, DVDs no luxueries just cells with a bucket.

    To be fair, these are pacifying items that allow prisons to be staffed more lightly.
  • Rogana JoshRogana Josh Posts: 41,348
    Forum Member
    Why not abolish prison altogether and let market forces rip? OK crime would go up but law abiding folk would spend a lot more on window locks, door locks, etc, which would stimulate the economy. Pepper spray could be made legal. Self defence classes would do well.

    Eastern European immigrants could sell us all illegal hand weapons.
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the costs of all renewable energy plant is a cost worth playing.

    Yes it looks expensive now, but compared to the costs we are going to see for fossil fuel in the near future, its going to seem peanuts.

    We should definitely use the energy we have today to build the energy generating plant of the future.

    You have to bear in mind that once these different devices are in place the energy they produce is virtually free and produces no harmful waste products.

    Wind in particular can be used to create hydrogen, which is the only viable fuel for powering cars in the future.

    This is a good read for those interested, yes its expensive but when they can make these system in bulk, the costs will rocket downwards.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-house
  • Jellied EelJellied Eel Posts: 33,091
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I think the costs of all renewable energy plant is a cost worth playing.

    Then buy green energy. But not enough people would. It's much better to force people to buy green energy. This is known as rent-seeking.
    Yes it looks expensive now, but compared to the costs we are going to see for fossil fuel in the near future, its going to seem peanuts.

    Depends if lobbyists keep forcing up the price of competing technology to try and make renewables look vaguely affordable, eg CCS on gas power.
    We should definitely use the energy we have today to build the energy generating plant of the future.

    It's plant of the past. The Oxford scam has a clue in the name.. Archimedes' screw. Archie isn't a recent Oxford graduate.
    You have to bear in mind that once these different devices are in place the energy they produce is virtually free and produces no harmful waste products.

    Good stuff. So the fuels free, the energy is virtually free, so we can scrap the subsidies. But wait, lobbyists want those increased. Can't think why.
    Wind in particular can be used to create hydrogen, which is the only viable fuel for powering cars in the future.

    Not really given you'd have to overcome a few little obstacles and costs, like having a decent amount of petrol or diesel fuel stations fitted with hyrdogen pumps, and the costs of the production and distribution network. And vehicles.

    A more sensible solution would be to use off-peak nuclear power, especially given nuclear power stations are close to a convenient water source to crack. The hydrogen fuel produced would be cheaper and in greater volume than a windfarm could produce.
  • AceMcCloudAceMcCloud Posts: 2,458
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Bathroom tax?

    :D:D

    Although a week ago I would have laughed at the thought, now I have to laugh that it really wouldn't surprise me
  • riceutenriceuten Posts: 5,876
    Forum Member
    twogunthom wrote: »
    Cut back on spending on prisons. No TVs, Playstations, DVDs no luxueries just cells with a bucket.
    Perhaps you should ask them to go to break rocks and perhaps live in gulags?


    The whole point of people in prison living in a variety of regimes there is to reward good behaviour.

    Tories and UKIPpers only think of the punishment aspect of jail, not the rehabilitation aspect. Frankly, it's pointless to do one without the other, people just end up back in the nick very quickly unless they change behaviour. Sadly, the hang 'em and flog 'em brigade prevail
  • BrokenArrowBrokenArrow Posts: 21,665
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Then buy green energy. But not enough people would. It's much better to force people to buy green energy. This is known as rent-seeking.



    Depends if lobbyists keep forcing up the price of competing technology to try and make renewables look vaguely affordable, eg CCS on gas power.



    It's plant of the past. The Oxford scam has a clue in the name.. Archimedes' screw. Archie isn't a recent Oxford graduate.



    Good stuff. So the fuels free, the energy is virtually free, so we can scrap the subsidies. But wait, lobbyists want those increased. Can't think why.



    Not really given you'd have to overcome a few little obstacles and costs, like having a decent amount of petrol or diesel fuel stations fitted with hyrdogen pumps, and the costs of the production and distribution network. And vehicles.

    A more sensible solution would be to use off-peak nuclear power, especially given nuclear power stations are close to a convenient water source to crack. The hydrogen fuel produced would be cheaper and in greater volume than a windfarm could produce.

    My point about using wind power to generate Hydrogen is that wind farms do not produce regular energy, you can't rely on the wind to be available when you need it. So instead of connecting wind farms to the grid connect them to their own hydrogen generating plant.

    The energy needed to extract Hydrogen from water is greater than the energy you get out of it using Nuclear so its not really an economical way to do it. I know wind doesn't appear on paper to be economical either, but the point is, once the plant is on place it has virtually zero running costs while nuclear has very high running costs.
  • Chester666666Chester666666 Posts: 9,020
    Forum Member
    Aneechik wrote: »
    Basing decisions on these 2010 figures that I think were debated on here at the time, Osborne should do the following (I ignored things I think they've already cut).

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/interactive/2010/oct/19/comprehensive-spending-review-cuts

    Cut all child benefit - £11.2bn
    Stop free TV licences for over 75s - just make a law saying they don't have to pay them, the BBC will have to economise like everyone is having to - saves £0.55bn
    Increase state pension age by three years (at £10bn a year) - saves £30bn
    Means-test DLA - saves £11.7bn*
    Scrap free bus passes - government can just make a law requiring bus operators to accept pensioners free of charge without remuneration, it's not like they don't make enough profit to absorb the costs - saves £1bn
    Abolish free milk for under 5s - £0.05bn
    Withdraw from Afghanistan - £3bn
    Cut the bus service operator's grant - £0.11bn
    But prison population by a third - £1bn
    Scrap criminal injuries compensation - £0.1bn
    Scrap BBC media monitoring - £0.02bn
    Scrap Department for International Development - £7.09bn
    Scrap Department for Energy and Climate change, bring it's functions into the Treasury - £2.52bn

    Saves £68bn. Problem almost solved, but I can't think of anymore, plus I think DLA has already been adjusted.

    I really can't see how they can make that £90bn without cutting into the NHS budget and pensions. I think people will accept an increase in the pensions age as it's perhaps the most logical of potential cuts since it should have increased with life expectancy all along. Not sure about the NHS, but then they're already committed to not cutting it when they probably shouldn't be.
    It's very cruel and nasty to cut child benefits
  • Chester666666Chester666666 Posts: 9,020
    Forum Member
    How about not paying loads for Thatcher's funeral?
Sign In or Register to comment.