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

David Cameron's mum joins fight against Tory cuts Watch

    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    I was making a facetious remark to be controversial, everyone else recognized it.
    *raises hand*

    I didn't.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by scrotgrot)
    Wait wait wait, I thought it was only communism that impoverished the people and with capitalism it was money baths every night
    Communism drags everyone down to the same level apart from a very elite bunch. Capitalism ain't perfect but it's far better than the alternatives. The 20th Century has proven that.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Tempest II)
    Communism drags everyone down to the same level apart from a very elite bunch. Capitalism ain't perfect but it's far better than the alternatives. The 20th Century has proven that.
    On some things people need "communism" because everyone has the same basic needs. Housing, healthcare, transport, etc. Have a market on top of that if you must, if the basics are assured then the price mechanism will actually work and you might actually see innovation rather than rentiership.

    The 21st century has proven that capitalism doesn't work if one party is coerced into the transaction as they are if they require housing, healthcare, transport etc.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ChaoticButterfly)
    *raises hand*

    I didn't.
    You can never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
    • Community Assistant
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by pol pot noodles)
    Only if all funding is spent on front line services, which we all know it isn't.
    We do?
    I'd love to know where you think all these tens of millions are being wasted, that we can massively cut council budgets while at the same time not cutting front line services.
    Last year Manchester Council was forced to cut £59 million from its budget including £30 million from adult social care. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-31763827

    Do you simply think that the council could have found all cuts elsewhere without impacting local services? Have you ever worked in local government?
    How can they possibly cut tens of millions without cutting front line services? It simply is not possible and he is being told that from his own party and supporters as well as his opponents.

    Yes, Osbourne told them to prepare for the worst. Not the worst bit of advice in the world.
    Another tory council was opposing such cuts.
    But you still maintain that you can make 60% cuts to a council's budget without affecting front-line services? You think 60% of all the current budget is spent on waste?

    It's a 37% cut in their government grant. Council's have numerous other ways of raising revenue- council tax, parking fines etc. I can't find out what Oxford county council's total expenditure is because their website is currently offline, but it likely amounts to a cut of around 10-15% to their budget. Which is no where near half.
    For a start council tax is limited. And aren't the tories always telling us that raising taxes doesn't increase revenue past a point?
    And how much do you think parking tickets raises? Hardly enough to make up for such huge cuts.

    The size, scale and necessity of front-line cuts upon expenditure reduction is entirely up for debate. As an extreme, are you saying a council could literally just cut all spending entirely after a 1% cut and David Cameron couldn't criticise the move, because 'austerity'?
    If you want to cut services that's fine, but then don't be a hypocrite about it. Don't cut a council's budget by tens of millions and then complain about them making cuts.
    Your above analogy is flawed because that isn't what has happened at all. The council has faced cuts of 37%, others have faced more and they are making cuts to that extent.
    Cameron can't cut council budgets hugely and complain about council cuts.

    Who knows more about efficiently implementing an austerity drive?
    The tory councillors who work in the council area every day and have full access to the finances and information regarding services would clearly no more.
    Why didn't Cameron point out how they could avoid cutting front line services?



    A council disagrees with a cut to it's budget? Never.
    That's what this is. Them being Tory councillors doesn't change what this boils down to.
    You've moved the goalposts. It's not about a council disagreeing with it's budget cuts. It's about the hypocrisy of slashing their budgets then complaining about the council making cuts to front line services. They can't magic money up, even with parking tickets.


    As above, nope. He's complaining about a specific set of cuts which he believes is unnecessary. Hypocrisy would be Cameron saying 'I want all councils to cut front-line services, except my council.' It's entirely clear the government expects front-line services to be protected by councils.
    Which is hypocritical. You can't make huge cuts to front-line services and then complain about front-line services being cut. It's the very definition of hypocrisy.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    17
    (Original post by sw651)
    You can never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
    The irony in this :rofl:
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    So, we've seen David Cameron, his mother and his aunt all complaining about cuts to local services.

    Either David Cameron is astoundingly ignorant of the impact of his government's ideologically-motivated spending cuts, or he wants special treatment.

