Where would YOU make the cuts, ignore what has gone before because that money is spent, its a bit like crying over last weeks grocery bill, where would you cut public expenditure, right now, to make a definite effect within the lifetime of the current government ?



Because they have to show some definite benefit to their policies before the next election, they won't get away with blaming someone else.



So,



Healthcare ?

Pensions ?

Policing/Armed Services ?

Education ?

Infrastructure investment (road building, rail network etc)



And lets have some targets, not woolly politicians arguments like "cut out layers of middle management" or other bollax that give the impression that billions are being spent on jobs that are meaningless because we're all grown ups and we all know that the press love to invent stories like that - lets have some definite targets, how many police officers do you think we could safely afford to lose for instance, or does a City like Leeds really need two huge hospitals, genuine examples like that...

Well not having access to governement figures, I cannot give you a definitive answer now can I?



However, in general the areas I would like to see cut back are.



Benefits

Public sector pensions

Public sector jobs





Why? Because I believe we spend far too much on benefits as a country.



I believe that public sector pensions should fall more in line with the private sector.



I believe in "Small Government". I believe that all levels of Government should be reduced to an absolute minimum.



If you need a case to give you evidence, I present to you Wigan Metro.

Which benefits? Safety nets for the unemployed?, child allowance? Jobseekers?, which benefits specifically should be reduced?

What aspects of public sector pensions? Just make them smaller? or what?

Which public sector jobs? Nurses? Dustmen? Librarians?, Carers?, Boris Johnson? The Queen? which?

And of course what are the costs of doing so? What is the cost of reducing benefits, pensions and jobs?



I doubt he'll answer, he doesn't do the detail.

Without seeing the figures neither I, you, nor anyone else can give a definitive answer.



But as an example. Child allowance needs to be cut. If you cannot afford to raise children, don't have them.



Public sector jobs - I would start by looking at Local Authorities and the level and area's of staffing



Public sector pensions- Massive move to defined contribution schemes.

OK, I think I've got a grasp on the whole of this thread now.





"Your lot is worse than my lot and I have some biased newspaper arguments to prove it"



"No they're not, your reports are biased, here are some from my biased newspaper to counter them and to prove you wrong"



"No, that kind of bias is wrong, only my kind of bias is right and acceptable"







Nothing new there then...

You keep ignoring the point that Labour only ran a deficit for 6 years prior to 2008. For four out of his 10 years at no 11 he ran a surplus. Treying to make out all he ever did was spend, spend, spend is just not the case.







I don't think you understand how you would personally be affected in a bad way if we did end up with the small state you favour.



I believe there is a balance to be struck. Certain things do not work when run by the private sector. Why did we have to take back Railtrack for example. Other things would never work in the public sector e.g food production.







It is irrelevant because as I said the size of the structural deficit was totally manageable pre the crash. If you look at the figures in the last year before 2008 the deficit was lower than the year before. So I could equally argue the Conservative reductions in the structural deficit are due to the downward trend they inherited from Labour - but it doesn't matter if they did or not because banging away at reducing it is not going to stop them having to to borrow shed loads of cash to fund the recession the causes of which are not spending.







It would be reduced which is stating the obvious (without any thought for what wouldn't have happened without the money e.g. school rebuilding program) but given the majority of current borrowing is by far and away due to the recession you could wipe the structural deficit out tomorrow and we would still be running a deficit about twice as big as any since the mid 1970's.

Aye, let the kids suffer for their parents' errors.





You would start by looking?

So, you are guessing, right?





Shift the burden of pensions for the low-paid onto the state?

Interesting.

indeed, it's pretty much the way every thread goes.

Of course he is, like he was guessing about the cost of, and the waste involved in the NHS IT project. He hasn't much clue at all as to where cuts could be made or what effect they would have.

Yes I'd start by not switching street lights on, then cancel any road repairs and stop all bin collections.



Then I'd cancel the street cleaning service too.



Perhaps shut down the planning department so your neighbour doesn't need permission to build a block of flats in his garden that will keep light from your house.



I think you've been infected by Dallyitis - an impression that public services are irrelevant and we can get by without them (even though central government would have to fork out dole payments to those who lose their jobs and even though the private sector equivalent is likely to cost more)

That's a bit simplistic, I have seen counter-quotes used here, [uspecifically[/u as a means of demonstrating that the trotting-out of quotes is coloured by where you get them from.