Agree completely about the aircraft carriers, that's just bonkers. Though they will have helicopters (presumably including something like Apaches, so actual kill-mash-destroy copters), and drone aircraft. Just not actual traditional manned jet fighter / bombers.
Don't get what's so bad about the rest of it though. Why should people in the public sector have jobs for life? And why should those of us who work and pay taxes have to support a bunch of lifetime layabouts and scroungers? They do exist, I've known some of them personally.
I probably need to do my own post on all of this.
After all, what other choice was there? Labour left us broke.
Aside: I saw a comment somewhere (Vote Clegg Get Clegg I think) which said that the actual cuts as announced are smaller than what Labour was proposing as its alternative strategy. Every spending spree has to come to an end some time.
Jobs for life in the public sector will remain. It's been the way that these who are higher up and in the pocket of/ having open pockets for the politicians that have had that security. IT's still built in for them. IT's the people in the lower positions that are taking the hits on this one.
I agree that there was very little choice but to use cuts, but the things that were cut and the way it was done, while it was claimed not to be ideologically driven, seem only to benefit the tories.
It's not a case of "what would Labour do?" but I feel more a case of "how could this be fairer and less damaging to those at the bottom of the pile?"
It was quite successful in the UK in the 80s, spawned an entire new era of competitive small businesses. Though that was also a paradigm shift from heavy industry, a field in which we simply couldn't compete with the Far East, to a more high-tech and service based economy
( ... )
The cuts in the 80s were very minor compared to this. In fact, the spending was only actually reduced by a very small amount for 2 years. Thatcher didn't really cut spending, more moved it from welfare etc to defence etc.
The big problem when you are trying to borrow about 150 billion pounds a year is who is going to lend you the money, and will they continue to lend the money at those kind of terms
( ... )
Cutting spending won't necessarily appease creditors if it plunges us into a deep recession. We may end up paying more interest on our debt - see example of Ireland.
I can see the logic in keeping the aircraft carriers as they would take longer to replace if we ever needed them. Plus it's easier to get aircraft loaned to us from allied nations and we've already sold one of the carriers to New Zealand I think (a couple of years ago)? Plus they're useful to park offshore to countries and look intimidating even if we don't have any balls.
I do see your point though. They are shamefully expensive to upkeep and really I would rather take budget away from the military (not at the expense of our soldiers overseas mind, they need to come home) then have it deducted from minority groups who are suffering. The whole situation's rather sickening really.
Comments 10
Don't get what's so bad about the rest of it though. Why should people in the public sector have jobs for life? And why should those of us who work and pay taxes have to support a bunch of lifetime layabouts and scroungers? They do exist, I've known some of them personally.
I probably need to do my own post on all of this.
After all, what other choice was there? Labour left us broke.
Aside: I saw a comment somewhere (Vote Clegg Get Clegg I think) which said that the actual cuts as announced are smaller than what Labour was proposing as its alternative strategy. Every spending spree has to come to an end some time.
Reply
I agree that there was very little choice but to use cuts, but the things that were cut and the way it was done, while it was claimed not to be ideologically driven, seem only to benefit the tories.
It's not a case of "what would Labour do?" but I feel more a case of "how could this be fairer and less damaging to those at the bottom of the pile?"
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
I do see your point though. They are shamefully expensive to upkeep and really I would rather take budget away from the military (not at the expense of our soldiers overseas mind, they need to come home) then have it deducted from minority groups who are suffering. The whole situation's rather sickening really.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment