Printable Version of Topic

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Oct 20 2010, 09:29 AM

Yesterday the axe swung on the military. As one who took volunatry redunancy in the early 90's, I was lucky enough to find a job before I took off my uniform for the last time. The prospect of losing thousands of police, civil servants, it doesn't look good.

Cutting back on manpower whether it be in the civil service ranks, military, police, etc will just leave gaps and overwork those still in jobs. Standards will slip, which will just leave both the public and those who are to run these agencies disgruntled.

Earmarking education funding for poorer areas being paid for by those who are supposedly more affluent taxpayers is not equal, as the school curriculum should be the same across the UK. How about leveing a tax on those parents who kids don't attend schools or leave without at least C grade GCSE's in English, Math, Citizenship and Science. If you don't have a legitmate reason for obtaining those grades, then you were surely wasting taxpayer money. It then seems that these same people will be the ones on lower incomes and seeking to obtain benefits. Education is the key to success.

Now that tution fees are due to increase, what is next, paying for you children to attend pre university education?

Surely if the reason behind this is to reduce the budget defecit, then there has got to be other ways to do it. Get the banks to pay back what they owe sooner. Cut foreign aid by at least 2/3's and give only for humanitarian aid and those projects being run by allies who truly support democracy.

I am not a communist, socialist, anarchist, or even a lib dem. I am just a tax payer who wants in power those who seem to want to do the best job for EVERYBODY. Will the next winter of discontent come from the middle class?

I don't think making huge cuts in public services produces positive results. The UK is in crisis mode, and the saying is "Charity begins at home". Wasn't the third world debt was eliminated by the global powers in 2000? For a couple of years we need to close ranks and get our own house in order before we are on a footing to help others.

Again, stop sticking it to the taxpayers, and begin to look for alternative means to get the UK back on a solid footing.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 09:36 AM

I just don't understand why everything seems to be aimed at the middle class and poorest sections of society. A couple living in a council house earning £25-£30k between them now face higher rents, more tax and less public services. What changes will the really affluent face?

Posted by: Blake Oct 20 2010, 09:47 AM

I agree with a lot your points Phil.

What disgusts me is that this economic catastrophe we are now saddled with (for many years it would seem) is the result of LABOUR'S destructive years of mismanagement.

Isn't it funny now how Blair, Brown and Mandelson have gone into hiding now and are conspicuously absent from the current debate. That is because they and they inability to manage the financial sector led to this outrage. Labour always wanted to destroy capitalism and now they look as though they may have almost done it. Now we all suffer.

Thanks for nothing Tony!

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 20 2010, 09:49 AM

A higher rate of income tax? The problem is the Country is spending far more than we can afford and have been for a while. If I had an overdraft and if every year it got bigger at some point it would have to be reduced. To do this I would have to spend less. The same applies to the economy. I don't like the cuts, don't want the cuts, but they have to happen in order to get our house in order. If the IMF thought we were delaying this action then interest rates would rise on our debt, leading to more debt and the Country could be in real danger of losing its Credit Rating. This could lead to a 'Greece' type scenario.

The main reason (but not the whole reason) for the level of debt we find ourselves in is because of the mis-selling by investment bankers in the Financial World that led to the crisis and bail out of the banks that the previous Labour Government watched over. Regulation was poor and whilst the banks generated vast profits and gave billions to the Treasury the Treasury was prepared to turn a 'blind eye'. Now the real problem. If you punish the banks too hard the they would relocate and a lot of income that is necessary for the recovery would be lost. That means us poor suckers have to foot the bill for the idiocy of the Financial World. I don't like it. You don't like it but what alternatives do we have?

Unfortunately a lot of militant union leaders will not accept that we are all in this together (both the Private and Public Sector) and I expect a lot of industrial action that will not help anyone...

My rant over!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 10:05 AM

but we aren't really in it together. A lot of what is happening is aimed at people who are worse off than me, and that's why it upsets me. People I grew up with bearing the brunt when George and Dave get to go to banquets drinking £8,000 bottles of wine.

The crisis was caused by the banks, and yes Labour bailed them out. But what if the banks had been allowed to collapse??? We would have all lost our savings. The bail outs are in the way of loans and we will recieve the cash back with a hefty return.

