Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Tory cuts: How deep are they? Watch

  • View Poll Results: Tory cuts - how deep are they?
    The state is being cut by 50% or more
    8
    13.33%
    25% - 49% cut
    3
    5.00%
    5% - 24% cut
    21
    35.00%
    4% or less is being cut
    11
    18.33%
    The size of the state is staying the same
    4
    6.67%
    The size of the state is actually increasing
    13
    21.67%
    Don't know
    0
    0%

    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    tulley11 you need to look at where tory councils in the south get most of their money from and you'll see that most get the majority of it from local council tax payers whereas Labour run councils in London and the north get most from the government.

    And as you mentioned Hackey there was a very good report by the BBC a few months ago that compared the funding between Hackey and Devon and even after all the cuts Hackey council will still get more than three times the funding per head from the government than Devon Council despite having a bigger cut.

    The point I'm making is that Labour councils tend to get more funding per head from the government than tory run councils and in the vast majority of cases after all the cuts they will still receive more per head.

    What I want to know is why Labour run councils are closing this and that whilst having 10s of millions in their reserves such as Manchester and Lambeth. Can you explain that?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by leetay)
    The point I'm making is that Labour councils tend to get more funding per head from the government than tory run councils and in the vast majority of cases after all the cuts they will still receive more per head.

    What I want to know is why Labour run councils are closing this and that whilst having 10s of millions in their reserves such as Manchester and Lambeth. Can you explain that?
    Thats because in general they need it.
    In general Labour areas tend to rely more on public services due to the demographics of the areas.

    And as I said, it isn't just Labour run councils who are "closing this and that".
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paddy__power)
    I already made that joke above
    woops
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Thats because in general they need it.
    In general Labour areas tend to rely more on public services due to the demographics of the areas.

    And as I said, it isn't just Labour run councils who are "closing this and that".
    Well as I said they should be using thier reserves and I'd say the same about tory councils.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kerily)
    It'd be very interesting to see the geographic breakdown of people who think that the cuts are/aren't large. (I realise that some poorer areas in the south will feel them too, but generally, it's more the North, especially the North-East).

    Myself and my parents all have jobs in the public sector (teaching, working at a local uni and working for the council) and the scale of the cuts we've seen planned so far is horrible. Everyone's worried about their job, even people who run whole departments or whole schools and thus would expect some job security because of the contribution they make to society and the position they've reached. Things which took a long time to achieve, and serve a useful but niche interest (for example, an LGBT support group which is the only one of its kind in my county) are worried about their existence, because while they fulfill a useful and needed service on paper, in practice they don't actually make any money because of the nature of what they do. We're still waiting for the worst to be announced, but it's galling to have to worry this much about jobs and funding while our (Tory-led) council awards themselves payrises.
    Part of my worry here is that, when you devolve the cuts agenda down to the specifics, everything can be justified, on whatever grounds it was initially implemented. That's all fine and dandy, but it does lead to the state continuously getting bigger, and never getting smaller. That's not really an option right now. Every cut is going to affect someone - whoever the recipient of that function of the state is - but not cutting affects everyone, because not only are people's tax's higher leaving them less well off, but also it stifles growth and means that by the end of this parliament, even with the Tory's current cutting plans, we'll be spending more on debt interest payments (just the interest) that the entire education budget. That's not good for anyone, and it certainly isn't good for the needy and the poor.

    When put under a microscope, any bit of government spending can be justified under the auspices that it benefits someone. But we need to cut. That's not really a point of contention for most sensible people. The issue, then, is when and where do we cut. That's up to local councils for things like swimming pools and libraries (and bus routes). I'm sure the LGBT group does stellar work, but it does seem to me obvious that it's a better candidacy for cuts when the alternative is cutting things like bus routes and swimming pools, as opposed to the alternative being cutting nothing.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    hopefully the cuts on Clegg's wrists are deeper!
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Again, its not the amount of cuts. Its where they are falling.
    And tbh, the Tories can't say anything about Labours financial links to the Unions when 50% of tory funding comes from the city.
    At least the Tories have said where the cuts are falling and being honest to the electorate. Whereas Labour isnt telling us where their cuts would have been !

    Fair point about the City, i forgot about that ...
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    The cuts are as deep as the bankers decide.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    These cuts are nothing compared to what we will all see in the future

    they need more powers and to take control of the UK but guess what a middle man called the EU gets in the way
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    The cuts will disproportionality hit the poorer and most vulnerable in society.
    That can be said about any public sector cuts as it is only the poorer in society who use government services regularly. Does that mean we should never cut the size of the state, after it has been over-inflated? Not to my mind. Nor does it mean that we should allow unnecessary dependence on the state to go unchecked.

