Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Ring-fencing NHS and schools budgets 'insane', says Audit Commission head watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    Labour has pledged to protect funding for hospitals, schools, police and foreign aid, while the Conservatives have said they will "ring fence" the NHS and foreign aid budgets.

    But Steve Bundred, chief executive of the Audit Office, said given that deep cuts were likely to be needed to cut the £178 billion national deficit, it would be unfair to maintain some budgets at the expense of others.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7050...sion-head.html

    Too bloody right.
    The idea that you can ring fence any budget in these times is absolutely ridiculous. Naturally, I expect this kind of political-ringfencing by Labour, but from the Conservatives? It is absolutely shocking.

    The Head of the Audit Commission is entirely correct. Almost all budgets must suffer, especially Social Security, Health and Education as they are the largest budgets.

    However, we should ensure that budgets such as Universities and Defence are protected as they are vitally important.

    So, do you guys agree with the head of the audit commission?
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    Good. They're both a waste of money.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Too bloody right.
    The idea that you can ring fence any budget in these times is absolutely ridiculous. Naturally, I expect this kind of political-ringfencing by Labour, but from the Conservatives? It is absolutely shocking.

    The Head of the Audit Commission is entirely correct. Almost all budgets must suffer, especially Social Security, Health and Education as they are the largest budgets.

    However, we should ensure that budgets such as Universities and Defence are protected as they are vitally important.

    So, do you guys agree with the head of the audit commission?
    I agree, we should cut the Health and Education budgets especially. People who are well off shouldn't be entitled to free health or free education, they should pay like they would in the private sector. Keep the freebies for people who are genuinely in need not those who just can't be bothered to pay.

    As for Universities and defence, slash those budgets as well.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Labour has pledged to protect funding for hospitals, schools, police and foreign aid, while the Conservatives have said they will "ring fence" the NHS and foreign aid budgets.

    But Steve Bundred, chief executive of the Audit Office, said given that deep cuts were likely to be needed to cut the £178 billion national deficit, it would be unfair to maintain some budgets at the expense of others.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7050...sion-head.html

    Too bloody right.
    The idea that you can ring fence any budget in these times is absolutely ridiculous. Naturally, I expect this kind of political-ringfencing by Labour, but from the Conservatives? It is absolutely shocking.

    The Head of the Audit Commission is entirely correct. Almost all budgets must suffer, especially Social Security, Health and Education as they are the largest budgets.

    However, we should ensure that budgets such as Universities and Defence are protected as they are vitally important.

    So, do you guys agree with the head of the audit commission?
    So, on the one hand you are critical of ring fenced budgets for health and education and on the other hand you are supportive of them for universities and defence. Doesn't seem a very consistent position to me. Also, how do you view maintaining FE budgets as "vitally important" but the NHS budget as something that need not be preserved?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I agree, we should cut the Health and Education budgets especially. People who are well off shouldn't be entitled to free health or free education, they should pay like they would in the private sector. Keep the freebies for people who are genuinely in need not those who just can't be bothered to pay.

    As for Universities and defence, slash those budgets as well.
    Oh great. So the well off get to pay for the NHS and schools but not use them? Why don't you just publically birch anybody who's got a few bob?:rolleyes:
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hm...cuts have to be made somewhere though, its deciding where that is which is the problem. What about those nuclear defence thingies?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I agree, we should cut the Health and Education budgets especially. People who are well off shouldn't be entitled to free health or free education, they should pay like they would in the private sector. Keep the freebies for people who are genuinely in need not those who just can't be bothered to pay.

    As for Universities and defence, slash those budgets as well.
    I'm not one to stray into the politics section often but

    :facepalm2:
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Labour has pledged to protect funding for hospitals, schools, police and foreign aid, while the Conservatives have said they will "ring fence" the NHS and foreign aid budgets.

    But Steve Bundred, chief executive of the Audit Office, said given that deep cuts were likely to be needed to cut the £178 billion national deficit, it would be unfair to maintain some budgets at the expense of others.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/7050...sion-head.html

    Too bloody right.
    The idea that you can ring fence any budget in these times is absolutely ridiculous. Naturally, I expect this kind of political-ringfencing by Labour, but from the Conservatives? It is absolutely shocking.

    The Head of the Audit Commission is entirely correct. Almost all budgets must suffer, especially Social Security, Health and Education as they are the largest budgets.

    However, we should ensure that budgets such as Universities and Defence are protected as they are vitally important.