There needs to be changes to the way we run this county. Welfare, public spending and financial services. But they need to be well thought out, and we can't slash jobs in the current economic situation. We have already gone from strong growth in the spring to post election gloom. By going the same route as Ireland (which the IMF gave the green light to), we face ending up in the situation that they are in.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 20 2010, 10:20 AM

Of course Tony and Gordon never attended banquets......

Interestingly David Finkelstein in the Times writes...

"The deficit was the result of economic miscalculation (that we could go on spending because the boom would never end in a bust) and of political calculation. And the political calculation is that we - you and me - wouldn't stand for tax rises (Tony Blair) and wanted public spending rises (Gordon Brown). So we'd just have to borrow. And who can say, reviewing the politics of the past 15 years, that this calculation was wrong?

"The deficit isn't the fault of the banks. The deficit is the amount we borrow each year because we are spending more than the amount of tax that is coming in. We are not doing that to prop up the banks. We paid out to support the banks and that has left us with historical debt, but that is not the same thing as the deficit that we are incurring each year."

This would suggest that this action would have to have been taken whoever inherited this mess from the last Labour Government. Or should we fiddle whilst Rome burns?? You only have to look at the history of Labour to know that when they leave power they leave it with the Country in a Financial maelstrom. Thats why some pathetic whitehall junior ministers leave post-it notes stating 'There is no money left' for any new Government.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 20 2010, 10:28 AM

You may want to avoid the issue but what is happening now is a direct result of 13 years of Labour governments failure. Face up to it and move forward.

Same comment as above.

You are correct in that there have to be changes made in running the country and the new government is doing it.
Loss of services and jobs is now inevitable thanks to gross mis-management over the last 13 years. Don't blame the coalition for this as they are cleaning up the mess they have inherited.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Oct 20 2010, 10:49 AM

The banks ran into problems because of poor standards and practices...

As the banks borrowed our money why now doesn't payback the money and pass the debt to the government, who collects directly from the borrowers.

Those who owe more than 25K in any sort of mortage, loan, etc, is barred from borrowing from at least 5 years. The government now increases their "tax" by 5 or 10 percent, which is above the lending rate. The good thing now is they are not faced in getting turfed out in the street or paying stupid intrest rates and can sleep a little easier. Those who cannot afford to pay back has their homes signed over to the government who rents is back to them. Also, those who cannot pay back or in long term unemployment work on gov't schemes to clean up parks, roads, whatever they need to do unless they are a professional (doctor, lawyer, etc).

The problem also lies at the feet of the government who did not regulate the banks. If the banks didn't collaspe, they would be happier as a pig in muck still collecting big money and paying big bounses. At the end of the day, the average tax payer is getting hosed either by the banks or the gov't.

There are other ways, but the gov't would rather cut and run by saying it would cost too much to manage these programs when in the long run it would balance out. Even before the bank bailouts the gov't always seemed never to have enough money. Again, close ranks, stop foreign aid, and help your own people for a change as we are now the ones who need it.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 01:53 PM

Council funding will be cut by 7.1%.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 20 2010, 02:08 PM

And? Perhaps they will be a little more 'prudent' as gordon liked to say before he blew all the countries cash.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 20 2010, 02:12 PM

Puts the welfare system on a sustainable footing, making net welfare savings of £7 billion a year, including through withdrawing Child Benefit from families with a higher rate taxpayer, reforming Employment and Support Allowance, controlling the cost of tax credits, and capping the amount a workless household can receive in benefits to no more than an average family gets by going out to work;

Good!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 02:16 PM

Again, I'd advise you to look at the detail when it emerges before praising the chancellor. One of the things I agree with is the cap of benefit at £26,000 per year, and some would say even that is quite high.

