Cuts - Do the government really understand the consequences?

[Otta]

Not according to this.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/11/david-cameron-letter-cuts-oxfordshire?CMP=share_btn_fb

[Parkdrive]

MP's rarely come from the social strata that such cuts are aimed at so they have no idea of what the fall out will be.

[Otta]

It doesn't surprise me that these MPs wouldn't understand the fallout on a real family level. But the fact that they don't even seem to have a clue about the figures involved is a real worry.

[Blah Blah]

Interesting letters between Cameron and his local authority there.

What I find most revealing is how Cameron actually thinks that some of the cuts mean an increase in spending! My department is a front line service (of the NHS) and we have seen significant cuts at the same time as seeing a huge increase in demand for services. This is not rocket science. There are no more efficiency savings to be made, and there haven't been for a while.

Noted that there is no reply to the excellent reply from the leader of his council. The other thing that stands out is that Camerons letter is not really the letter of an MP. Most MPs are fully aware of what is happening in their constituencies, because they spend most of their time there engaging with real people. Cameron doesn't (for obvious reasons) which begs the question of whether a prime minister can actually still serve the constituents who elected him/her in the first place.

[Jeremy]

I'd take it a step further BB.. and argue that cabinet member and local MP should be separate jobs.

[Blah Blah]

I'm inclined to agree with you.

[Earl Aelfheah]

A letter like that from the prime minster is really revealing and should be big news. Instead we get ridiculous analysis of how deeply the leader of the opposition bows.

[Ridgley]

They do know the consequences they just don't care, it all about divide an conquer I feel this will be a tipping point for those who are effected. will not be surprised if there will be rioting at some point.

[ratty]

That is just startling. Can someone defend this level of ignorance please?

Totally agree however that cabinet ministers and seniors should have a "delegate" MP looking after their constituencies - not sure how this would be arranged though. Not sure if this should apply to the shadow cabinet either. Thought needed.

From a local authority perspective the cuts are absolutely crippling. People are dying and people are killing because of them.

[LondonMix]

I agree with you too Jeremy.

So what are people in favor of here as the solution:

1. Increasing taxes (if so on who- all earners, most earner except the poorest, only the highest earners)

2. Decreasing other benefits (i.e. universal benefits currently enjoyed by even high earners)

3. Increasing the deficit / government debt

[Otta]

Blah Blah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Noted that there is no reply to the excellent

> reply from the leader of his council.

In the original article http://www.oxfordmail.co.uk/news/13948252.David_Cameron_clashes_with_council_over_cuts_to_frontline_services/ it quotes the council leader as saying

"I don?t want to comment on leaked private correspondence that wasn?t intended for publication. What I can say is that these letters are part of an on-going discussion with government about how we can protect frontline services while doing our bit in Oxfordshire to tackle the national budget deficit ? a government policy that I support. To do this, we are having to make some very difficult decisions, which is why we are consulting the public on all the options.?

Basically he's a Cameron ally who is probably gutted this has been leaked. I suspect he has no big problem with the cuts he's made, just that Cameron questioned how he was doing it when he was playing at local MP for an afternoon.

BBC Now have the story http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34788129

And yet Downing Street insists

"There is still significant scope for sensible savings across local government to be made by back office consolidation, disposing of surplus property and joining up our local public services;"

[Jeremy]

LondonMix - for me it's about balance... debt/deficit needs to be reduced, but the burden should be shared. Cuts to government spending (certainly not just benefits), modest tax increases, and going after tax loopholes/evasion more aggressively should all be part of the equation.

[????]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I agree with you too Jeremy.

>

> So what are people in favor of here as the

> solution:

>

> 1. Increasing taxes (if so on who- all earners,

> most earner except the poorest, only the highest

> earners)

> 2. Decreasing other benefits (i.e. universal

> benefits currently enjoyed by even high earners)

> 3. Increasing the deficit / government debt

It will have to be all earners above the low thresholds - the fallacy the 'rich' , whoever they are,can pay for the defeceit is just that. A frightening proportion of Income Tax comes from a very small number (realitively) of high earners

Universal benefits have been got for higher earning families - high earning pensioners is the obvious one.

