Please or to access all these features

Add post

Watch this thread

Save thread

Start a new thread

Flip thread

Hide thread

My feed

Active Unanswered threads

Getting started FAQ's

Unanswered threads Acronyms Talk guidelines

Hide shortcut buttons

Talk

AIBU?

Share your dilemmas and get honest opinions from other Mumsnetters.

Flip

1 2 3

Original poster

To not understand why we are cutting social care but can afford a war?

70 replies

Destinysdaughter · 09/12/2015 18:14

Was just watching on the news about massive cuts in social care and it's seen as the only way to reduce the defecit bla bla but if that is really the case his can we afford to spend millions bombing Syria???

I may be naive but why is there money for killing people but not for caring for people..?

OP posts:

MoriartyIsMyAngel · 09/12/2015 21:43

Very true x2boys. I wouldn't deny that, and we are dealing with the ramifications of it today.

But still - if we can find billions to bomb the fuck out of Syria, whether borrowed or not, then it's bullshit that services for people in this country continue to get pruned back in the interests of 'austerity' and the precious deficit. Did DC mention austerity once while he was pushing for a Yes vote? It's all very selective.

Wigeon · 09/12/2015 21:52

Defence is sort of ring fenced. Whereas the overall budget looks set to increase, the MoD is making £11bn savings. According to the BBC.

The fact that the social care budget and the defence budget are different departments is missing the point. The government could definitely rob Peter to pay Paul - the deeper cuts in some areas are what pay for the protection in other areas (eg health, education), so the chancellor can balance the books overall. It was a choice the government had, not to protect social care.

BiscuitMillionaire · 09/12/2015 22:14

16 fighter jets that are already based in Cyprus. That's all we're deploying in Syria to attack Daesh. It's not costing 'billions'. It's a very small amount compared to what the US and Russia are doing.

Please please, rather than basing your opinion on facebook memes, read some actual facts on the conflict.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-26116868
(apologies to those who are well-informed)

VestalVirgin · 09/12/2015 22:22

It is still costing a lot of money that could have been used to prevent young people from turning into radical Islamists. Which would be less impressive, but maybe more sustainable in the long run.

Comparing to US and Russia misses the point.

AimUnder · 09/12/2015 22:29

Yanbu. How the government gets away with it I don't know.

Sallyingforth · 09/12/2015 23:07

@VestalVirgin
That article is one point of view, but there are others that disagree

GiddyOnZackHunt · 09/12/2015 23:14

Yanbu.
Short-termism. Sending in the planes is doing something now and reassures the core vote.
Propping up a demographic that is more likely to vote Labour/SNP/Plaid? No benefit.
Trying to get people out of poverty long term? Too complicated for our 5 year cycle.

AuntieStella · 09/12/2015 23:37

It's not really a case of different departments, it's different tiers of government.

Birmingham voters must have elected a local government who balances their books by making those cuts. Other councils do it differently, all within the same central allocations. If Birmingham residents don't want that council, then they need to mobilise to get the one they do.

When are the next elections there?

PausingFlatly · 09/12/2015 23:58

Completely ignoring the funding paid by central govt to local govt, AuntieStella. Which has been slashed.

PitPatKitKat · 10/12/2015 05:20

YANBU

Senpai · 10/12/2015 06:26

USA has terrible social nets and large defense budgets. Know what else we have? Lower tax rates coming out of our paychecks.

Are they lowering your tax rates? I'd guess no.

Sounds like they want to have their cake and eat it too.

If they want to do it like the US, then they should be giving you the "perks" as well.

AuntieStella · 10/12/2015 07:11

"Completely ignoring the funding paid by central govt to local govt, AuntieStella. Which has been slashed."

Cut for all, not just cut for Birmingham.

BTW, I haven't checked which party is in control of Birmingham council and decided their budget (both this year and also the years running up).

PausingFlatly · 10/12/2015 09:57

That's right, cut for all, and all local councils now struggling to pay for social care (and it's not like they weren't under pressure before, with the aging population).

Tory council in Oxfordshire is also making cuts to services for the elderly, much to the surprise of Shiny Dave: David Cameron complains about constituency cuts caused by his own policies in leaked letter:

'[Council leader] Mr Hudspeth wrote back to explain the council’s budget situation to the PM, who appeared unaware that cuts to local authorities would mean significant reductions to frontline local services.

"Excluding schools, our total government grants have fallen from £194m in 2009/10 to £122m a year in 2015/16, and are projected to keep falling at a similar rate," the council leader said.

"I cannot accept your description of a drop in funding of £72m or 37% as a 'slight fall'." '

You and Dave seem to be in the same place, because he also tried to tell Oxfordshire council that they'd actually had a rise in budget...

Shirkingfromhome · 10/12/2015 10:10

Call me cynical but there's an awful lot of money to be made from the arms trade. Healthcare isn't so lucrative unfortunately.

Samcro · 10/12/2015 10:11

these cut are not just for social care for the elderly. they all affect the disabled.
but hey scameron knows all about caring for the disabled(Like fuck he does)
talking about different budgets is daft really. caring for the vulnerable should be the main concern.

Sallyingforth · 10/12/2015 10:33

Healthcare isn't so lucrative unfortunately
Really?
I suggest you have a look at the vast profits made by multinational drug companies. They behave in very similar ways to the arms manufacturers.

Shirkingfromhome · 10/12/2015 13:46

I suggest you have a look at the vast profits made by multinational drug companies

I'd class that as the pharmaceutical industry not in the context of health and social care that I presume the OP means.

LittleLionHeart · 10/12/2015 13:55

The money's already been spent for the war. They bought the planes years ago. They bought the bombs years ago. Some of the planes would have just been doing routine circling in the areas they're going over anyway.

BeckerLleytonNever · 10/12/2015 16:31

They weren't doing it while royally fucking over the disabled and the young though loft were they.

The Tory voters and government think only about themselves

^^ these. yes, the Cuntservatives (great name for them!), and where have they found millions for the flood victims from? yes of course they need help, but yet again they'll take from the poor , vulnerable and disabled cos they don't give a fuck.

they NEVER put their own hands in their own pockets.

theyre still claiming expenses, they send to places like India who are a rich country who should help their own poor, not but more space programmes or whatever it is they have, same with other countrys who can help their poor but they don't cos woosy PC correct UK does it for them.

OP, YANBU in the social care thing, but they could get their own bloody money and pay for military stuff.

BeckerLleytonNever · 10/12/2015 16:33

these cut are not just for social care for the elderly. they all affect the disabled.
but hey scameron knows all about caring for the disabled(Like fuck he does

yes, but hell use his disabled son to get sympathy and get votes and the worst thing is when he says ''speaking as a father myself, I know the plight....'' fucking hypocrite. who the HELL voted for these fuckers again?

Flip

1 2 3