The poorest 10% are amongst the hardest hit in this budget. George Osborne was saying that this budget would be fair, but it seems it was more rushed than fair. Over the next few days when the detail emerges, you will see some clear examples of the effect this will have on the vulnerable.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 20 2010, 02:26 PM

Yes, that will probably be the case however we will also see the effect it has on the workshy Benefit scroungers too. One of the reasons we are in this position.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 02:40 PM

There does need to be benefit reform. I can't speak for my colleagues in Westminster, but here in West Berkshire we are realistic. This being said, decisions taken need to be thought through and fair. From the evidence so far, I would say that this whole process as been rushed through on Tory ideology rather than neccessity. Why on earth were the Tories and Libs cheering these savage cuts??? Why was the Lib MP Bob Russell cracking jokes during the announcement of the pension cuts???? Why was Cameron laughing and joking??? Hardly trying to win over hearts and minds.

We need to move away from what the red tops are saying, this crisis was caused by the collapse of Lehman Brothers and the murky financial services industry. In 2007, the tories were calling for less regulation on the banks, now they are blaming the crash on Labour!!! With regards to the defecit, lets be clear. If Labour had not bailed out the banks we would have lost our jobs, homes, the lot. The money we get back from the banks will include a huge profit. Are you suggesting that the Tories would not have bailed out the banks???

What it comes down to now is that the Tories want to cut too fast, they say they want to go down the same route as Ireland. Look at the state they ended up in. Regardless of your political bias, look at this with a common sense view, not rose tinted (or blue tinted) spectacles.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 20 2010, 02:48 PM

I'm sorry, this is political claptrap. All I am hearing is repetition of the excuse that all of this crisis was the banks fault. It wasn't , it was the fault of 13 years of bad government and this country will suffer in all areas of it's infrastructure because of it.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 20 2010, 02:55 PM

See my earlier post....

Interestingly David Finkelstein in the Times writes...

"The deficit was the result of economic miscalculation (that we could go on spending because the boom would never end in a bust) and of political calculation. And the political calculation is that we - you and me - wouldn't stand for tax rises (Tony Blair) and wanted public spending rises (Gordon Brown). So we'd just have to borrow. And who can say, reviewing the politics of the past 15 years, that this calculation was wrong?

"The deficit isn't the fault of the banks. The deficit is the amount we borrow each year because we are spending more than the amount of tax that is coming in. We are not doing that to prop up the banks. We paid out to support the banks and that has left us with historical debt, but that is not the same thing as the deficit that we are incurring each year."

Posted by: JeffG Oct 20 2010, 03:28 PM

Who are "we"? I thought you were a prospective Labour candidate, which in this area is a bit of a pointless fantasy.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 20 2010, 03:32 PM

Posted by: Newbury Expat Oct 20 2010, 05:12 PM

This is good advice, but it should extend to red and yellow tinted spectacles.

I am sick and tired of hearing divisive nonsense about who did what, who is to blame. It's this type of stupidity that has contributed to a general mess of a system. Instead of genuinely working for the good of the country, it seems to be the primary objective of politicians to sling mud.

Newsflash, every political party is going to offer up countless examples of either poor policy or politicians making poor judgement calls. Harping on about the past and pointing the finger does nothing but make one look petty and blinkered.

One massive issue faced across the world, is the demographic timebomb. The majority of systems around the world rely on current taxation and social insurance contributions to pay for pensions. With the baby boomer generation hitting retirement age and with improved medical care leading to longer lives, we face a declining working population supporting an increasing retired population and this cannot be sustained.

Something that should have been started to be addressed 20 years ago was shelved year after year as it would have been such a political hot potato that it likely could have lost the election at the time, even though it would be for the long term good.

If politicians (be they Labour, Conservative, LibDems or otherwise) as a rule were less worried about their own status and office and more worried about actually governing the country responsibly, things would be so much better. Instead all we hear is, Labour did this, the Tories did that and it gets us absolutely nowehere. Don't tell me about what the other guy does wrong, tell me what can be done to fix it.

Trouble is most 'good' decisions that need to be taken rarely are as they are tough.