Delaying reduction would be the obvious solution given low borrowing costs but the Tories and certainly George Osbourne can't afford that politically "10 years of austerity and they still haven't got rid of the defeceit"

The recovery hasn't delivered the sort of tax receipts that were forecast as there are so many in low paid occupations.

Personally I think western welfare states are foooked in the long term through demographics and health costs. I think we are going to have to bite the bullet on a free at source health provision to beat this but that's never, ever gonna happen. Though i remeber when dental and perscriptions were universal.

The solutions offered by the left and Old Labour (ie the new new Labour) wont solve this either IMO..."eventually ypou run out of someone elses momey"...or print some.

[Loz]

An interesting table that basically shows that effective tax rates have shrunk across the board since 1990. That's just not sustainable.

Some interesting trends in this table, as well. Some almost counter-intuitive!

(In case you are wondering, it was calculated by taking the amount a household pays in tax, direct and indirect, and then subtracted the amount it benefits from state benefits and tax credits, as well as 'benefits in kind' such as state education and the NHS. These are, of course, averages and will vary a lot depending on factors like if you have kids.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2012/10/09/article-2215070-156C3723000005DC-830_634x680.jpg

[????]

of course politics is the problem a bit

Tories had to ringfence spending to avoid accusations they were going to decimate the NHS/Education/Oversas aid

Labour daren't touch the basic rate of tax

All the 'easy' cuts have gone - and for the 'average VOTER' without that much effect on their day-to-day experience, so going to get tough now and everyone will see some of the effects.....will be interesting to see if that changes overall views on tax though

[LondonMix]

That's quite interesting. Basically as of 2010 the top two quintiles subsidize the bottom two quintiles and the middle quintile is just about break even. The drops surely can't work without a reduction in expenditure (unless personal earnings were increasing much faster than government expenditure)

[Otta]

I'm interested to know what is spent by local authorities on older people's freedom passes. Not sugesting they should be cut altogether, but I think they should be reviewed. At very least you should activbely have to apply for one, otherwise you get thousands of over 60s who have them and never use them.

[LondonMix]

What's a freedom pass exactly? Is it pre-paid travel on public transport?

[Jeremy]

In-work benefits are means tested. Why not pensions and freedom passes?

[Loz]

Jeremy Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> In-work benefits are means tested. Why not pensions and freedom passes?

In the case of freedom passes, I suspect the administration would completely outstrip any savings.

[Otta]

LondonMix Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> What's a freedom pass exactly? Is it pre-paid

> travel on public transport?

Yes, it's a travel pass that works like an Oyster on buses tubes, trams and trains (after 9:30) in London. Not sure what services you get outside of London.

There are 2 types, the disabled persons pass, which you can have at any age if you have a qualifying disability, and the older person's, which you get aged 60.

I can't imagine they'd go after the disabled one given that they've already been so crticised for hitting the disabled hard. But surely there is some scope for reviewing the older person's one. I mean 60 is no longer old, and the retirement age has gone up over the years so I think it should be in line with that.

[Charles Notice]

Wonder what your view would be when you reach 60+

The bus pass is a life line to all older folks.

The criteria for the pass has changed and you do have to apply to be accepted.

Sure if you had one you would think different.

[Otta]

I do have one (disabled). And I am not saying it would be popular, and also glad you have to apply now. But if savings have to be found from somewhere then I am sure the older generation would rather lose the bus pass than their pension.

Believe me, I'd much rather that there was no need to cut anything, but as a local authority employee directly involved in trying to hack away at a service, I am fed up with seeing all the vulnerable groups hit hardest. Many many over 60s are not vulnerable.

[Earl Aelfheah]

A lot of the universal benefits should go, it just doesn't make sense to take taxes off people, spend money on administering them and then give the same people some of it back. Hugely inefficient and pointless. Pensioners can't be ring fences for ever all though I do see the arguenent for protecting them. Tax credits are clearly crazy and I support what the Tories are trying to do by removing / reducing them. The problem how they're going about it. I personally do think that taxes need to be increased if we are to have decent health and education provision. The fairest way to do that is through a progressive tax, so that means raising I one tax (although I would possibly change some of the bands to ensure it was more progressive/fair).

[Earl Aelfheah]

Sorry for typos, on phone