Childrens Trust Fund Axed

[Ponty]

So it was worse under Labour then?

[badgerx16]

So it was worse under Labour then?

And so we come back to the 'how much public money was required to bailout the capitalist bankers and try to deal with a GLOBAL recession ?' line of debate.

[dune]

Between 1997 & 2001 we ran a budget surplus, ( but I am sure that was the residual effect of the Major regime )

 

And have you checked out the annual deficits during Maggie's and Major's reigns ?

 

Ken Clarke's policys set Labour up in the early years.

[badgerx16]

Ken Clarke's policies set Labour up in the early years.

So what happened between 1980-87 & 1991-96 ? Wasn't Ken Clarke around then ?

Or was that all down to Leon Britten, Geoffrey Howe, Norman Lamont, & Nigel Lawson ?

[Winnersaint]

For the last ten years child benefit has paid for our daughter's riding lessons.

[Johnny Bognor]

And so we come back to the 'how much public money was required to bailout the capitalist bankers and try to deal with a GLOBAL recession ?' line of debate.

 

 

Well considering national debt was £500 billion before the credit crunch and it is now £900 billion, less is down to the credit crunch than it is down to G Brown.

 

Does that answer your question?

[Fuengirola Saint]

Well considering national debt was £500 billion before the credit crunch and it is now £900 billion, less is down to the credit crunch than it is down to G Brown.

 

Does that answer your question?

 

Correct me if i´m wrong but didn´t the government have to spend around 800 million pounds bailing out the banks? If so the debt went from 500 to 900 billion even after the government had to spend 800 billion on the bail out,so to me it seems they didn´t do too badly did they?

[Johnny Bognor]

Seeing English and Maths as the backbone of our future economy is very short sighted. What about ICT? Science? Languages? By the way, 'Brain-washing' activities? Yeah, encouraging children to grow up tolerant and rational of other peoples is a terrible thing to do, we're scum!

 

When did I call you scum?

 

OK, ICT, Science and Modern Languages can be added in (I typed my original response in haste). Home Economics, photography and sports science can be kicked into touch.

 

It's all about priorities and educating people properly, rather than brain washing them, will offer them better prospects, which will ultimately lead to better cohesion in society.

 

How would you bring higher education 'into line' JB? Charge those students who want to study what you may consider 'un-worthy' topics more? Offer financial incentives to those who want to study the more traditional subjects?

 

Bingo! You're learning TLS.

 

Any course that can add value to UK PLC gets subsidised otherwise it is penalised. We need to create an economy of engineers, inventors and entrepreneurs, not a nation of unemployed media studies and sports science graduates. Perhaps the corporates can be offered tax breaks if they fund key/core courses.

 

At the end of the day, to make this country great we need people educated in the right areas, otherwise it is education for education's sake (Great in principle, but doesn't get us out of the ****).

Edited 24 May, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Ponty]

Correct me if i´m wrong but didn´t the government have to spend around 800 million pounds bailing out the banks? If so the debt went from 500 to 900 billion even after the government had to spend 800 billion on the bail out,so to me it seems they didn´t do too badly did they?

 

Which?

[Johnny Bognor]

Correct me if i´m wrong but didn´t the government have to spend around 800 million pounds bailing out the banks? If so the debt went from 500 to 900 billion even after the government had to spend 800 billion on the bail out,so to me it seems they didn´t do too badly did they?

 

The total government bailout was £850 billion of which £250 billion was in bank guarantees - money not actually spent, just guaranteed. £87 billion was in acquiring shares, in which the assets are now worth far more than the amount paid for the shares. Large chunks were also loans, which have to be repaid, so the headline figure is much less than you are quoting.

 

Say I guarantee your mortgage for you, although it is a commitment, I only have to pay out if you default. Therefore the spending 'claim' is inaccurate. If those banks who have been lent money do not default, then it won't be spent.

Edited 24 May, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[JustMike]

and so it begins....

 

todays announcement of cuts include the dept of education cut by £670 million, meaning less uni places.

 

I really do wonder who comes up with these ideas. "yes, lets cut education but keep our soldiers fighting a war that no brit wants because we dont want to lose face with the americans"

[Fuengirola Saint]

Which?