I also point to a large amount of the blame being at the shoulders of us the public. Whilst governments have enabled our behaviour to a large extent, there is over-spending on the individual basis (think credit card debt and unsustainable mortgages) that have aggregated into the macro-economic problems we now face. Rare is it that I meet people who think they aren't 'entitled' to spend more than they have or even more than is affordable and that is sad.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 05:30 PM

When Ed became leader of the Labour party, he made it clear he would not oppose every cut. What he did say was that cuts and reform must be fair. What seems to be happening in London is that a lot of these decisions have been rushed through, leaving some anomalies such as the child benefit. For whatever reason, the Tories have decided to cut deeper and faster than they proposed in the build up to the election. They say the IMF and the IFS have approved the CSR, but the IFS came out straight away calling this review "more regressive than progressive". Cameron points to Ireland as an example. LOOK WHAT HAPPENED TO THEM.

The main point of difference is the speed of the reduction. Is it sensible to slash during an unstable economic period? Labour say it isn't, and if we go into recession again, it will prove that they were right.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 20 2010, 05:56 PM

Then perhaps we should see the alternative CSR from Labour?

Posted by: Jayjay Oct 20 2010, 05:57 PM

Who caused the mess and who is clearing it up is a matter of opinion, but how despicable for the Con/Lib back benches to stamp and cheer when the loss of 500,000 jobs was announced. Shame on them.

Posted by: user23 Oct 20 2010, 06:00 PM

Whoever caused the Global Banking Crisis (I think the clue might be in the title though) it doesn't really matter now.

Because of the measures announced today public services will do less.

Before anyone moans too much, 68% of people eligible to vote in the constituency of Newbury voted for one of the parties in Government.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Oct 20 2010, 06:17 PM

Sorry Richard, but that is claptrap. At this point another recession may be unavoidable no matter what action is taken.

If something is destined to happen regardless of action, you can't take credit for proposing a course of action other than that taken. All parties in opposition do this, not just Labour, but it doesn't mean people with half a brain can't see such statements for what they are.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 20 2010, 06:38 PM

0% put their cross against a coalition option.

Posted by: user23 Oct 20 2010, 06:45 PM

That's because there's pretty much never a "coalition option" on the ballot paper.

The last one did involve the Liberal Party though.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 20 2010, 06:50 PM

Which is my point. You were implying that 68% of eligible Newbury voters wanted what is happening, or happened. Of those 68%; some did, some didn't.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 06:51 PM

See, if you actually looked at the data (rather than what Murdoch would have you believe), we had the strongest recovery in the first two quarters of this year. It was only after the emergency budget that confidence has once again been destroyed. Osborne said today it was a fair and progressive budget and that the Institute of Fiscal Studies were praising the CSR. Minutes after it was published, the IFS came out and said the CSR was "more regressive than progressive".

Oh and it was nice to see Dickie Benyon waving his paper in the air and cheering too!!!

DISCLAIMER

Despite my suggestions that the Coalition may be risking the economy, I'm not saying Labour do not have part of the blame coming their way. It was a "Global" financial crisis as has been pointed out. The real difference between my personal view and that of the Coalition as to fix the mess is that Ireland ended up a lot worse by cutting to much too soon. Let's hope this decision today does not take us back into recession.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 06:54 PM

I'm more upset that Clegg has sold out on nearly every promise he made. I get coalitions, and sacrificing party goals. But to go against personal pledges and promises is a bit much!!!

Posted by: Iommi Oct 20 2010, 06:56 PM

I don't know, but is it possible that Ireland had no choice? My understanding was that money from external sources was coming to and end. In other words: they had no option but to cut too soon. Perhaps seeds of doubt were already planted regards Ireland's financial stability.

Posted by: user23 Oct 20 2010, 07:08 PM

Fine to say in opposition, but didn't Brown offer the Lib Dems a referendum on PR if they formed a coalition with Labour?

He sold out to try and form a coalition and probably would have done more so if returned to power.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 07:19 PM

No. Brown offered the Lib Dems a refferendum on AV, but was clear that as Labour had a far superior number of seats, they would only be prepared to compromise on issues where there was similar opinion / common ground. With Cameron falling over himself to woo Clegg, how could the Lib Dems resist. Brown also offerred to step aside within a reasonable period of a couple of months to facilitate the deal because Clegg said he wasn't prepared to work with Brown as he had "lost" the election. So why then should he expect people to work with him???

