I didn't see any explanation yesterday of why the deficit is still forecast to fall this year despite being up for the first 7 months.
I know about debt interest being forecast to be much lower in future years but I wouldn't have thought that would be the explanation for the turnaround in the next 5 months.
Does anyone know? I think this could be quite a big political risk for the Government if the deficit does actually rise (I don't think missing the target matters much; but an actual rise vs last year would look very bad).
Forecast at Budget based on 10 months actual will be just before the start of the campaign. If up after 10 months then hard to forecast a fall!
Lower interest rates on gilts than what was budgeted was mentioned. But presumably, the government enjoyed those lower interests in the first 7 months as well. The deficit, for the 7 months, were higher than the same period last year as you have mentioned.
TFS And defence, justice, transport, the arts, welfare etc. They have coped so far but it has been difficult, time to end ringfencing
We've coped because the real cuts don't start until next year. More cuts on top of that, and it is game over.
I don't think so, Mr. Stopper. I would bet that you could identify big savings in your department without affecting the front-line service provision (hint: look at your brigade HQ to start with). The same goes for every sector of local and central government - just striping out all the HR and admin functions that did not exist prior to 2001 would save a fortune.
Colossal cuts are disturbing. I'm not sure what else local authorities can do, once next year's cuts are implemented.
If you can't look at the work of your local council and see the scope for doing away with pointless jobs/projects, then you aren't looking hard enough.
What is necessary is for local government to focus on core services and stop indulging in pork barrel spending by councillors with pet projects.
There is massive bloat in too many areas of the public sector. It does need radical reform and a focus on what is necessary for serving the needs of the local communities - rather than the whims of those in power.
Looking more widely, this sort of approach is necessary across all public bodies. I have seen some of the grants made by the Arts Council - and it is shocking what they fund. Writers have been given £10k and £15k to 'help them finish their novels'. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the state to fund the creation of a work of fiction. None. And that is just scratching the surface.
There has been too much growth in the public sector - and it needs to be reduced - across the board.
I don't give a monkey's about the Arts Council. I do care about holding the hand of a woman, medically trapped in a car, while we wait 38 minutes for an Ambulance. I do care that the new police station in my nearest town has been built with no cells, so that every time someone gets nicked, two coppers have to travel to Leicester, taking them off beat. I really, really do care that, in a few years time, fire engines will be in short supply in my county, insufficiently crewed, without the resilliance to cope with more than one small incident at a time.
I realise that the public sector is something most on here despise, but you're in danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
"I realise that the public sector is something most on here despise"
I doubt many on here despise the public sector. There are arguments over what areas government should get involved in, how to stop wasting money e.g. in the NHS, and what services it is practical to provide in a sustainable way.
But most would still respect those who do a good job in the public sector, and particularly those in the front line of police, ambulance, and fire services.
TFS And defence, justice, transport, the arts, welfare etc. They have coped so far but it has been difficult, time to end ringfencing
We've coped because the real cuts don't start until next year. More cuts on top of that, and it is game over.
I don't think so, Mr. Stopper. I would bet that you could identify big savings in your department without affecting the front-line service provision (hint: look at your brigade HQ to start with). The same goes for every sector of local and central government - just striping out all the HR and admin functions that did not exist prior to 2001 would save a fortune.
You know my views on our new HQ! Seriously, Mr Lama, we're banging our heads against the wall. The fire authority are convening next Wednesday to debate the proposed cuts. Firefighters are the biggest cost, so we're facing the biggest cull.
I'm beyond despondent with Osborne it's just sit him out till he goes and hope the next one in might have a clue about the economy. Waste of 5 years frankly.
Do you think Balls will have more of a clue than Osborne?
Even less of a clue the man's an idiot.
The scary thing is, Balls isn't an idiot. He knows what he is saying, and not saying. Alan Johnson you could let off not really understand the nonsense he was spouting, he didn't know any better than what he had been briefed with.
Balls is far more scary, he knows what is going on, but will do anything to get back into power , including whacking up borrowing, magic money tree economics and soak the rich, leaving the big pile of steaming sh#t for somebody else to clear up ala Gordon Brown, his mentor.