 

sorry typo both billions

[Fuengirola Saint]

The total government bailout was £850 billion of which £250 billion was in bank guarantees - money not actually spent, just guaranteed. £87 billion was in acquiring shares, in which the assets are now worth far more than the amount paid for the shares. Large chunks were also loans, which have to be repaid, so the headline figure is much less than you are quoting.

 

Say I guarantee your mortgage for you, although it is a commitment, I only have to pay out if you default. Therefore the spending 'claim' is inaccurate. If those banks who have been lent money do not default, then it won't be spent.

 

So only 250 billion in guarantees then? So 600 billion spent then? That means then 500 billion before the crunch, in debt and 3-400 billion after if you discount all the spending on the banks, so we actually had a lower debt after the credit crunch if as i said you don´t include bail outs. Also are you saying that the last government did well in buying those shares then?

Edited 24 May, 2010 by Fuengirola Saint

[badgerx16]

.... meaning less uni places. ....

TBH, the target of 50% of 18 year-olds going to uni is fatuous and misguided. As long as the system is geared towards ability, and presents a level playing field regardless of social classification, the brightest and best should get all the support they need, in courses that are of 'value'. There should be more technically/practically focussed opportunities for those who fall short of uni standard, or who simply prefer not to go. Back this up with apprenticeships and the majority of late teens should be set up for their working lives.

[Wes Tender]

You really do talk rubbish.

 

The original idea was to give kids from poor backgrounds a start and something to build on. Great idea, poorly executed.

 

Bribary my @rse. I'd suggest you look up what it actually means.

 

 

 

You really do talk rubbish.

 

If the original idea was to give kids from poor backgrounds a start and something to build on, why wasn't it directed towards them instead of being spread around willy-nilly to all and sundry, regardless of income?

 

And I think that if you had looked up bribery yourself, you would have seen how to spell it.

 

I think that Duckhunter is perfectly reasonable in expressing his opinion that it is a form of bribery by Labour. Unfortunately though, it didn't work.

[Wes Tender]

TBH, the target of 50% of 18 year-olds going to uni is fatuous and misguided. As long as the system is geared towards ability, and presents a level playing field regardless of social classification, the brightest and best should get all the support they need, in courses that are of 'value'. There should be more technically/practically focussed opportunities for those who fall short of uni standard, or who simply prefer not to go. Back this up with apprenticeships and the majority of late teens should be set up for their working lives.

 

Very sensible. The number of students leaving University with poor degrees in feeble subjects like Media Studies just means that employers see degrees as being devalued. I sometimes wonder whether it wouldn't be better for some to leave after their A Levels and gain three years of work experience and seniority with a company rather than find that they have a piece of paper saying that they received an education to a certain standard, but are otherwise an unknown quantity in the employment field.

[Jonnyboy]

Indeed, but they are still funded by the private sector. He who pays the piper and all that.....

 

 

 

Nope.

 

I'm not devaluing the public sector, but at the end of the day, the better the private sector, the more we have to spend on public services.

 

Anyone who is 'for' the public sector should also be 'for' the private sector as it is in their interests. However, many on the left don't subscribe to this theory, which in my mind is total lunacy.

 

yeah and a lot of the private sector are only "for" the private sector - against paying tax of any kind so they can live good

[Jonnyboy]

Sometimes, JB, the private sector isn't better, is it.

 

Not when the ONLY driver is profit. Take hospital cleaning as an example - standards deteriorated noticeably when the private sector took over and, in order to boost profits, got rid of a large number of very experienced previously public sector workers.

 

Of course we need a private sector - or at least the revenues it provides in the form of all sorts of taxes, be they income based or purchase based. But a private sector can only work successfully if it has the infrastructure of the public sector in place to support it.

 

eg A midwife at Priness Annes told me the car park is run by a private company for profit, none of which goes back into the NHS, they sting everyone including staff!

[Jonnyboy]

It's all pretty much irrelevent anyway...Wait till the Unions get started after those cuts start to take place.

 

There's not a chance in hell the ConDems will get to push through anything like they're proposing without the Unions pulling the Country the rest of the way down the gutter..

 

Hold tight folks, it's gunna be a rough ride for the next few years....The 'cuts' are going to hurt, but the consequential Union action will be the final nail.....It 'aint gunna be pretty.