    The fact that this buffoon is Prime Minister and that his party is in government is still baffling.
    Online

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by sw651)
    You can never underestimate the predictability of stupidity
    Which is why I assumed and still think you were being deadly serious when referring to the current labour leadership as being communist.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    We do?
    I'd love to know where you think all these tens of millions are being wasted, that we can massively cut council budgets while at the same time not cutting front line services.
    Last year Manchester Council was forced to cut £59 million from its budget including £30 million from adult social care. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england...ester-31763827
    How does that contradict what I said? That has nothing to do with how much of a council's budget is spent on front-line services.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Do you simply think that the council could have found all cuts elsewhere without impacting local services? Have you ever worked in local government?
    How can they possibly cut tens of millions without cutting front line services? It simply is not possible and he is being told that from his own party and supporters as well as his opponents.
    Have you? Have you ever faced mind-numbingly unnecessary bureaucracy? Talking about cuts of tens of millions has absolutely no relevance without any context.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    Another tory council was opposing such cuts.
    But you still maintain that you can make 60% cuts to a council's budget without affecting front-line services? You think 60% of all the current budget is spent on waste?
    Are you still struggling to comprehend the difference between a council's government grant and it's overall budget? No council has had to cut it's overall budget by 60%.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    For a start council tax is limited. And aren't the tories always telling us that raising taxes doesn't increase revenue past a point?
    And how much do you think parking tickets raises? Hardly enough to make up for such huge cuts.
    Council tax isn't limited. Nationwide it raises around £24 billion. They're also now allowed to keep all business rates income, rather than just half now.
    My point is government grants do not, as you seem to be continuously insisting when you just make up percentage figures on the fly, represent the entirety of a council's funding.

    (Original post by Bornblue)
    If you want to cut services that's fine, but then don't be a hypocrite about it. Don't cut a council's budget by tens of millions and then complain about them making cuts.
    Your above analogy is flawed because that isn't what has happened at all. The council has faced cuts of 37%, others have faced more and they are making cuts to that extent. Cameron can't cut council budgets hugely and complain about council cuts.

    The tory councillors who work in the council area every day and have full access to the finances and information regarding services would clearly no more.
    Why didn't Cameron point out how they could avoid cutting front line services?

    You've moved the goalposts. It's not about a council disagreeing with it's budget cuts. It's about the hypocrisy of slashing their budgets then complaining about the council making cuts to front line services. They can't magic money up, even with parking tickets.
    The government expects ALL councils to protect front-line services. Whether or not this is actually feasible is besides the point. The government clearly thinks it so. Demanding this, and then complaining when councils fail to do this is not hypocrisy in the slightest, unless you've decided to change the meaning of the word.
    And Cameron did make suggestions, including further back-office cuts and merging emergency services support infrastructure.
    Oxford County Council's core budget for this year is £431 million. A 37% cut to a grant that represents 25% of Council revenue amounts to a total reduction of less than 10%. The council's proposed cuts of £69m over four years represents a 4% cut on it's expected £1.7 billion of spending in that time frame. They're also receiving an additional £150 million from increased business rates retention over the next four years, which conveniently nobody has mentioned. The Council's total 'spending power' is actually forecast to INCREASE by 1.7% a year. So no, not 37% cuts, not cuts of a half, not harsh cuts or severe cuts or in any way shape or form the sort of numbers that on the face of it you'd think would have to result in wholesale cuts to front-line services.

    But who care's about any of that, because 'cuts'.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by viddy9)
    So, we've seen David Cameron, his mother and his aunt all complaining about cuts to local services.

    Either David Cameron is astoundingly ignorant of the impact of his government's ideologically-motivated spending cuts, or he wants special treatment.

    The fact that this buffoon is Prime Minister and that his party is in government is still baffling.
    The government expects all councils to protect front-line services in spite of cuts to their central grants. As his constituency falls within this council's remit, it's entirely reasonable for him to make a complaint. It's not hypocrisy or wanting special treatment, it's him fulfilling his duty as an MP to what he sees as a failure on the council's part.
    Criticising a political policy as 'ideological' makes absolutely no sense, and frankly reeks of self-righteousness; you might as well just say 'My political views are inherently universally correct so don't count as opinion'. All political views are grounded in someone's ideology.
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Bornblue)
    We do?
    I'd love to know where you think all these tens of millions are being wasted,
    MPs and civil servants are fully aware that importance as a councillor/local government office depends on your authority's budget and headcount.

    Most local authority services are below optimum size because of the need for local accountability.

    A key test of any authority's commitment to cutting waste is its willingness to share services and Oxfordshire is well behind the curve on this.

    County Councils have relatively limited town and country planning functions eg minerals and waste disposal. It makes sense to share those functions with a district council which has much greater responsibility for planning. Oxfordshire keeps that function in house which means it keeps a team of under-employed planners.

    Accounting, internal audit and payroll functions are not shared. These functions are almost always too small in local government ie the minimum number of managers to create a viable department could manage a greater number of staff than the organisation needs. If you share services the proportion of managers to doers falls.

    Likewise many authorities are sharing legal services and trading standards for similar reasons but also because the minimum headcount for any specialist role is one yet they may not be enough work for one.






    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by kkboyk)
    This sounds like some Star Wars plot
    Lol good one.


    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Well we can all agree that David Cameron's mum doesn't rate him.
 
 
 
  • 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
    Should Spain allow Catalonia to declare independence?
    Useful resources
  • 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

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