Osborne is like Brown-lite on the half truth / presentation side of things, but in terms of cuts side of things, he has actually followed through on what was laid out 3-4 years ago (after putting them off in 2010/11).
Can he achieve what has now been set out, probably not. But we know what will happen, plenty more fiscal drag on both the tax and spend side of things.
I didn't see any explanation yesterday of why the deficit is still forecast to fall this year despite being up for the first 7 months.
I know about debt interest being forecast to be much lower in future years but I wouldn't have thought that would be the explanation for the turnaround in the next 5 months.
Does anyone know? I think this could be quite a big political risk for the Government if the deficit does actually rise (I don't think missing the target matters much; but an actual rise vs last year would look very bad).
Forecast at Budget based on 10 months actual will be just before the start of the campaign. If up after 10 months then hard to forecast a fall!
A lot of tax gets paid in January. It may be that this year, or Jan 15, will be bigger than last. I seem to remember comment about the 45p change affects things relative to previous years as did the 50p change in 2010 the other way. But this may be irellevant. Corporation tax? I don't know - but it is running ahead of previous years from what I have read. Spending? Is spending front loaded somehow? The economy generally. Does VAT and other payments get collected 3 months or whatever in arrears? Then previous good months come though later?
The projections come from the OBR. Have they given any reasons?
The 45% is on income tax on bonuses. If bonus recipients were waiting for this financial year then the tax take would have been higher in May. If they are waiting for the next financial year, then it would be next May.
January really only affects Corporation Taxes. But the incidence of that has also gone down in recent years as companies have to pay "in advance" [ NOT Advance Corporation Tax - which died a death many years back ] every quarter.
The largest VAT payers pay every month. Others pay every 3 months. Yes, January would be the month for those companies which pay 3 months for their Oct - Dec quarter. But I wouldn't have thought so that would be material.
The OBR must know something. Are there any asset sale on the offing ?
7 a.m. it's genius George 7 p.m. it's colossal cuts
or should that be colossal klutz ?
Statler calling Waldorf. He produced a political statement that got him some good headlines and, probably, helped his party. What more did you expect?
Hope the factory move went OK.
Yes move ok so far, but have to restart all the machinery next week that's when we see if it's gone smoothly or not.
Re GO, the headlines didn't even last 24 hours, it's the story of every statement since 1997, spin quickly followed by reality. Headlines don't fix the economy.
"Headlines don't fix the economy" but the deficit has been halved, unemployment is down greatly, inflation is down and peoples' real incomes are beginning to rise. Over a long period of time the changes to education and welfare will make a better wider picture. Positive headlines help create confidence.
On the one hand, the forces have been cut so much I can't see how they'd cut any further. Particularly given the growth of geostrategic challenges since the 2010 SDR and commitment to increase the equipment budget from 2015. Even if they merged all the forces into one and canned one of the aircraft carriers the savings wouldn't be very much.
On the other hand, my local Tory MP has ignored my letter in defence and it isn't even mentioned in the (many) surveys that the Tories issue me. It's not even available as an issue for me to pick from their list as 'most concerned' about.
So maybe they really are planning to scrap the army.
LBC poll yesterday gave Miliband and Balls a 72% trust over the economy against a score of 27% for Osborne, the word trust has very different connotations from the words used in the usual question.It implies a levelnof compassion not an arid plan which discounts human harm.Labour will win in 2015 because they are not a bunch of Tory toffs.
Were you at the same school as volcanopete? The no spaces after full stops thing is very distinctive.
I didn't see any explanation yesterday of why the deficit is still forecast to fall this year despite being up for the first 7 months.
The self assessment receipts should be higher than last year as all the people who made use of the 50p/45p tax change cough up what they owe from April 2013, while many more companies have moved into profitability in 2013/2014. Earnings, bonuses etc were shifted to the more favourable tax year.
There is also a shortfall so far this year in receipts from the Asset Purchase Facility.
Colossal cuts are disturbing. I'm not sure what else local authorities can do, once next year's cuts are implemented.
If you can't look at the work of your local council and see the scope for doing away with pointless jobs/projects, then you aren't looking hard enough.
What is necessary is for local government to focus on core services and stop indulging in pork barrel spending by councillors with pet projects.
