Houdini Logic Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 He is living in a dream world, without money nobody except a few doo gooders and people with certain agenda's are gonna open shit!! People are getting raped left right and centre, struggling to afford to pay for Sky TV, as if there gonna in there free time goign to serve books or soup to the needy. Exactly my thoughts, though you have to give him/his PR company credit - can't believe people have bought into this. This is like being raped and having them convince you it was your neighbours fault for not keeping an eye out for you while the rapist gets away scott free
Dr The Singh Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 Exactly my thoughts, though you have to give him/his PR company credit - can't believe people have bought into this. This is like being raped and having them convince you it was your neighbours fault for not keeping an eye out for you while the rapist gets away scott free More like getting raped and thanking Cameron the oppportunity to get raped again at your cost (time and effort)!!
l444ry Posted 15 February 2011 Author Posted 15 February 2011 Can you give us some examples of where it is proposed to replace services provided by government to be replaced by charities & voluntary groups? You could go and do some research in a Library..............if you're quick enough!!!
Fox1651 Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 The 'Big Society' is one where the state rolls back it's involvement in all sorts of non essential things like health, education etc to allow people to accept more personal responsibility and better themselves. OR in reality putting more pressure on charities (at a time when demand is increasing but donations are falling) and family members to carry out essential services for those in need - services that the state should provide. Althoug if you have the money then all the services that the state used to provide are all privatised so you can pay someone to carry them out for you - if you don't have money....well you can always rely on your neighbours to help you out. The 'Big Society' is a big scam. Are we the new America? - i know lets privatise all hospitals and scrap the NHS . . . . . . . Trouble is all politicians lie through their teeth, they are greedy self centred fat cats who dont actually give a flying fluck about anyone but themselves when it comes down to it, weve gone from a shite labour leader to a smarmy con leader with that yellow bellied idiot in tow
Jon the Hat Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 You could go and do some research in a Library..............if you're quick enough!!! Da dum tish! Seriously though, I don't recall anyone coming out and saying that we would be without essential services, and the only councils whining about having to cut the front line are Labour ones. Look up the list of A-Z services on your local council website and tell me that isn't more than is necessary. It annoys me no end to hear councils talking about cutting front line people when they have not even started to take out management or back office roles. While we are on the subject, how many payroll, HR, accounting, PR, Communications, payment processing, accounts receivable and other back offices do you think there are around the public sector which could be organised much more efficiently? How many procurement departments just crying out for centralisation or outsourcing to those with the expertise to do things more efficiently. When a local council or Government department has completed these savings, then they can start talking about cutting front line services. In the meantime they should be less concerned about protecting their empires and more concerned about delivering services in the best and most efficient way they can - concentrating on those delivering the user facing stuff, not the back office.
Dr The Singh Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 Da dum tish! Seriously though, I don't recall anyone coming out and saying that we would be without essential services, and the only councils whining about having to cut the front line are Labour ones. Look up the list of A-Z services on your local council website and tell me that isn't more than is necessary. It annoys me no end to hear councils talking about cutting front line people when they have not even started to take out management or back office roles. While we are on the subject, how many payroll, HR, accounting, PR, Communications, payment processing, accounts receivable and other back offices do you think there are around the public sector which could be organised much more efficiently? How many procurement departments just drying out for centralisation or outsourcing to those with the expertise to do things more efficiently. When a local council or Government department has completed these savings, then they can start talking about cutting front line services. In the meantime they should be less concerned about protecting their empires and more concerned about delivering services in the best and most efficient way they can - concentrating on those delivering the user facing stuff, not the back office. Jon, what about the brothels ans whore houses closing down and many whores leaving the business. Are you telling me that the public inparticular women are gonna come forward and volunteer to be whores, because if that's the case then Cameron is a god!!!!!
hairy Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 Not much spent bailing them out once we sell them again. but at this moment we bailed them out to the tune of billions which added to the debt. Yes or no? A huge debt, made worse by their trading at the time of the crash. This is a bit like saying when you were spending on your credit card you could afford more clothes, nicer wine and to eat out a couple of times a week, but now you have hit your credit limit you cannot afford some of the things which you paid for with borrowing before. No shit sherlock. If you want to pay it back you have to make some tough decisions right? My point is I am now paying more for less not borrowing
cc_star Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 Da dum tish! Seriously though, I don't recall anyone coming out and saying that we would be without essential services, and the only councils whining about having to cut the front line are Labour ones. Look up the list of A-Z services on your local council website and tell me that isn't more than is necessary. It annoys me no end to hear councils talking about cutting front line people when they have not even started to take out management or back office roles. While we are on the subject, how many payroll, HR, accounting, PR, Communications, payment processing, accounts receivable and other back offices do you think there are around the public sector which could be organised much more efficiently? How many procurement departments just crying out for centralisation or outsourcing to those with the expertise to do things more efficiently. When a local council or Government department has completed these savings, then they can start talking about cutting front line services. In the meantime they should be less concerned about protecting their empires and more concerned about delivering services in the best and most efficient way they can - concentrating on those delivering the user facing stuff, not the back office. This I'm surprised this hasn't been noticed more. Conservatives and LibDem are dismantling the back-office & changing the way things are done, Labour are protecting inefficiencies and cutting the front-line. This could be for one of two reasons. a) They don't know how to be efficient b) It's part of the plan to make things seem worse than they could be, so as to play into the national Labour party's hands for the 2015 election. The Big Society's name is probably beyond repair now, even if a lot of the idea which under-pin it are sound. Your final paragraph sums up what Labour councils (in the main) aren't doing & should be.
l444ry Posted 15 February 2011 Author Posted 15 February 2011 Probably because it is the Labour controlled councils that are having to find the deepest cuts. Labour authorities are suffering the worst budget cuts whilst Tory controlled areas have received more favourable settlements. You should do your homework!!