 

Hope most of you make it out the other end ok.....As for the Commie's, Socialist's, Marxist's, and "non job" Public Sector leeches......Well, y'all shoulda been a little more careful about what you wished for.

 

Maybe you capitalists shouldnt have wished for bankers that do what they like, dont blame the left for your greed.

[Jonnyboy]

Ken Clarke's policys set Labour up in the early years.

 

bullsheet, a new government can do what it likes in terms of borrowing/spending

[Johnny Bognor]

yeah and a lot of the private sector are only "for" the private sector - against paying tax of any kind so they can live good

 

Most normal rational people do not have a problem with paying tax. However, most normal rational people do not want to see their taxes wasted and want to see that the money is well spent.

 

bullsheet, a new government can do what it likes in terms of borrowing/spending

 

Since Brown adopted Ken Clarke's spending plans for the first two years of his reign as chancellor, he can take some of the credit. As you say, any new government can do what it wants and the new Labour government copied Ken.

[Johnny Bognor]

So only 250 billion in guarantees then?

 

So 600 billion spent then?

 

No, your analogy is too simplistic. With £200bn of quantative easing (that's printing new money to you and me) which was provided in liquidity support, there is another £200bn that didn't really get spent....it was created out of thin air and given to the banks.

 

That means then 500 billion before the crunch, in debt and 3-400 billion after if you discount all the spending on the banks, so we actually had a lower debt after the credit crunch if as i said you don´t include bail outs.

 

No, it doesn't work like that, because the actual spending figure was quite small.

 

The actual figures are as follows:

 

£76bn To purchase shares in RBS and Lloyds Banking Group (Money spent)

£200bn Indemnify Bank of England against losses incurred in providing over £200bn of liquidity support (money 'created' out of thin air)

£250bn Guarantee wholesale borrowing by banks to strengthen liquidity in the banking system (Just a guarantee)

£40bn Provide loans and other funding to Bradford & Bingley and the Financial Services Scheme (Loans will be paid back)

£280bn Agree in principle to provide insurance for selection of bank assets (An agreement in principle, not even a guarantee).

 

How much of this was actually spent and added to National debt?

 

About £76bn, of which the asset value is far greater. You could argue that the net effect of the bail out was that no money was spent at all.

 

A simple analogy would be like me saying that I'll agree in principle to lend you £500,000 next year and then complaining that I've spent £500k on Fuengirola and he hasn't even said thank you.... ungrateful bastard.

 

 

Also are you saying that the last government did well in buying those shares then?

 

They had no choice. The tories "opposed" it, but in power they would have had no choice.

 

At the end of the day, trying to reverse engineer money that wasn't spent off of the National debt does not disguise or hide the fact that we were up to our necks to the tune of £500bn before the credit crunch. We are now approaching £1000bn (some of this down to Labour, some the bailout and some the recession), so new Labour ARE just as culpable as the bankers for the mess we are in. IMO it was both Labour and the Bankers fault...tossers the lot of em. To believe it was just the bankers is either naive or idiotic.

Edited 25 May, 2010 by Johnny Bognor

[Wes Tender]

eg A midwife at Priness Annes told me the car park is run by a private company for profit, none of which goes back into the NHS, they sting everyone including staff!

 

And furthermore, a midwife at Princess Anne's confirmed to me that they have to pay to park there, which in my opinion is a scandal.

[Wes Tender]

Sometimes, JB, the private sector isn't better, is it.

 

Not when the ONLY driver is profit. Take hospital cleaning as an example - standards deteriorated noticeably when the private sector took over and, in order to boost profits, got rid of a large number of very experienced previously public sector workers.

 

 

The principles of the private sector are sound, that competitive tendering reduces costs and increases competition. But the principle needs to be taken to its natural conclusion; that if a company employed to provide a service does not come up to scratch, then the contract with them should be terminated and put out to tender again.

 

In the case of hospital cleaning, it probably falls down because the bureaucracy is too far removed from the actual wards. We miss having Matrons, who knew what was going on and would have ensured that the wards were properly cleaned.

 

If savings need to be made in the Health Service then IMO you could remove the Area Health Authorities that I believe were introduced by Heath and plough the savings made into employing more doctors and nurses and reinstating Matrons, instead of pen-pushers and paperclip shufflers.