There is massive bloat in too many areas of the public sector. It does need radical reform and a focus on what is necessary for serving the needs of the local communities - rather than the whims of those in power.
Looking more widely, this sort of approach is necessary across all public bodies. I have seen some of the grants made by the Arts Council - and it is shocking what they fund. Writers have been given £10k and £15k to 'help them finish their novels'. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the state to fund the creation of a work of fiction. None. And that is just scratching the surface.
There has been too much growth in the public sector - and it needs to be reduced - across the board.
I don't give a monkey's about the Arts Council. I do care about holding the hand of a woman, medically trapped in a car, while we wait 38 minutes for an Ambulance. I do care that the new police station in my nearest town has been built with no cells, so that every time someone gets nicked, two coppers have to travel to Leicester, taking them off beat. I really, really do care that, in a few years time, fire engines will be in short supply in my county, insufficiently crewed, without the resilliance to cope with more than one small incident at a time.
I realise that the public sector is something most on here despise, but you're in danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
"I realise that the public sector is something most on here despise"
I doubt many on here despise the public sector. There are arguments over what areas government should get involved in, how to stop wasting money e.g. in the NHS, and what services it is practical to provide in a sustainable way.
But most would still respect those who do a good job in the public sector, and particularly those in the front line of police, ambulance, and fire services.
Well, you need to start kicking up a stink with your local authorities, because I guarantee that your county is losing frontline police, fire, and ambulance services.
"Cuts cost lives" is a tired old cliché, but, honestly, we are going to get dangerously close to that in the next few years.
I didn't see any explanation yesterday of why the deficit is still forecast to fall this year despite being up for the first 7 months.
The self assessment receipts should be higher than last year as all the people who made use of the 50p/45p tax change cough up what they owe from April 2013, while many more companies have moved into profitability in 2013/2014
There is also a shortfall so far this year in receipts from the Asset Purchase Facility.
Do you still think single people don't get working tax credits?
TFS And defence, justice, transport, the arts, welfare etc. They have coped so far but it has been difficult, time to end ringfencing
We've coped because the real cuts don't start until next year. More cuts on top of that, and it is game over.
I don't think so, Mr. Stopper. I would bet that you could identify big savings in your department without affecting the front-line service provision (hint: look at your brigade HQ to start with). The same goes for every sector of local and central government - just striping out all the HR and admin functions that did not exist prior to 2001 would save a fortune.
You know my views on our new HQ! Seriously, Mr Lama, we're banging our heads against the wall. The fire authority are convening next Wednesday to debate the proposed cuts. Firefighters are the biggest cost, so we're facing the biggest cull.
Then the problem is not so much with the financial settlement as with the people in charge of how the money is spent. That said in my experience the Authority will normally be guided by the Chief Officer and if your man is saying protect the HQ jobs rather than the service providers that is what the Authority will do. The reverse holds true of course.
Mr. Stopper, how would you fund existing services without cutting them? The only alternatives are borrowing more or tax rises, which could stifle growth and decrease rather than increase overall funding.
I'm not saying tax rises should necessarily be ruled out entirely, just that they must be carefully considered. We can't have services we can't afford. More borrowing is the last thing we need.
Colossal cuts are disturbing. I'm not sure what else local authorities can do, once next year's cuts are implemented.
If you can't look at the work of your local council and see the scope for doing away with pointless jobs/projects, then you aren't looking hard enough.
What is necessary is for local government to focus on core services and stop indulging in pork barrel spending by councillors with pet projects.
There is massive bloat in too many areas of the public sector. It does need radical reform and a focus on what is necessary for serving the needs of the local communities - rather than the whims of those in power.
Looking more widely, this sort of approach is necessary across all public bodies. I have seen some of the grants made by ACE - and it is shocking what they fund. Writers have been given £10k and £15k to 'help them finish their novels'. There is absolutely no need whatsoever for the state to fund the creation of a work of fiction. None. And that is just scratching the surface.
There has been too much growth in the public sector - and it needs to be reduced - across the board.
I don't give a monkey's about the Arts Council. I do care about holding the hand of a woman, medically trapped in a car, while we wait 38 minutes for an Ambulance. I do care that the new police station in my nearest town has been built with no cells, so that every time someone gets nicked, two coppers have to travel to Leicester, taking them off beat. I really, really do care that, in a few years time, fire engines will be in short supply in my county, insufficiently crewed, without the resilliance to cope with more than one small incident at a time.