This is where I step away from the party line slightly. Some Labour supporters will claim nobody won. The Tories had the most seats, and should have been allowed to go it alone. I have to ask how long the Government will continue if AV is not chosen next year. I will be voting "no", and so will many others from Labour and Tory ranks. Ed Miliband is actually supporting the AV vote, but has said the party will vote against the bill in the house because of the boundary changes. Cameron only added the changes to the bill as he was determined that if he was going to give Clegg AV, he needs to reduce the damage by making the boundaries more "fair" to the Tory party.

Posted by: Newbury Expat Oct 20 2010, 09:07 PM

I am aware that the economy had improved earlier in the year, but when it comes to words like recovery and recession, my own preference is to take a longer term approach and I feel that with so many ongoing problems, that the first two quarters was more a dead cat bounce than an actual full on recovery.

I hope to be proved wrong of course but if a recession is going to happen again, I don't think that the policy drawn up in the third/fourth quarters will be the cause (for balance neither will I think of it as the magic that avoided a recession should it be averted).

Why the "Dickie" reference though? It seems unecessary and more than that comes over as petty. Or are we to call you "Dickie" Garvie from this point on?

Posted by: Iommi Oct 20 2010, 09:28 PM

Agreed, such petty language always lets left wingers down. Having said that; hearing the house in general, having a 'laugh' at our expense was regrettable.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 20 2010, 10:05 PM

"Dickie" is short for Richard, is it not??? I wasn't using petty language, sorry if you thought I was. It's a good job I don't find it offensive when people refer to me in the same way!!!

Posted by: Iommi Oct 20 2010, 10:15 PM

Of course you were; stop talking cobblers. You meant it in a condescending way. You have shown a lot of energy and enthusiasm, please don't default to the 'familiar' stereotype.

Consider it a warning from a potential (currently) floating voter.


Your a lefty, so you wouldn't; eh?

Posted by: Newbury Expat Oct 20 2010, 11:07 PM

I'm probably old fashioned then, as I think it base rudeness to abbreviate someone's name without them opening the door to do so. In political circles Dickie particularly seems to be offensive given the inevitible association with Richard "Tricky Dicky" Nixon.

Taking liberties with someones name is often the thin end of the wedge when it comes to whether there is underlying respect for one's peers or base contempt for one's political allegiances. Just calling it as I see it.

Anyone else need to borrow my high horse for a bit?

Posted by: Iommi Oct 21 2010, 07:10 AM

I don't think you are. If one is to be taken seriously as politician, I think it is important to treat your peers with commensurate respect. Otherwise it makes one look flippant which is a poor attribute to have as a politician.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 21 2010, 07:11 AM

Can I borrow it? Honestly, I get called Dickie, ****, Rick, Ricky... the lot!!! I did try to use it in a "good old buddy Dickie" way, pointing out that if he was there waving his papers it must be ok. If anyone is genuinely offended, I'm sorry. I can see now how you may see it as me trying to score a point.

Jeesh, you want to here what some of the Liberals have been calling me!!!

Posted by: Iommi Oct 21 2010, 07:15 AM

It is not about offence; I couldn't care less. Only that there will be some that read that and then wonder about what lies beneath your apparent altruistic exterior.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 21 2010, 08:12 AM

Altruism - a myth.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 21 2010, 09:00 AM

Keynesianism alive and well I see!

Posted by: Iommi Oct 21 2010, 10:01 AM

Yes, hence my use of the adjective: apparent...just in case it isn't.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 21 2010, 10:25 AM

Fair point.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Oct 21 2010, 12:02 PM

Listening to you guys bickering on this forum, it makes you wonder how anything in gov't is done.

What makes me wonder if the budget from central gov't is being cut, how much will our council tax go up next year in an effort to sustain some of the services that will be affected?

What I would like to know is how much is being cut from running numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street?

Shouldn't the government invest in sofa beds so MP's don't use other residences except their own official residence and sleep in their offices at Whitehall.

Let MP's who travel into London use public transport and buy second class tickets so they can ride in the cattle cars.

Surely to cut down on office expense, let them use Regus or some other locations where they don't have to pay for I.T. and admin staff.

No, the simplest answer is to start wiping out services and people when they are needest the most and find a quick fix instead of using a think tank. Ronald Reagan wasn't the smartest person to be President, but he sure had some smart folks around him. Lets get some smart folks (REGARDLESS OF POLITICAL PARTY) to try to figure out a solution without doing more damage to an already fragile economy and pysche.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 21 2010, 12:58 PM

I agree with a lot of this. Just so you know, Cameron has froze the Council Tax for next year, so not only are the council getting less from Government, they also have to freeze the income from residents. Some tough choices to be made.

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 21 2010, 01:06 PM

That's a bit of a worry since most of it was meant to be satirical.

That's why they are discussing these issues with the unions before making hasty decisions.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 21 2010, 01:20 PM

Mr 'Dickie' Garvie's favourite song?

Now I'm a union man
Amazed at what I am
I say what I think
That the company stinks
Yes I'm a union man.

When we meet in the local hall
I'll be voting with them all
With a **** of a shout
It's out brothers out
And the rise of the factory's fall.

Oh you don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
Till the day I die, till the day I die.

As a union man I'm wise
To the lies of the company spies
And I don't get fooled
By the factory rules
'Cause I always read between the lines.

And I always get my way
If I strike for higher pay
When I show my card
To the Scotland Yard
This what I say.

Oh you don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
Till the day I die, till the day I die.

Before the union did appear
My life was half as clear
Now I've got the power
To the working hour
And every other day of the year.

So though I'm a working man
I can ruin the government's plan
Though I'm not too hard
The sight of my card
Makes me some kind of superman.

Oh you don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
You don't get me I'm part of the union
Till the day I die, till the day I die.

Posted by: Jayjay Oct 21 2010, 01:29 PM

It's the same the whole world over,
It's the poor what gets the blame,
It's the rich what gets the pleasure,
Isn't it a blooming shame?"

She was poor but she was honest,
Victim of a rich man's game

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 21 2010, 01:33 PM

Good reposte sir

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 21 2010, 02:47 PM

The bits of Phils post I agree with:

Shouldn't the government invest in sofa beds so MP's don't use other residences except their own official residence and sleep in their offices at Whitehall. - Wouldn't be suitable to house them in Whitehall, but why not a central hub for MP's who live further than a certain distance to be housed should they need it.

Let MP's who travel into London use public transport and buy second class tickets so they can ride in the cattle cars. - Martin Horwood, MP for Cheltenham (Lib Dem) used to come on my radio show back in the day. Great guy, and the only travelling expense he claims his his railway season ticket... Standard class. Why can't all MP's do that?

Surely to cut down on office expense, let them use Regus or some other locations where they don't have to pay for I.T. and admin staff. - I don't agree with serviced offices as the Government own most of their buildings. But why don't we have centralised IT support, telephone contracts, stationary contracts etc.?

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 21 2010, 02:49 PM

A very grown up response!!!

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 21 2010, 02:57 PM

Probably not a good idea from a security stand point. Would make a lovely target for terrorists.

Yes, why not.

Maybe this is what will now happen to minimise Whitehall's costs. Frankly I'm surprised that these sort of initiatives aren't in place already. Any self-respecting business would have had this nailed.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Oct 21 2010, 03:10 PM

Why not sleep in their office. Firefighters sleep in their offices. What are they afraid of, losing the keys to the front door. What are they doing with the dorms from the Olympic Village?



Maybe then there will be some feeling of camaraderie with how embassy staff and military folks feel. Couldn't you just see the entertainment expenses going down as they start up a DVD library instead of going out to dinner. Saying all that, having some MP appear at your door in the middle of the night in their PJ's is a little bit frightening.



Doesn't the Gov't have a central printing office? How about creating one and get some unemployed printers and graphic artists back to work. What would that save in a year? Why not having MP's hold a constituency surgery in their front room. How many people today work from home?

Why are we the only ones tighening our belts.. Let them feel our pain too.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 21 2010, 03:50 PM

We can't be serious all the time. We'd get depressed!