[Fuengirola Saint]

The principles of the private sector are sound, that competitive tendering reduces costs and increases competition. But the principle needs to be taken to its natural conclusion; that if a company employed to provide a service does not come up to scratch, then the contract with them should be terminated and put out to tender again.

 

In the case of hospital cleaning, it probably falls down because the bureaucracy is too far removed from the actual wards. We miss having Matrons, who knew what was going on and would have ensured that the wards were properly cleaned.

 

If savings need to be made in the Health Service then IMO you could remove the Area Health Authorities that I believe were introduced by Heath and plough the savings made into employing more doctors and nurses and reinstating Matrons, instead of pen-pushers and paperclip shufflers.

 

Paperclip shuffler must be a really easy job because we now have more of them{paperclip shufflers} but use less paperclips because of computers,where do i apply and how much annual holiday? :-)

[Wes Tender]

Paperclip shuffler must be a really easy job because we now have more of them{paperclip shufflers} but use less paperclips because of computers,where do i apply and how much annual holiday? :-)

 

It is indeed a reasonable assumption to make that because we have computers everywhere, there will be less need of paper and therefore paperclips. But this would be a mistaken assumption as paradoxically, there is more paper than ever before, probably because some of us dinosaurs then go and print out the emails and other stuff.

 

But I would advise against applying for a job as a bureaucrat at the moment, as some of the species are due to be culled.

[bridge too far]

The principles of the private sector are sound, that competitive tendering reduces costs and increases competition. But the principle needs to be taken to its natural conclusion; that if a company employed to provide a service does not come up to scratch, then the contract with them should be terminated and put out to tender again.

 

In the case of hospital cleaning, it probably falls down because the bureaucracy is too far removed from the actual wards. We miss having Matrons, who knew what was going on and would have ensured that the wards were properly cleaned.

 

If savings need to be made in the Health Service then IMO you could remove the Area Health Authorities that I believe were introduced by Heath and plough the savings made into employing more doctors and nurses and reinstating Matrons, instead of pen-pushers and paperclip shufflers.

 

It's not quite that straightforward Wes. And I speak from experience here as in a former life I used to let contracts like this.

 

If a contract with a private company is in place, the contract needs monitoring. Most NHS Trusts I've worked with don't have the resources to devote to this. A lot of the contracts let these days are 'self-monitoring' but then that still requires an NHS resource to check what the contractor says is true. And then people like me (I subsequently became an auditor reviewing contracts and performance) to check up on the whole process.

 

It sounds laborious but it's a good example of how using a private sector provider can actually be expensive in terms of resources.

 

We do have Matrons in place in the NHS now and have done for some time. But I do agree with you about removing AHAs.

[Wes Tender]

It's not quite that straightforward Wes. And I speak from experience here as in a former life I used to let contracts like this.

 

If a contract with a private company is in place, the contract needs monitoring. Most NHS Trusts I've worked with don't have the resources to devote to this. A lot of the contracts let these days are 'self-monitoring' but then that still requires an NHS resource to check what the contractor says is true. And then people like me (I subsequently became an auditor reviewing contracts and performance) to check up on the whole process.

 

It sounds laborious but it's a good example of how using a private sector provider can actually be expensive in terms of resources.

 

We do have Matrons in place in the NHS now and have done for some time. But I do agree with you about removing AHAs.

 

Fair enough to make a case that the private cleaning companies services have to be monitored.

 

But are you saying that the public sector cleaning service did not? Of course it did and surely that requires the same sort of resources to monitor. But I suspect that the ward staff, the nurses, sisters, matrons, etc, are perfectly capable of assessing whether the cleaners are doing a decent job, in much the same way as an office worker can see whether the office has been cleaned properly. IMO, the contracted cleaning company ought to make a periodic examination of their employees' work to ensure that it is up to standard, as otherwise they might lose the contract if standards fall.

[bridge too far]

There is a difference Wes. Most of these contracts with the private sector are performance related. For example, if a patient throws up on a ward, the mess has to be cleaned within x minutes. There are also penalties for, as an example, non-availability of an operating theatre due to it being unclean. Penalties have to be added up by someone and ultimately this tots up to payment deductions.

 

The cleaning operatives are invariably centrally located within the hospital. When the cleaning services were in-house, usually each ward / department had its own cleaner available at all times (during the day at least).