I realise that the public sector is something most on here despise, but you're in danger of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
You might not give a monkey's about the Arts Council - I was just giving an example of how public money is still being wasted. It might only be relatively small amounts on those two examples - but it is indicative of a mindset that is seeing money being wasted. (This is not to say all money spent on the arts is wasted - but too much of it is)
I believe that the emergency services are exactly where resources should be spent - they are necessary for a strong civil society. But there are others who are part of the public sector doing jobs that are not necessary, never were necessary and never will be necessary who are taking money away from areas where funds are needed.
Hence why I say that every area should be examined and core services are what should be funded. Focus on what is necessary - once that is fully covered, then look at what you would like to do with any additional funding that might be available to a local (or national) authority
TFS And defence, justice, transport, the arts, welfare etc. They have coped so far but it has been difficult, time to end ringfencing
We've coped because the real cuts don't start until next year. More cuts on top of that, and it is game over.
I don't think so, Mr. Stopper. I would bet that you could identify big savings in your department without affecting the front-line service provision (hint: look at your brigade HQ to start with). The same goes for every sector of local and central government - just striping out all the HR and admin functions that did not exist prior to 2001 would save a fortune.
You know my views on our new HQ! Seriously, Mr Lama, we're banging our heads against the wall. The fire authority are convening next Wednesday to debate the proposed cuts. Firefighters are the biggest cost, so we're facing the biggest cull.
Then the problem is not so much with the financial settlement as with the people in charge of how the money is spent. That said in my experience the Authority will normally be guided by the Chief Officer and if your man is saying protect the HQ jobs rather than the service providers that is what the Authority will do. The reverse holds true of course.
Mr Llama, you're a chap well versed in military matters, can I pick your brain on a matter.
Why are the sub-ordinate units of a Cavalry Regiment known as Squadrons, and not Battalions like the rest of the Army.
Squadrons are what one associates with the RAF and not the regular army.
Re the deficit - what is the UK's average annual deficit as a % of GDP from say 1970 to 2007 (ie before everything went out of control)?
I don't know but I would imagine it would be something in the region of 2% to 3%.
So far, Osborne has cut the deficit from 10% to 5% of GDP. I know he wants a surplus and that would be desirable but in practice if he can get it down to the long term average (say 2% to 3%?) then I would have thought everyone would be broadly happy with that.
If the above is what ends up happening it surely wouldn't be too painful at all - it would imply that 2/3rds of the reduction had already been done - and that is over a period some of which had very low growth.
If we get reasonable growth it doesn't look too bad.
Absolutely, a 2-3% deficit would be fine. We've run a deficit for something like 100 of the last 150 years. But what passes for "the Left" are too scared to say that because they've bought into the ridiculous hysteria about how any debt is evil and will come and kill us in the night if we don't cut cut cut.
We should actually aim for 2-3% deficit. Even Germany, that great prudent nation and the architect of the Euro straight jacket do not ask for anything less than that. Getting the deficit even lower is pure macho posturing.
And then what happens when we have the next recession? We blow up the debt by another 30% or so of GDP. And we end up spending even more on interest payments - money that could go towards schools and hospitals. We always hear from the left how it's terrible that we have to listen to the markets. Well once we have paid off our debt, we won't have to.
Recessions are cyclical. In a recession you run a deficit and pay for it with a surplus in the growth phase. This govt inherited a massive massive deficit, furthermore Browns recsssion wiped out a chunk of the economy, this was a part of the economy he thought was structural but it turned out it was cyclical after all, and he managed to overspend like mad in the previous growth phase rather than pay back debt. Thus we have a weakened economy forced to cut the structural and cyclical deficit. Its going to be difficult. So we do need to run surpluses not be satisfied with 2% deficits for a quite a while, we do need to cut our spending to recover all the structural deficit that Brown was running. From what I read we are just a bit over half way through doing that.
It will not be easy for any govt to resist the temptation to 'give away' the surplus, but there is a generation of restraint needed to get back to where we were about 2000.
