to wonder what cuts YOU would make?

[jade80]

I keep reading threads about how a, b or c should not, under any circumstances have their funding cut. So, given that cuts have to be made because of ongoing overspending in recent decades, what would you, personally, choose to take the money away from?

Means testing costs far more to do than the money it would save. That's why things like the fuel allowance are given to all.

Re Winter Fuel Payments. There would be no need for separate means testing. Pension Credits already exist for those over 60 who are living on low income and is re-assessed every year. Surely a Winter Fuel element could be awarded to those on pension credits and could be set at whatever income threshold the government decided. Old people, who vote in large numbers, seem to fair much better than younger people when it comes to cutbacks/ change because they have such a strong collective voice and no government wants to take them on.

I'd cut things like Arts Development Officers or Netball Development Officers, or Creative Writing Development Officers...

It would make a tiny difference but it would show that we can't pay for superflous things like that

NHS workers to have the sick pay many private sector people have - ie no pay for first 3 days off and then pay at SSP rates.

Public sector pensions to be changed to private sector ones.

Abolish all benefits and tax credits and replace with £200 a week guaranteed income for all adults regardless of income then sack most benefit workers

stop funding scottish parliament
means test fuel allowance
cut overseas aid- mean but we cant afford it
cut EU payments
scrap EMA- i never had it

I'm alright Jack attitude once again prevails on here. "Scrap EMA - I never had it." How selfish.

Yes, that's right, scrap EMA for the poorer students who may have to find money for travel and lunch. Pick on the poorest. How despicable.

And not one of the suggestions I've read so far would even scratch the surface of the cuts which are needed.

We are overspending (deficit just makes it sound posh) to the tune of £160 billion PER YEAR. This is more than we spend on the entire welfare state. It's more than education and defence combine. And more than we even spend on our beloved NHS.

So you could scrap every single school in the UK and sack every soldier, sailor & pilot and we'd STILL be overspending.

The enormity of the problem means that only a complete overhaul of our nations finances will work. Efficiency savings, the odd cut here & there (which doesn't affect you personally ofc) won't even come close.

It makes me laugh when I hear people say "Oh the nasty Tories this and the nasty Tories that" Bet they'd be the first to moan again when we can't borrow anymore money and the government can't pay their benefits.

I'd start by closing all young offenders institutions, and reserving custodial sentences only for those who commit violent crimes. Community sentencing for everyone else.

Locking up 14 yr olds DOES NOT WORK. Never has, does not, never will.

Btw, I don't reduce it to 'the nasty Tories', but I think it is most disingenuous of any serious Tory voter to pretend that all of these changes - in the benefits system, education system, NHS, for example - are solely in response to the economic climate. This is about pushing through the Conservative agenda of minimising the state, expanding the private sector.

Personally, I don't agree with it. If others do, they should at least stand up and say so and stop hiding behind the 'credit crunch'.

Depends which way you look at it Cockney. Does locking 14yr old's work for the child who got locked up....probably not. Does it serve as a deterrent for the others? Quite probably.

And as for minimising the state. What's wrong with that? Do you want the government to control everything? Personally I would like a small efficient government which covers the basics then leave us the hell alone to get on with life.

I know this is an unpopular point on here but I'd get rid of all these pointless non-jobs. In our area we have 3 'childminding development officers' (and so many childminders there aren't enough children to go round!), about half a dozen 'early years development officers', the 'bookstart manager', all on a minimum of £22k a year. Not to mention 5 surestart centres all with 4 management layers between £30 - £ 45 k each. None of the surestarts seem to have made any impact on the communities, other than taking health visitors away from surgeries. I realise this is the tip of an iceberg compared to the debt but if you extrapolate these sort of pointless costs nationwide it is mind boggling.

If it doesn't work for the 14 yr old, then it doesn't work for society, Niceguy. Do you not see that? It's another conversation, though. A long one!

