This is what the Public Accounts Committee is all about Bernie. Chairman always a member of the opposition.
Public Spending...
- Thread starter andrewb
- Start date
This is what the Public Accounts Committee is all about Bernie. Chairman always a member of the opposition.
Well sorry it isn't working, I am talking billions and billions of pounds here
spend more on police and scrap the human rights act..thats what i say
In a way, think Flashy has hit the nail on the head. Try and work within your means in other words.
Problem is, how we distribute the money available, all areas are important, just which needs it the most.
Think defence needs a bigger slice and NHS (although has the biggest spend at the moment)... oh, and education low down on the list of public spending at the moment. Pensions are 2nd followed by Welfare.
How do you decide ? I dunno' not good at economics. Always try to prioritize my household spending to paying the bills first, but how does a government decide which it the most important ?
I think what's important is making good use of what they do spend. A lot of money is thrown at things, under the assumption that more money equals better service, which is simply not the case.
I'd like to see better use of public money, perhaps then we could afford to take low income workers completely out of income tax.
I'd like to see better use of public money, perhaps then we could afford to take low income workers completely out of income tax.
Well, common sense thought, however, which area, in your opinion, has been the most guilty of badly handling the money they have been allocated ?
Taking low income families out of the tax equation would be a better way to use money than perhaps say Working tax credits, and if the families on lower incomes had a little more money then perhaps some of it would find its way into the local economy.
I don't know a lot about economics but I do know that to spend more than you earn(or have coming into the community pot) is a recipe for disaster.
I don't know a lot about economics but I do know that to spend more than you earn(or have coming into the community pot) is a recipe for disaster.
Labours little 'projects' like the billions wasted on an NHS computer system, or billions wasted on creating ID cards. The NHS itself has had mass amounts of funding, as has education, in fact so much money was pumped into them that it made us unprepared for this recession, government had spent all our money, they'd not fixed the roof while the sun was shining. You'd expect a far improved service for what they've put in, yet the NHS spends more on management consultants than medical ones. Over 12 years they've spent £360 billion on education, yet we've dropped from 8th in the world to 24th.
Just doesn't add up.
I'd agree with that, with low earners being able to keep more of their earned income. It would be a greater incentive also for those people who find themselves in the "benefit trap" to try to take up employment.
Best Regards - Taggy
Its surprising how none of our Labour friends ever have anything to say on the total failings of their government, and when you think about it those down in Westminster are supposed to be the brains of their party, yet we see unprecedented waste of extortionate proportions
Didn't wish to give you a platform for what you see as past 'misdemeanors' by Labour Andrew. Your question was in the present, and maybe some sort of monitoring into how best money will be spent may be helpful. This could be counter productive though, as would mean more staff.
So really, gather you would wish for it to stay the same ?
Problem is all the areas in Public spending have costs that are rising, due to lots of factors like NHS ... population living longer and better drugs and treatment improvements which all cost money.
Universities asking for larger tuition fees to offer better facilities/courses.
Defence ... need better protection for our soldiers in the form of equipment to support this stupid war in Iraq.
Pensions .. more pensioners like myself living longer, and attempting to survive against rising costs such as energy, etc.
Welfare ... we are a little soft on this, however, wouldn't knock any benefits genuinely needed ... we have always tried to help our citizens in hard circumstances.
Could go on and on with the others, but as said before, they are all important.
Though Gayle has mentioned arts, etc., this could be one area that isn't necessary, and some lottery grants are helping here. Just as important though, we need some pleasure.
Oh hek, what a conundrum, eh ?
His research only goes back 12 years so he can hardly talk about previous governments wasting money can he
Waiting times: 20 years of progress
1980s: As director of the NHS Northern region, Sir Liam Donaldson, now the Government's chief medical officer, received a letter from an 83-year-old pensioner who had been waiting 10 years for an NHS cataract operation. In it, he asked if he could bequeath his place in the queue in his will to his 60-year-old nephew who had developed eye problems.
Waiting times at record low as NHS hits target five months early - Health News, Health & Wellbeing - The Independent
'The NHS is celebrating the shortest waits since its records began.
New data shows that across England the NHS has met its target to treat patients within a maximum of 18 weeks from referral by their GP - an achievement that was unimaginable 12 years ago. The average wait for treatment for admitted patients is now just 8.6 weeks.'
NHS delivers shortest waiting lists 'since records began' » Central Government » 24dash.com
Yep, get them in, meet some targets. The targets are not to cure people, they're to get them in and out as soon as possible. I'd have rather waited a year to get a correct diagnosis for my stomach, instead it was an 8 week waiting list and then nothing came of it - I was just a statistic, not a patient. Unproductive targets have been created and money has been thrown at them.
His research only goes back 12 years so he can hardly talk about previous governments wasting money can he
12 years of this lot that are in power now must be a lesson for all.
The future is important, the past is a learning curve.
I can go back to Harold Wilson and George Brown and no labour followers would be proud of that.
Andrew is a young man reading politics and I would suggest he probably can go back in his studies to all Governments since the War....I'm not sure but I am not going to be the one who tests him?
Which is why this lot got in, because people were saying the same about the previous government
The longer a government is in power the more unpopular it seems to get, I think people just get bored with them.
I think that when a government has been in power for a long period of time, they become complacent.
I'm not basing my observations on whether or not my stomach complaint has been diagnosed.
I'm just happy to hear the facts that people aren't dying or going blind, whilst waiting for a cateract operation, which they were twenty years ago.
That surely is down to medical science.
I have never heard of anyone dying whilst waiting for a cateract operation unless the death is due to old age which no one can prevent.
A cateract operation is now a very simple procedure carried out by very talented eye surgeons.
The health service has improved, I agree. I also agree that money should go to the health service as well as to defence and some social services.
I think the current downturn will expose many cock-ups along the way, the sooner the better.
No now they are dying from MRSA and C-dif. The fact is that medical science has moved on and new techniques are being used, new drugs are available, if you have the right post code, you still pay for prescriptions in England whilst our friends over the boarder don't, and the same thing with hospital parking. When I as in dock last year the ward I was on was a total shambles, I'd been in 3 days before I had a table to eat my meals on, and a simple thing like a jug of water was not available for 48 hours. As for cataracts I was referred in early July 2002 an had them done by March 2003