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 21 2010, 05:37 PM

I totally agree that all of the pain seems to be hurting the middle and lower end of the income groups. So much for "being in this together", I was speaking to a Lib Dem MP the other day who told me MP's should get paid a more fair salary, then that would take away the need to claim expenses. I guess a lot of MP's feel the same, regardless of party. What planet exactly do they live on?

Posted by: Iommi Oct 21 2010, 05:54 PM

Er, have you seen what Regus charge? Most places seek their own premises when it is practical to do so. Oh, IT ain't 'free' in Regus either.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 21 2010, 07:16 PM

MPs already have offices in London. It is called Portcullis House. That cost over £250 million back in the late 1990s.

We should go back to the good old days where MPs were not even paid.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 21 2010, 08:12 PM

This is what I actually said... I was replying to Phil D and included his post before adding a - and then my comment.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 21 2010, 08:25 PM

...nor anywhere else!

Indeed; I have yet to hear anyone celebrate the installation of centralised IT; except accountants, and owners of Asian call centres!

Posted by: Bloggo Oct 22 2010, 07:47 AM

Sorry, I was not advocating the use of Regus office space as I know how expensive that can be. My comment was aim at exploiting the finacial advantages of central purchasing and the benefits that can be had.

Posted by: JeffG Oct 22 2010, 08:05 AM

and presumably when only the rich landowners could afford to do the job.

Posted by: TallDarkAndHandsome Oct 22 2010, 08:30 AM

And lottery winners... The new member of Parliament for Coventry is the Euro Millions winner... Thinking about it they will probably do just a good a job as the present lot of MP's do (and they would not have to'fiddle' expenses!).

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 22 2010, 09:33 AM

Exactly.

Posted by: dannyboy Oct 22 2010, 09:35 AM

Yep. Not some career politician entering politics so that they can earn ££££, fiddle their expenses & end up on the board of several large multinationals at the end of their 'career'.

Posted by: Richard Garvie Oct 22 2010, 11:38 AM

I can't believe the thought process of some of our MP's on salary matters. They think they genuinely have it tough!!!

Posted by: Jayjay Oct 22 2010, 09:01 PM

Very slightly off topic. I have just read (before anyone asks, it was not the Mail) that the photo of Danny Alexander in the car and showing the restricted papers was taken while he was being chauffered the 100 yards to parliament. I cannot check this in the main report as the recyling was done today. Can this be true?

Posted by: Simon Kirby Oct 23 2010, 08:33 AM

It occured to me that it was a deliberate leak as only a complete nonce would forget that the press take photographs through car windows.

Posted by: user23 Oct 23 2010, 10:59 AM

Did you mean novice, rather than nonce?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2010, 11:21 AM

Apparently it was true - and it also answers the question posed in the response above yours!

Posted by: Jayjay Oct 23 2010, 02:34 PM

Well I am speechless, and that takes a lot of doing. We are 'all in this in together' and have to tighten our belts and a fit, young man like this is inacapable of walking 100 yards.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2010, 03:15 PM

Quite so! He could even have used a 'Boris bike' - free for first half hour.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 23 2010, 04:21 PM

Of course he is capable; it would almost certainly have been down to security advice.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2010, 06:35 PM

Yes I'm sure you are right! Must admit 'security advice' is perhaps an area where cuts are well over due. Don't seem to recall Churchill (or any of his Ministers) taking 'security advice' in the last war - he even walked to the Commons during raids. So perhaps a little common sense is called for - OTT security advice and keeping confidential documents confidential. They'll be wanting wiped bottoms next!

Posted by: Iommi Oct 23 2010, 06:45 PM

I don't think one can win; had something happened, then the argument would have been: 'what were they thinking'. Wait until the cuts start to bite; I think they might have to step security up, not down!

Posted by: JeffG Oct 23 2010, 06:55 PM

I think you'll find things have changed a bit since those times. I don't recall hearing about suicide bombers etc. during the last war. Bombs from the sky are a different matter - wouldn't have made much difference if he'd been walking or in a car!

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2010, 07:25 PM

They had them in Japan... We also managed to survive the Irish efforts. Just seems to me that 'security advice' is the latest PC industry.