I don't agree with your politics, I'm afraid, Niceguy. I think the NHS, state education system and welfare system are the most marvellous and admirable things about the UK, and should be protected at all costs. This doesn't fit in with a 'small state', I'm afraid.

But my point wasn't whether the Tory agenda is wrong (warped, imo!), but why they did not come clean about it during their election campaign, why they are making sweeping changes that nobody - not even their own voters - voted for, and why they insist on using the 'credit crunch' to justify every move they make. Unbelievable.

I thought the Govt was bad enough. I'm so glad none of you lot are in power.

philmassive - they will all be gone and am surprised they aren't already!.

Unfortunately, my local council plans to make 80% of it's youth service redundant in the next 12 months. These are the sort cuts that really bother me.

Hmm, that's constructive. I bet you'd make a great politician, tallulah

stop doing boob jobs on
the nhs.They do round here,the girls say they are depressed,i say you have kids and your tits sag get over it or start saving!!
Also stop sending teachers so africa etc to visit link schools,does that really benefit the children.

Agree with CockneySparra, that the cuts are ideological. But disagree with her that they are just Tory cuts. Labour were the same. Blair started it off, he was just less open about it. You can see this very clearly every week on Andrew Neil's 'This Week' programme, put on deliberately late at night, so that most voters don't hear it.

There you find Labour ex-ministers agreeing with the direction but just saying that they would go slower. But we all know that what they say isn't what they do when they get in power. It was Harriet Harman who started off the increase in pensionable age etc. Iain Duncan Smith has been handed the baton by her and is just running faster toward the finishing line.

you get DLA when you go to work - it helps to cover things like transport to work and things that undisabled people don't have to pay for, I use the blind as my b/f is blind and she works and also manages to look after her old mum - of course if you took away her DLA she could give up work and put her mum in a home and it would cost thousands more - I don't see that as cutting costs but adding to the cost

ledkr - my BIL went to Africa to help develop the education system in a v deprived area. He was based in a school linked to his own school (is a HT). He had to fund the trip himself.

We certainly need massive cuts. labour and the Tories are not too different in their positoins on this. I think labour was 5% less cuts than the Tories so it's not really a political issue except it was caused by labour over spending in the first place

If we abolished all benefits and gave a minimum income of £200 people would have to find their rent and foot out of that. If they couldn't manage they would have to move in with relatives and friends or hostels.

that the cuts are ideological.

I suppose what people are implying is that the cuts don't actually need to be made. That the Conservatives have been looking for an excuse to dismantle the NHS, welfare state, etc., for a generation, but would have, until now, faced vote-losing public hostility for doing so. But now, the "deficit" has handed them the perfect chance to do it with impunity.

I don't believe this to be wholly true, but I know this is how a lot of my extreme left-wing friends genuinely think.

it means that the cuts are not all necessary. It means that the banking crisis has given a free hand to implement ideological changes, supported by all parties. It means reducing the size of the state and forcing people to work longer in order to solve the pensions crisis. It means lowering the standard of living of the public and using the banking crisis as the justification. It means solving the fact that people are living longer by making them work longer, delaying the pensions that they have contributed to, and reducing their benefits, paid for out of their taxes, while instead spending money on the Olympics, wars and foreign aid.

Xenia, £200 per week or month ?

Unfortunately, on £200/week a lot of crack addicts would live very comfortably by setting up some sort of squat, do £200/week crack and rob their food/drink and not pay their utilities.

Yes, a week but no tax allowances for anyone or credits and no housing benefits or other benefits. A simple universal benefit for all adults in work or out of it.

Labour had huge plans for massive cuts because we cannot live beyond our means. Anyohne suggesting otherwise is pulling the wool over their own eyes.

id cut Trident-really stupid idea buying weapons that can only be used with USAs permission and can be disarmed from afar.

Id pay MPs a lesser wage, 30-40k a year.

Id stop paying for the privatised undercover police forces.

the banks and bankers would have to pay large % of their earnings to the gov.

Id get all our people out at war back and so stop those costs