    So, do you guys agree with the head of the audit commission?
    :curious: So you think ring-fencing budgets "is absolutely ridiculous", but you want the higher education and defence budgets ring-fenced? It's not a very logical argument.

    EDIT: sorry, already covered by Howard
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    So, on the one hand you are critical of ring fenced budgets for health and education and on the other hand you are supportive of them for universities and defence. Doesn't seem a very consistent position to me. Also, how do you view maintaining FE budgets as "vitally important" but the NHS budget as something that need not be preserved?
    You misunderstand me.
    I said ring fencing a budget is foolish.
    I didn't say anything about protecting - In other words, cut everything else first.

    I will explain it more clearly next time.

    Because the NHS budget contains such huge amounts of waste it becomes laughable. By ringfencing the NHS budget you promise not to cut. However, cutting is a good idea if it is in the wasteful areas.

    (Original post by Student2806)
    So you think ring-fencing budgets "is absolutely ridiculous", but you want the higher education and defence budgets ring-fenced? It's not a very logical argument.

    EDIT: sorry, already covered by Howard
    Again as with Howards comment. You misunderstood my comment, I will make sure it is clearer next time.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    Oh great. So the well off get to pay for the NHS and schools but not use them? Why don't you just publically birch anybody who's got a few bob?:rolleyes:
    Look I'd be up for increasing spending, but we're in massive debt because we had to bail the bankers out.

    Maybe the bankers could cough up so that middle England can still get their universal benefits.

    The facts are, we have to cut, you can always say "no its not fair to do this, its not fair to do that", if you have to cut you have to cut. I'm saying we make cuts, pay back the deficit. The cuts mean theres a lot less money on health and education. I say that should be targeted at the people who really need it. Who do you think it should be targeted at - the rich?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    Look I'd be up for increasing spending, but we're in massive debt because we had to bail the bankers out.

    Maybe the bankers could cough up so that middle England can still get their universal benefits.

    The facts are, we have to cut, you can always say "no its not fair to do this, its not fair to do that", if you have to cut you have to cut. I'm saying we make cuts, pay back the deficit. The cuts mean theres a lot less money on health and education. I say that should be targeted at the people who really need it. Who do you think it should be targeted at - the rich?
    I'm all for making cuts too - Brown's 1.5 trillion mismanagement of the nation's economy needs to be tackled - but insisting that the well off pay tax for schools and the NHS and at the same time denying them access is spiteful and divisive. It's just plain nastiness. Nobody should be punished for the "crime" of being middle class.

    You want to save money? Fine - there are a myriad of ways - cut NHS beaurocracy, trim down the half million non-jobs in government created since 1997, put a stop to people in the public sector retiring at 50, stop spending 60 billion a year on quangos etc etc. Denying a small business owner the right to NHS treatment is not the way forward.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The general consensus in the Whitehall village is that removing ringdfences is a good thing - e.g. http://www.publicfinance.co.uk/news/...ays-committee/

    Part of the rationale is that removing ringfences means that local councils and local councillors make decisions at a local level on what is needed in their locality. With that comes the responsibility of dividing the cake in an effective and efficient manner. The problem is, when bad stuff happens in a locality (e.g. Doncaster and Haringey in relation to child protection) the media screams blue murder at Central Government regarding what went wrong rather than focusing on local government. Given the salaries that local government officials and full-time councillors are paid, they should take the credit for when stuff goes right and the flak when things go wrong.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    I'm all for making cuts too - Brown's 1.5 trillion mismanagement of the nation's economy needs to be tackled - but insisting that the well off pay tax for schools and the NHS and at the same time denying them access is spiteful and divisive. It's just plain nastiness. Nobody should be punished for the "crime" of being middle class.

    You want to save money? Fine - there are a myriad of ways - cut NHS beaurocracy, trim down the half million non-jobs in government created since 1997, put a stop to people in the public sector retiring at 50, stop spending 60 billion a year on quangos etc etc. Denying a small business owner the right to NHS treatment is not the way forward.
    I suppose it comes down to the scale of cuts we are talking about, I agree with the suggestions you have made, and also would be saving money on war in Afghanistan, Trident etc.

    Ending the principle of universality is a thorny subject because it ends up being one section of society paying for another section of society, the whole idea when the welfare state was set up was we're all in it, we're all paying in to it, it's there for all of us.