Webbo Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 but at this moment we bailed them out to the tune of billions which added to the debt. Yes or no? A huge debt, made worse by their trading at the time of the crash. It cost us around £50 billion to bail out the banks the deficit is around £1000billion.
l444ry Posted 15 February 2011 Author Posted 15 February 2011 It cost us around £50 billion to bail out the banks the deficit is around £1000billion. More like £50 billion for one year!! The total cost for supporting the banks was reported to have been nearer £900 billion at the height of the crisis.
Webbo Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 More like £50 billion for one year!! The total cost for supporting the banks was reported to have been nearer £900 billion at the height of the crisis. I think I'm going to need a source for that.
Libertine Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 It cost us around £50 billion to bail out the banks the deficit is around £1000billion. No that's the general debt. The deficit is around £150billion.
l444ry Posted 15 February 2011 Author Posted 15 February 2011 I think I'm going to need a source for that. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html
Jon the Hat Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 More like £50 billion for one year!! The total cost for supporting the banks was reported to have been nearer £900 billion at the height of the crisis. That is not cost. That is total guarantees which is different, even you can see that through red tinted lenses.
Jon the Hat Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 My point is I am now paying more for less not borrowing You werent Paying for what you got before, you were sticking it on credit, and you are paying for it now, so you have less to spend on today's services.
Webbo Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/163850bn-official-cost-of-the-bank-bailout-1833830.html The NAO report put a question mark over the Treasury's estimate of the taxpayers' long-term bill for the rescue of between £20bn and £50bn, saying it will depend heavily on the Government's sale of its stakes in RBS and Lloyds. .
Webbo Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 No that's the general debt. The deficit is around £150billion. Fair enough, I meant the total national debt.
l444ry Posted 15 February 2011 Author Posted 15 February 2011 . You should have highlighted the words at the end of your source. £50 billion depending on share values etc. at a later date. Let's hope they 're right!!
cambridgefox Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 . And the reason for the Lloyds bail out,dear old Gordon begged them to buy HBOS,to save the poorly run spendthrift goverment doing it,before another bank went under.
Webbo Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 You should have highlighted the words at the end of your source. £50 billion depending on share values etc. at a later date. Let's hope they 're right!! Well the article was from 2009 when we had a labour govt. They wouldn't lie surely?
Scow Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 What does Cameron know about 'empowering local communities' and engaging with charities/voluntary services? He's your typical Tory millionaire whose idea of real life is shaped by policy makers in Whitehall. Cameron is nothing but a PR man with little substance. This Big Society is a cover for cuts, despite what Cameron says. As for the deficit, weren't the Tories supporting New Labour plans up until the recession? Didn't Osborne say how much he admired Ireland's booming economy prior to the crisis? I don't know how the Tories can lecture New Labour on the economy. In essence, the Tories couldn't give a shit about 'society' - they've proved that with the most savage spending cuts in the most deprived areas of the country. Plus, they had a whale of a time destroying communities in the 80s.
Fox1651 Posted 15 February 2011 Posted 15 February 2011 What does Cameron know about 'empowering local communities' and engaging with charities/voluntary services? He's your typical Tory millionaire whose idea of real life is shaped by policy makers in Whitehall. Cameron is nothing but a PR man with little substance. This Big Society is a cover for cuts, despite what Cameron says. As for the deficit, weren't the Tories supporting New Labour plans up until the recession? Didn't Osborne say how much he admired Ireland's booming economy prior to the crisis? I don't know how the Tories can lecture New Labour on the economy. In essence, the Tories couldn't give a shit about 'society' - they've proved that with the most savage spending cuts in the most deprived areas of the country. Plus, they had a whale of a time destroying communities in the 80s. i dont disagree at all, however footnote - Labour are just as shite thats the only problem!!!
l444ry Posted 15 February 2011 Author Posted 15 February 2011 That is not cost. That is total guarantees which is different, even you can see that through red tinted lenses. Perhaps you'd like to borrow my red tinted lenses, Jon. I clearly stated that at the height of the crisis the debt was reported to be £900 billion. It's not me who's claiming that figure. I only make reference to the report to show that Webbo's £50 billion is way off the mark.
Parafox Posted 16 February 2011 Posted 16 February 2011 i 'big society' is a big con, it basically tells people 'go to work, pay tax, get nothing for your tax, and then go and do the things that your tax should pay for!!.' They gave an example of the big society, if something in your area breaks down or fails, go and repair it yourself, was the jist of it. Okayyyyyyyyyyyyyyy, now where do I buy a Sodium Bulb for that street light down the road???
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.