Mr. Stopper, how would you fund existing services without cutting them? The only alternatives are borrowing more or tax rises, which could stifle growth and decrease rather than increase overall funding.
I'm not saying tax rises should necessarily be ruled out entirely, just that they must be carefully considered. We can't have services we can't afford. More borrowing is the last thing we need.
I genuinely dunno, Mr Dancer, but if we're at the point where we can't afford sufficient fireys, coppers and ambulance staff to do the jobs in a proper and timely fashion, then we as a country need to take a long, hard look at ourselves. We've obviously spent all our money on our wants and not our needs.
Mr. Royale, also worth mentioning after the NATO summit Cameron promised to increase spending to whatever it's meant to be (2% of GDP?).
Thanks. My understanding is that we are already (just) above that level.
We are an island people surrounded by friendly allies, all we need are some troops to police NI and a sufficient deterrent on the Falklands. 2.5% is a ridiculous sum to spend.
Mr. Royale, also worth mentioning after the NATO summit Cameron promised to increase spending to whatever it's meant to be (2% of GDP?).
Thanks. My understanding is that we are already (just) above that level.
We are an island people surrounded by friendly allies, all we need are some troops to police NI and a sufficient deterrent on the Falklands. 2.5% is a ridiculous sum to spend.
Mr. Stopper, how would you fund existing services without cutting them? The only alternatives are borrowing more or tax rises, which could stifle growth and decrease rather than increase overall funding.
I'm not saying tax rises should necessarily be ruled out entirely, just that they must be carefully considered. We can't have services we can't afford. More borrowing is the last thing we need.
I genuinely dunno, Mr Dancer, but if we're at the point where we can't afford sufficient fireys, coppers and ambulance staff to do the jobs in a proper and timely fashion, then we as a country need to take a long, hard look at ourselves. We've obviously spent all our money on our wants and not our needs.
Or, maybe we are not as well off as we think we are, or, there are huge reservoirs of untaxed income and wealth, well hidden. Otherwise, the state of our services do not reflect the apparent wealth creators we are supposed to be.
Mr. Stopper, how would you fund existing services without cutting them? The only alternatives are borrowing more or tax rises, which could stifle growth and decrease rather than increase overall funding.
I'm not saying tax rises should necessarily be ruled out entirely, just that they must be carefully considered. We can't have services we can't afford. More borrowing is the last thing we need.
I genuinely dunno, Mr Dancer, but if we're at the point where we can't afford sufficient fireys, coppers and ambulance staff to do the jobs in a proper and timely fashion, then we as a country need to take a long, hard look at ourselves. We've obviously spent all our money on our wants and not our needs.
Or, maybe we are not as well off as we think we are, or, there are huge reservoirs of untaxed income and wealth, well hidden. Otherwise, the state of our services do not reflect the apparent wealth creators we are supposed to be.
There clearly are untaxed 'reservoires' as witnessed by Jimmy Carr and the tax avoidance scams by multinationals which Osborne intends to close. Corporartion Tax revenues seem to be the highest ever. The lower tax rates may encourage more tax to be paid by more people. Corporations look mnow as if they will have to face up to paying tax in the country where they make their profit. Lets hope it helps.
Mr. Royale, also worth mentioning after the NATO summit Cameron promised to increase spending to whatever it's meant to be (2% of GDP?).
Thanks. My understanding is that we are already (just) above that level.
We are an island people surrounded by friendly allies, all we need are some troops to police NI and a sufficient deterrent on the Falklands. 2.5% is a ridiculous sum to spend.
Still waiting for my peace dividend.
We are part of an alliance that requires us to contribute to mutual defence. We really ought to get better value for our defence spending but the sums are about right given the complexity of modern weaponry. Whether we need Labours giant aircraft carriers is an entirely different matter.
