These cuts are hardly cuts at all

[Rob W 0]

Last night on radio 4 the maths/stats program "More or Less" looked at various issues. One of the more interesting was that the "savage Govt cuts" are nothing of the sort - in fact they are almost in the statistical noise over a 4-5 year period

 

The "total cuts" figure is, oddly, not printed in the Budget. Perhaps because it's so embarrassingly small. After the Autumn Statement, it was 5 per cent over four years. Now it's back to 3.7 per cent over four years: that is to say, total cuts of just 0.9 per cent a year. The Chancellor's cuts are mild — milder than Denis Healey's now-forgotten cuts. Over the next five years, the spending total has risen: in 2014-15, we'll be spending £744 billion, an extra £11 billion. A relatively small figure, but you get the overall direction. Remember this next time Ed Balls talks about "deep and fast" cuts.

 

Next, Osborne has back-shifted a lot of the pain. Originally, total spending was going to be down 1.7 per cent this year. Now, it's just 0.6 per cent. This is in the margin of error so it can be said that there are, in effect, no cuts in total spending this year. Pain has been shifted to the end — so the tax burden for 2015-16 has been revised up by £335 million. But this would be the first year of the next government.

 

 

The point was made that the headline numbers are for DEPARTMENTAL Cuts - but that is only around 50% of the total Govt spend - the other 50% is on items such as social payments

 

It suits both sides to scream about SAVAGE CUTS - the Tories look like they are biffing the welfare state and Labour can claim to be fighting for sivilisation as we know it

 

but its all b*******

[Happy Face 29]

Listened to that yesterday.

 

I love More or Less but they have have been hammering all the parties for not being serious enough about tackling the deficit, and i think they're giving the wrong impression.

 

It's a show about stats and all they care about is the magnitude of the defecit\debt and comparatively what the cuts amount to. Or in this case, the cuts compared to TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. It's no surprise that's a tiny amount....but ignores the fact that a lot of government spending is of course offset by income.

 

These numbers are interesting and impressive...but they don't EVER look at the possibility of growth, the need to stimulate the economy, the ethical question of where the cuts are or aren't made.

 

Very simplistic...and annoyed me going back to before the election (which was fought on the economy) when they insisted all 3 parties were about the same on that score.

[Monkeys Fist 43592]

It's not the amount that's being cut which is the killer IMO, it's where those cuts are which is affecting Joe Public the most.

Eg, I must make a cut of £1 million from my council budget.

I can sack 2 managers earning £500,000 each, or 55 workers on £18,000 each.

For the same financial saving I can screw up 2 family's lives or 55.

Since it's the £500,000 managers deciding where the cuts are made, no prizes for guessing who gets shafted.

 

Over simplified, perhaps, but that's it in a nutshell.

[Happy Face 29]

It's not the amount that's being cut which is the killer IMO, it's where those cuts are which is affecting Joe Public the most.

Eg, I must make a cut of £1 million from my council budget.

I can sack 2 managers earning £500,000 each, or 55 workers on £18,000 each.

For the same financial saving I can screw up 2 family's lives or 55.

Since it's the £500,000 managers deciding where the cuts are made, no prizes for guessing who gets shafted.

 

Over simplified, perhaps, but that's it in a nutshell.

 

Won't anyone consider the bees?

 

http://www.shieldsgazette.com/news/local-n...ntentId=7.65883

[Monkeys Fist 43592]

Insidious apicide on our doorstep.

 

See what your vote did CT??

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hello?

[Dr. Richard Kimble 0]

Hardly matters which party is in power or what they say.

 

Since about 1066 the country has been nothing more than a scam for the benefit for the super rich in London.

[Rob W 0]

as opposed to pre 1066 when Edward the Confessor blew a substantial part of the GDP on building Westminster Abbey right in the middle of..................

 

and lets not talk about Earl Godwin and his happy family

[Rob W 0]

It's not the amount that's being cut which is the killer IMO, it's where those cuts are which is affecting Joe Public the most.

Eg, I must make a cut of £1 million from my council budget.

I can sack 2 managers earning £500,000 each, or 55 workers on £18,000 each.

For the same financial saving I can screw up 2 family's lives or 55.

Since it's the £500,000 managers deciding where the cuts are made, no prizes for guessing who gets shafted.

 

Over simplified, perhaps, but that's it in a nutshell.

 

 

and if you were in the manager's seat????/

[Dr. Richard Kimble 0]

as opposed to pre 1066 when Edward the Confessor blew a substantial part of the GDP on building Westminster Abbey right in the middle of..................

 

All right but you get my drift.

 

I don't know too much about Earl Godwin .. .. fill me in.

[LeazesMag 0]

Listened to that yesterday.

 

I love More or Less but they have have been hammering all the parties for not being serious enough about tackling the deficit, and i think they're giving the wrong impression.

 

It's a show about stats and all they care about is the magnitude of the defecit\debt and comparatively what the cuts amount to. Or in this case, the cuts compared to TOTAL GOVERNMENT SPENDING. It's no surprise that's a tiny amount....but ignores the fact that a lot of government spending is of course offset by income.

 

These numbers are interesting and impressive...but they don't EVER look at the possibility of growth, the need to stimulate the economy, the ethical question of where the cuts are or aren't made.

 

Very simplistic...and annoyed me going back to before the election (which was fought on the economy) when they insisted all 3 parties were about the same on that score.

 

thats about it.