    The reality of how things will go I think is they won't officially end universality, but they will underfund the NHS, schools etc, that those who are a bit better off end up opting out anyway, going private because they think what the state provides is crap.

    Why I mentioned the bankers is because it has been the greed and folly of the super-rich who have created the mess, by gambling badly and needing the taxpayer to find £130bn or so to cover for their losses. Obviously the poor aren't going to be able to foot the bill, so its professionals, teachers, accountants, engineers etc, who are comfortably off but not especially rich, who are going to get slammed with paying it back. When the super rich are still getting their bonuses, it's not on. So I do understand why they get naffed off in a big way.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    I agree, we should cut the Health and Education budgets especially. People who are well off shouldn't be entitled to free health or free education, they should pay like they would in the private sector. Keep the freebies for people who are genuinely in need not those who just can't be bothered to pay.

    As for Universities and defence, slash those budgets as well.
    I think what your asking of education and health is pretty much alredy there.

    In education, 8% of students are in the private sector. I would say no more than 12% of students have parents which could afford indepdent schooling.
    As far as health, it is impossible with the numbers of people who pay into private health for a suitable system of private A&E departments to be set up. At present, many of those who can afford private health have it.

    I personally think foreign aid shouldnt be ringfenced, but health should (to a large extenet, not all), and education spared as much as possible.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jammythedodger)
    I think what your asking of education and health is pretty much alredy there.

    In education, 8% of students are in the private sector. I would say no more than 12% of students have parents which could afford indepdent schooling.
    As far as health, it is impossible with the numbers of people who pay into private health for a suitable system of private A&E departments to be set up. At present, many of those who can afford private health have it.

    I personally think foreign aid shouldnt be ringfenced, but health should (to a large extenet, not all), and education spared as much as possible.
    so what's going to happen given the massive cuts in public expenditure that are coming when the Tories come in.....more and more people are going to be forced to go private, even if they can't afford it, they will have to get into debt or just stop spending on other things
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    so what's going to happen given the massive cuts in public expenditure that are coming when the Tories come in.....more and more people are going to be forced to go private, even if they can't afford it, they will have to get into debt or just stop spending on other things
    Going on the words of both parties, you will get massive cuts either way.
    However, you must remember this is Labours fault - They spent far too much, in excess of over £178bn.

    Whatever happens in regards to spending cuts, in my view, is entirely the fault of the Labour Party for failing to control public expenditure.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Teaddict)
    Going on the words of both parties, you will get massive cuts either way.
    However, you must remember this is Labours fault - They spent far too much, in excess of over £178bn.

    Whatever happens in regards to spending cuts, in my view, is entirely the fault of the Labour Party for failing to control public expenditure.
    We didn't have this massive debt, before the banks went bust and needed the taxpayer to bail them out - a policy which the Conservatives supported.

    The net debt as a proportion of GDP, was about 42% when the Tories left office in 1997. It was down to 30% in 2001, and was just over 35% in 2007. Now I am by no means Labour's biggest fan, I think they have achieved bugger all of substance in their 13 years, but in terms of national debt, they had the debt down lower than it was under the Tories, until the last couple of years.

    In the last couple of years we've seen a major recession and the collapse of the banking sector, which has sent our debt spiralling out of control as a result of the government bailing out the banks. Where Labour went wrong is they didn't regulate the markets, but again the Tories didn't want to regulate the markets either.

    The real reason we are in so much debt is because we had to bail out the banks, it's not because of Labour's increased public sector spending, which I will definitely argue we didn't get value for money for, but that's a different debate. If the Tories had been in power they would have kept a lid on public spending but they would also have allowed an unregulated banking sector to gamble itself into bankruptcy, and then if they had bailed them out you would now have Labour politicians posturing that the Tories couldn't control the public purse etc.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MagicNMedicine)
    We didn't have this massive debt, before the banks went bust and needed the taxpayer to bail them out - a policy which the Conservatives supported.

    The net debt as a proportion of GDP, was about 42% when the Tories left office in 1997. It was down to 30% in 2001, and was just over 35% in 2007. Now I am by no means Labour's biggest fan, I think they have achieved bugger all of substance in their 13 years, but in terms of national debt, they had the debt down lower than it was under the Tories, until the last couple of years.
    National debt and a budget deficit are different -_-
    The deficit of a budget adds to the national debt.
    They are not synonymous.

    With that in mind, do you wish to requote me?
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: January 25, 2010
Poll
Do you like carrot cake?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.