 

Obviously it's cheaper to have fewer cleaners centrally located but add in the cost of monitoring and operating the penalty system and then arguing about the deductions, and I bet you anything you like it works out more expensive overall for a poorer service.

 

I remember chatting with a cleaner one day who said that she was (relatively) happy to work for a pittance for the NHS and its patients but she was 'b*ggered' if she was going to work for the same pittance, delivering a poorer service in order to line a few pocket

[dune]

At the end of the day, trying to reverse engineer money that wasn't spent off of the National debt does not disguise or hide the fact that we were up to our necks to the tune of £500bn before the credit crunch. We are now approaching £1000bn (some of this down to Labour, some the bailout and some the recession), so new Labour ARE just as culpable as the bankers for the mess we are in. IMO it was both Labour and the Bankers fault...tossers the lot of em. To believe it was just the bankers is either naive or idiotic.

 

This is precisely the point I keep trying to make. The raving left wingers will have a collective fit of the vapours when cuts are made to public services, but it's the Labour party that have put the country in this position.

[bridge too far]

There's one thing I'm finding hard to understand. I really am - and I'd be grateful if someone could help me out here.

 

I've been watching the Queen's Speech and the ensuing debate. DC said that he was going to use the money from scrapping the rise in NI to fund cancer drugs.

 

Since the money from raising NI won't actually be raised now, since the measure is to be scrapped, how can he spend it on something else? Or is he adding to the deficit?

[Lord Duckhunter]

And furthermore, a midwife at Princess Anne's confirmed to me that they have to pay to park there, which in my opinion is a scandal.

My wife is a midwife and she has to pay for her parking, she pays an amount weekly which they deduct from her wages.

[bridge too far]

My wife is a midwife and she has to pay for her parking, she pays an amount weekly which they deduct from her wages.

 

This is tough on staff. But, just for a minute, think of this.

 

Generally, staff levels exceed available spaces for both the public and the staff. Also, hospitals cannot increase parking spaces willy-nilly. They are very much constrained by local authorities as to the number of parking spaces they provide.

 

Of course they must try to cater for the public but equally of course they must be able to have the staff in place to look after the public.

 

I don't know where your wife works, but I do know that at SUHT there is a park and ride system for staff (there is here in Oxford too). Some NHS Trusts also 'pay' (only pence) staff to cycle to work. Charging staff for parking goes a little way towards encouraging them to think of alternatives and ease the pressure on the limited spaces.

 

Where it falls down is when staff have to travel between sites (although again here in Oxford there is a hospital shuttle service).

 

What hacks me off is that consultants on £100K a year pay the same rate as junior / student nurses (here at least)

[Lord Duckhunter]

This is tough on staff. But, just for a minute, think of this.

 

Generally, staff levels exceed available spaces for both the public and the staff. Also, hospitals cannot increase parking spaces willy-nilly. They are very much constrained by local authorities as to the number of parking spaces they provide.

 

 

It is a staff car park for maternity staff only (as the Maternity is away from the main hospital), she pays for a barrier card to get in.

[bridge too far]

It is a staff car park for maternity staff only (as the Maternity is away from the main hospital), she pays for a barrier card to get in.

 

Oh OK - well, obviously I don't know her particular arrangements, but I would hazard a guess that there's been a decision to treat all staff the same :smt102

[Lord Duckhunter]

To be fair, she doesn't think it's a big deal.

[dune]

There's one thing I'm finding hard to understand. I really am - and I'd be grateful if someone could help me out here.

 

I've been watching the Queen's Speech and the ensuing debate. DC said that he was going to use the money from scrapping the rise in NI to fund cancer drugs.

 

Since the money from raising NI won't actually be raised now, since the measure is to be scrapped, how can he spend it on something else? Or is he adding to the deficit?

 

I had to laugh at the woman Labour MP making some boring drawn out point that nobody was interested in hearing. I don't mean this to be sexist but every female Labour MP i've ever seen has come accross as being thick. It makes me think that the only reason half of them are there is to make up the numbers, certainly not on merit.

[bridge too far]

I had to laugh at the woman Labour MP making some boring drawn out point that nobody was interested in hearing. I don't mean this to be sexist but every female Labour MP i've ever seen has come accross as being thick. It makes me think that the only reason half of them are there is to make up the numbers, certainly not on merit.