    The Conservatives and Lib Dems are in government. They disagree with the ideology that the state should provide services where they can be provided by other organisations. It's hardly surprising that they intend to tackle that.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by L i b)
    That can be said about any public sector cuts as it is only the poorer in society who use government services regularly. Does that mean we should never cut the size of the state, after it has been over-inflated? Not to my mind. Nor does it mean that we should allow unnecessary dependence on the state to go unchecked.

    The Conservatives and Lib Dems are in government. They disagree with the ideology that the state should provide services where they can be provided by other organisations. It's hardly surprising that they intend to tackle that.
    Well I am sorry to disappoint you, but its a fact of life that people have to rely on the state. Who are you to say its unnecessary?

    What about the disabled, or those who have kids with learning difficulties, or those women who need support because of rape, or those who rely on public transport, or those who are caring for a relative, etc etc etc. I'd hardly say those have an "unnecessary dependence on the state". I'd say their dependence is very much necessary.

    And there are other things that state support helps that I would say is necessary. For a simple example - Youth centres and similar schemes helps prevent crime and anti-social behavour, and give deprived kids a chance to do something with themselves. Or recycling schemes to help protect the environment (that many people will now ignore because councils are going to charge to use recycling centres).

    Of course, the size of the state and the money spent in the public sector does need to be kept in check. But cutting vital services is not the way to do it.

    edit - Before anyone chimnes in with "charities or the community could provide those services" - its a little hard to when you have no money. Rent still has to be paid, bills still have to be paid. Charities and community schemes generally would not make enough money fundraising to keep going, its why so many rely on government and lottery money.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Well I am sorry to disappoint you, but its a fact of life that people have to rely on the state. Who are you to say its unnecessary?

    What about the disabled, or those who have kids with learning difficulties, or those women who need support because of rape, or those who rely on public transport, or those who are caring for a relative, etc etc etc. I'd hardly say those have an "unnecessary dependence on the state". I'd say their dependence is very much necessary.

    And there are other things that state support helps that I would say is necessary. For a simple example - Youth centres and similar schemes helps prevent crime and anti-social behavour, and give deprived kids a chance to do something with themselves. Or recycling schemes to help protect the environment (that many people will now ignore because councils are going to charge to use recycling centres).

    Of course, the size of the state and the money spent in the public sector does need to be kept in check. But cutting vital services is not the way to do it.

    edit - Before anyone chimnes in with "charities or the community could provide those services" - its a little hard to when you have no money. Rent still has to be paid, bills still have to be paid. Charities and community schemes generally would not make enough money fundraising to keep going, its why so many rely on government and lottery money.
    :rofl: His point just whooshed right past your head, didn't it?
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    :rofl: His point just whooshed right past your head, didn't it?
    Nope. I realise that its the poorer in society that mostly use public services.
    I was pointing out why they are not "unnecessary".
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by WelshBluebird)
    Nope. I realise that its the poorer in society that mostly use public services.
    I was pointing out why they are not "unnecessary".
    Sure, but his point is that if you want to cut basically anything, ever, you're going to hit the poorest, because they're the ones that use it. So saying "these cuts hit the poorest hardest" is like saying that a tax on private jets will hit the rich most - well, duhh.

    Unless you genuinely believe we shouldn't be cutting anything (and you already said that the problem is where they are falling, so I assume you acknowledge the need for some cuts at least), you must also advocate cuts that affect the poorest most.

    (P.S of course they are unnecessary. If something is "necessary" then the country literally cannot function without it. We country can function without the things you just said - indeed, it did for many years - they are, rather, things we want, or would like to have. That said, I strongly suspect that L i b wasn't referring to rape Councillors when he was talking about unnecessary dependence on the state, though perhaps he was - I can think of a number of charities that far outperform their public sector equivalents in what they do, and do it purely from private donations).
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    Sorry for never actually replying to people in my own thread - I'm doing a dissertation in 3 weeks and its probably a bad idea to even begin a debate! But the answer is a 3.5% reduction in the size of the state - a significant amount said 50% plus, I hope they were joking!

    I understand that where the cuts fall is as important as how deep they are, for example I think £81bn can easily be saved over the course of parliament without harming domestic services (withdraw from Afghanistan, end foreign aid and leave the EU) - but still, its good to remind people that a 3.5% reduction isn't the end of the world - it isn't the end of the welfare state as we know it.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CandyFlipper)
    Sorry for never actually replying to people in my own thread - I'm doing a dissertation in 3 weeks and its probably a bad idea to even begin a debate! But the answer is a 3.5% reduction in the size of the state - a significant amount said 50% plus, I hope they were joking!

    I understand that where the cuts fall is as important as how deep they are, for example I think £81bn can easily be saved over the course of parliament without harming domestic services (withdraw from Afghanistan, end foreign aid and leave the EU) - but still, its good to remind people that a 3.5% reduction isn't the end of the world - it isn't the end of the welfare state as we know it.
    When you say 3.5%, are you talking in real cash terms, or like % of GDP?
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Brexit voters: Do you stand by your vote?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • 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.