Posted by: Jayjay Oct 23 2010, 07:40 PM

Oh come on. Even the Queen has done a walkabout outside Buckingham Palace.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 23 2010, 07:45 PM

I would imagine there is a marked difference in cost between the two, and the security would make their decisions based on safety and cost.

Do you think it is really because he is lazy?

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2010, 08:37 PM

Where's John Prescott when you need him - blame the wife!

Posted by: Jayjay Oct 23 2010, 09:08 PM

No I don't think he is lazy, but I don't think it is a security issue either. David Cameron rides a bike to work, (albeit with a car carrying his bag and shoes) surely far more of a security risk than 100 yards along Whitehall. I think he is insensitive - taking a chauffeur driven car for 100 yards to a budget that takes the mobility component off disabled people in care homes. Or is he one of the MP's so full of their own importance that they were horrified that the cut in their expenses meant they had to travel in standard class.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 23 2010, 09:27 PM

I think my speculation is more believable than your spleen you have just delivered anyway.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 23 2010, 09:36 PM

Really? Seemed quite a reasoned response. Having met some of the MP's who felt it wholly unreasonable to make them travel 2nd class, it is quite believable.

Posted by: Jayjay Oct 23 2010, 09:39 PM

Therer are about 650 MP's

It is fact that he took a car 100 yards along Whitehall. It is fact that the coalition announced the same day that the mobility component would be removed from disabled people living in care homes.

There are around 650 MP's, assuming that only Ministers took chauffeur driven cars, that is 120 journey's. You may be happy to pay this from your taxes, but personally I am not.

Spleen? I was quoting facts, but if you mean I am bl**dy angry, then yes I am.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2010, 03:43 AM

OK, you agreed with me, now you don't; which is it?

Do you think there is affinity with a 100 yard dash from a minister about to deliver the most important document in recent British history, and MPs objecting to 2nd class travel? To me they are different arguments and I still maintain that I believe the reason for the car was out of practical security issues, than Jayjay's idea that it was simply out of arrogance. Security's biggest head-aches are often for high profile people who don't follow their advice (risk and costs go up).

In any case, regardless of the truth, I think it a trivial matter to get excited about. I would expect this from and for cabinet ministers. I quite agree though, that MPs should seek the most cost effective and practical method to go about their duties.

May I bump my quote from earlier...

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2010, 06:47 AM

Yes it is a trivial matter. Security well over stated but is a separate but related issue and probably deserves a separate thread. This one is simply about common sense. There vhave been at least two incidents where people going into Dowing Street have been caught displaying confidential diocuments. The first time understandable, the second excuseable, this is the third. So if it wasn't deliberate it must have been something else.

Posted by: Iommi Oct 24 2010, 09:12 AM

I suspect it was deliberate and I also wish this coalition would break-away from how the last Government did things. This includes the way the Chancellor would mix and obfuscate his statistics at the despatch box. If it wasn't deliberate, then people should be censured over it.

Posted by: blackdog Oct 24 2010, 09:44 AM

Not any more - he lives above the office these days.

Posted by: On the edge Oct 24 2010, 11:09 AM

Quite so. Lets have the raw facts - I can't quite see why they were so confidential in the first place. Most of us realise we are in a complete mess economically.

Posted by: Phil_D11102 Oct 25 2010, 09:09 AM

The points I was making about using Regus, MP's sleeping in their offices etc, is that I truly don't believe that a deep dive was made into seeing where cuts and savings could be made without totally screwing over the tax paying population in the UK. When you take a look at VAT will be rising, more tax on petrol, etc, simple cuts such as killing the child benefit for those paying 40 percent tax will just take more money out of our pockets.

The gov't talks about having to make "hard" choices and decisions, but who is fitting the bill for the PM's upcoming 3 week Christmas holiday to Thailand with his family. Sure, he will be paying some of it, but what is the true breakdown of who is paying what. How many MP's will be making trips aboard on "fact" finding missions to see the whats and how out there to improve the economy and boost trade.

I am sorry, but I don't think that this was thought out and the easy cuts to make are the ones that affect people the most.

You will see in the U.S. a serious message given to Barack Obama in his first mid term elections, as people are not happy with the way the "powers" are handling this economic crisis.