Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there! Sign in to have your say on this topicNew here? Join for free to post

"How to cut public spending and still win an election"

This thread is sponsored by:
Announcements Posted on
Applying to Uni? Let Universities come to you. Click here to get your perfect place 20-10-2014
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    After seeing the above title of a book in Waterstones today (although admitadely being in a rush I didnt have a chance to properly flick through it) it gave me the idea to ask you guys if you have any opinions on how the government can cut public spending, preferably of worthless or near worthless "things" the government spends our money on, potentially saving the country billions to pump into health, education, decreasing defecit etc etc.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Cut benefits, most of the pikeys don't even bother to vote.

    Foreign aid as well, very few people would actually care if that went.
    • 33 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Ask Maggie to do it.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kka25)
    Ask Maggie to do it.
    hey a second falkland war is looming and the bookies money is on us to win- lets hope mr cameron doesnt think along the same way as Maggie did with the Falklands to win votes.
    • 35 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    Essentially it all boils down to whether the public agree we needs cuts to start with and whether we get the growth at the end, if this occurs you have achieved your goals and the electorate will say, have another go.

    For the most part i agree with cuts in principal however i do not like the way that they have done it as i would have rather seen a slower and much more detailed appraisal of each department rather than "i want 25/40% cuts, go find them".
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    No cuts and the country goes bankrupt. To oppose them is just the realm of dolts and uneducated people.

    I think most reasoned people accept the need for fiscal cuts.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Essentially it all boils down to whether the public agree we needs cuts to start with and whether we get the growth at the end, if this occurs you have achieved your goals and the electorate will say, have another go.

    For the most part i agree with cuts in principal however i do not like the way that they have done it as i would have rather seen a slower and much more detailed appraisal of each department rather than "i want 25/40% cuts, go find them".
    You mean like Labour's so called 'alternative approach' to the deficit?

    On the face of it, taking twice as long to pay down the deficit sounds a lot less painful all round.

    However, put some figures around it and thanks to the wonders of compound interest, you would soon realise it would only amount to around two billion less in cuts.

    So we get to pay even more eye-watering amounts of interest, for twice as many years and instead of the dreaded thousand cuts, we get 999 instead.

    Labour are brilliant in opposition. Like all the left, they have a PhD in what they're against, but no clue at all what they are for, except spending all our money on absolutely sod all.

    We'd have been better off trusting the nation's credit card to a spoilt teenage girl.
    • 35 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You mean like Labour's so called 'alternative approach' to the deficit?

    On the face of it, taking twice as long to pay down the deficit sounds a lot less painful all round.

    However, put some figures around it and thanks to the wonders of compound interest, you would soon realise it would only amount to around two billion less in cuts.

    So we get to pay even more eye-watering amounts of interest, for twice as many years and instead of the dreaded thousand cuts, we get 999 instead.

    Labour are brilliant in opposition. Like all the left, they have a PhD in what they're against, but no clue at all what they are for, except spending all our money on absolutely sod all.

    We'd have been better off trusting the nation's credit card to a spoilt teenage girl.
    I am certainly opposed to Labour's proposal.

    What i meant was under my proposal rather than a universal 25/40% cut in each department their would have been a much more detailed appraisal with varying degrees of cuts (no department would be exempt). This would have started a little later (a more detailed appraisal takes longer) with a freeze in the meantime but would have been deeper overall probably as some departments (International development) would have seen much bigger cuts. My proposal would also see no tax rises other than the 2.5% raise in VAT as taxation serves to limit consumption.
    • 8 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    I am certainly opposed to Labour's proposal.

    What i meant was under my proposal rather than a universal 25/40% cut in each department their would have been a much more detailed appraisal with varying degrees of cuts (no department would be exempt). This would have started a little later (a more detailed appraisal takes longer) with a freeze in the meantime but would have been deeper overall probably as some departments (International development) would have seen much bigger cuts. My proposal would also see no tax rises other than the 2.5% raise in VAT as taxation serves to limit consumption.
    Essentially that's what they did. By "cut", most people assume that massive amounts were slashed from all existing budgets.

    But in most cases, all that happened was that the planned spending and budget increases that usually happen every year were cancelled, leaving the departments with the same budget as they had had previously.

    Of course, these departments had already planned where they were going to spend their money, and some of it had already been spent in anticipation of receiving it, so they had to cut existing jobs and services to take that into account.
    • 8 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    They needed a book to answer that question?

    Here's my political answer: "Lie like hell, they're stuck with you for five years."
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    We could always take a third approach just keep borrowing and investing and then refuse to pay back any of the debts.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    We could always take a third approach just keep borrowing and investing and then refuse to pay back any of the debts.
    That's amazing. How come no one has thought about doing it before?
    • 32 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Genocidal)
    They needed a book to answer that question?

    Here's my political answer: "Lie like hell, they're stuck with you for five years."
    But then you won't be in power again for another 20 odd years
    • 32 followers
    Online

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    That's amazing. How come no one has thought about doing it before?
    Oh wait, Labour already has.

    • 56 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    People who oppose government cuts tend to be extremely selfish.

    Short term loss, long term gain. What's so difficult for people to understand that? I suppose they want regular top ups to their bank accounts from the government.
    • 2 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bax-man)
    That's amazing. How come no one has thought about doing it before?
    Look at football clubs they go into administration and don't have to pay back most of the debt. Then look at Greece half of their debt already got written off. Then there is Iceland who got away without paying any of theirs.
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    The best way to cut public spending is to do it immediately, when there is the longest possible time before the next election; that way the benefits of such cuts (economic growth, reduced deficit, etc) will be apparent at that election.
    • 4 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by internetguru)
    Look at football clubs they go into administration and don't have to pay back most of the debt. Then look at Greece half of their debt already got written off. Then there is Iceland who got away without paying any of theirs.
    If there exists a declared policy of not repaying debts, how many private lenders do you suppose will purchase government bonds? Now we could suppose that the government might keep the policy "secret" so they could - for a time - continue to sell debt. How long do you imagine that this could happen for?

    Greece and Iceland are wonderful examples of how not paying off debt causes problems - Greece faced soaring interest rates on bonds precisely because it was seen that they were increasingly risky investments (that is, the chance of repayment was relatively low).
    • 10 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    Improve headline figures - waiting times etc - whilst reducing quality of public services. Get more police and nurses whilst sacking administrators and back-office staff. Have lots of free stuff introduced: the electorate prefer free services to quality ones.
    • 7 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by marcusfox)
    You mean like Labour's so called 'alternative approach' to the deficit?

    On the face of it, taking twice as long to pay down the deficit sounds a lot less painful all round.

    However, put some figures around it and thanks to the wonders of compound interest, you would soon realise it would only amount to around two billion less in cuts.

    So we get to pay even more eye-watering amounts of interest, for twice as many years and instead of the dreaded thousand cuts, we get 999 instead.

    Labour are brilliant in opposition. Like all the left, they have a PhD in what they're against, but no clue at all what they are for, except spending all our money on absolutely sod all.

    We'd have been better off trusting the nation's credit card to a spoilt teenage girl.

    Whats your source for all of this claims?

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: April 2, 2012
New on TSR

Submitting your UCAS application

How long did it take for yours to be processed?

Article updates
Useful resources
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.