 

You can't answer my question then?

 

I thought Harriet Harman did extremely well (as an MP, and not just because she's Labour) - but I have to admit that CleggOn performed well too.

 

It's amusing how often you find some people 'thick' and how you generalise.

[Thedelldays]

just adds fuel to the system that we have...leave school and get free money..

 

Brilliant

 

 

I am happy this has gone..I got fuk all like this when growing up, lived in real poor surroundings and had hand me down clothes until I was about 16...

 

I now have a good job own 2 properties and serve my country

 

 

fuk the free handouts at 18

 

I would sooner this £250 went to a pensionor who cant afford to put on their electric blanket...yes, some of these pensionors fought for our very freedom that we abuse

[dune]

You can't answer my question then?

 

I thought Harriet Harman did extremely well (as an MP, and not just because she's Labour) - but I have to admit that CleggOn performed well too.

 

It's amusing how often you find some people 'thick' and how you generalise.

 

I ignored your question because the answer is so obvious and I didn't want to call you thick for asking such a dopey question. You'd make a great Labour MP.

[Thedelldays]

while we are at it..the free laptops to single parents should go too...

[bridge too far]

while we are at it..the free laptops to single parents should go too...

 

What about double parents?

 

They are scrapping the measure to ensure that all children have laptops.

[Thedelldays]

What about double parents?

 

They are scrapping the measure to ensure that all children have laptops.

 

yes, free laptops to anyone is beyond being a "safety net"...

 

no need what so ever

[bridge too far]

I ignored your question because the answer is so obvious and I didn't want to call you thick for asking such a dopey question. You'd make a great Labour MP.

 

Pathetic, ignorant response. Explain it to me then? How can you spend money you aren't going to raise?

 

You can't, can you?

[bridge too far]

yes, free laptops to anyone is beyond being a "safety net"...

 

no need what so ever

 

Why use the term 'single' then? They're scrapped - you're happy, right?

[Lord Duckhunter]

You can't answer my question then?

 

I thought Harriet Harman did extremely well (as an MP, and not just because she's Labour) - but I have to admit that CleggOn performed well too.

 

It's amusing how often you find some people 'thick' and how you generalise.

I thought Harriet did well too, I get the feeling there is a lot of respect for her from all sides of the house. I used to enjoy her ding dongs with William Hague and she went from being outclassed to holding her own against Hague in a very short time.

 

I thought Cameron had some great lines at her expense, asking why she wasn't standing against 2 Brothers and a "man who wont let his wife stand", and then saying her Hubby was the first male candidate to win from a all womens short list.

 

I think the Brothers should take a deep breath and go for HH.

[Johnny Bognor]

Pathetic, ignorant response. Explain it to me then? How can you spend money you aren't going to raise?

 

You can't, can you?

 

It can be done.

 

Gordon managed to pump a cool £200,000,000,000 into the banks without raising it. He needed some dosh, so cranked up the printing presses. I guess there was a low yield on the socialist magic money tree.

[bridge too far]

It can be done.

 

Gordon managed to pump a cool £200,000,000,000 into the banks without raising it. He needed some dosh, so cranked up the printing presses.

 

With all due respect that doesn't answer the original question

 

It seems no-one can answer it!

 

I'm just watching the Michael Moore film about capitalism - interesting

[Thorpe-le-Saint]

I would sooner this £250 went to a pensionor who cant afford to put on their electric blanket...yes, some of these pensionors fought for our very freedom that we abuse

 

Wasn't that the job of the Winter Fuel Allowance?

 

By the way Tory fans, I'm struggling to see the point of all this talk of giving 'outstanding' schools academy status? If they're 'outstanding', how can they possibly get better? The whole idea behind the academy schools was that they were there to drag the worst schools out of their special meaures. Regardless, I think we can all see where this is going: Privitisation of the education system through the back door, you can better your last quid that there are multiple multi-national companies who want a slice of the 'education pie'.

[Johnny Bognor]

With all due respect that doesn't answer the original question

 

It seems no-one can answer it!

 

If I was you, I would try to drag the conversation off topic on to hospital car park charges or ward cleaning contracts, hoping that no-one would notice

 

But I'm not you. I am also not Dave, so I can't help I'm afraid.