On the subject of spending cuts and waste I have been having a look at where my council tax goes and I must admit I had a shock:
I pay £1192.18 per year council tax
£36 goes to my parish council. Not sure what benefit I get but not too bad. £91 goes to the Vale of White Horse DC. Most of this then goes on housing benefit, which doesn't benefit me but it's not too bad. £125 goes to the police. Happy to pay this. £940 goes to Oxfordshire CC
Breaking this down:
£170 goes on education. I don't benefit from this myself but I might have one children one day and can see a benefit to society £94 goes on roads. I don't have a problem with this £56 goes to the fire brigade. I don't have a problem with this £56 goes on paying off debt interest. Not great but could be worse £47 goes on public health. Not really sure what this cover £47 goers on waste management. OK £28 goes on libraries and cultural services. Think libraries are a bit old hat in the internet age but this isn't extortionate
The big cost, which completely shocked me is
Adult and Children's social care - £442
Now I don't mind paying for a few meals on wheels services but this is absolutely ridiculous, particularly as Oxfordshire is quite a prosperous county. I downloaded the Oxfordshire CC spending above £500 and it tells an interesting story.
Looking at social services spending above £500 for September
£58k on agency staff £60k on consultants £1.9m to various voluntary associations - hard to see what this is actually spent on. May be spent well or badly £46k on uniforms - doesn't say who for 10k on leasing vehicles for Bucks gypsy services. That looks a prime candidate for a waste of money
Found a few other interesting ones elsewhere - 15k a month to Weight Watchers to tackle adult obesity (surely this should be the NHS if anything). 18k to Unison (hopefully deducted from employees)
The impression I get is that there are lots of grants to various worthy causes which may each by themselves be worthy but add up to a lot combined and are not part of core council services. Part of the issue is that councils don't really have an incentive to look at ways of cutting council tax, when they keep putting it up a few % a year
Comments
"I realise that the public sector is something most on here despise"
I doubt many on here despise the public sector. There are arguments over what areas government should get involved in, how to stop wasting money e.g. in the NHS, and what services it is practical to provide in a sustainable way.
But most would still respect those who do a good job in the public sector, and particularly those in the front line of police, ambulance, and fire services.
Seriously, Mr Lama, we're banging our heads against the wall. The fire authority are convening next Wednesday to debate the proposed cuts. Firefighters are the biggest cost, so we're facing the biggest cull.
Balls is far more scary, he knows what is going on, but will do anything to get back into power , including whacking up borrowing, magic money tree economics and soak the rich, leaving the big pile of steaming sh#t for somebody else to clear up ala Gordon Brown, his mentor.
Osborne is like Brown-lite on the half truth / presentation side of things, but in terms of cuts side of things, he has actually followed through on what was laid out 3-4 years ago (after putting them off in 2010/11).
Can he achieve what has now been set out, probably not. But we know what will happen, plenty more fiscal drag on both the tax and spend side of things.
January really only affects Corporation Taxes. But the incidence of that has also gone down in recent years as companies have to pay "in advance" [ NOT Advance Corporation Tax - which died a death many years back ] every quarter.
The largest VAT payers pay every month. Others pay every 3 months. Yes, January would be the month for those companies which pay 3 months for their Oct - Dec quarter. But I wouldn't have thought so that would be material.
The OBR must know something. Are there any asset sale on the offing ?
On the one hand, the forces have been cut so much I can't see how they'd cut any further. Particularly given the growth of geostrategic challenges since the 2010 SDR and commitment to increase the equipment budget from 2015. Even if they merged all the forces into one and canned one of the aircraft carriers the savings wouldn't be very much.
On the other hand, my local Tory MP has ignored my letter in defence and it isn't even mentioned in the (many) surveys that the Tories issue me. It's not even available as an issue for me to pick from their list as 'most concerned' about.
So maybe they really are planning to scrap the army.
There is also a shortfall so far this year in receipts from the Asset Purchase Facility.
"Cuts cost lives" is a tired old cliché, but, honestly, we are going to get dangerously close to that in the next few years.
Are you still warbling on about that?
I'm not saying tax rises should necessarily be ruled out entirely, just that they must be carefully considered. We can't have services we can't afford. More borrowing is the last thing we need.
I believe that the emergency services are exactly where resources should be spent - they are necessary for a strong civil society. But there are others who are part of the public sector doing jobs that are not necessary, never were necessary and never will be necessary who are taking money away from areas where funds are needed.
Hence why I say that every area should be examined and core services are what should be funded. Focus on what is necessary - once that is fully covered, then look at what you would like to do with any additional funding that might be available to a local (or national) authority
Why are the sub-ordinate units of a Cavalry Regiment known as Squadrons, and not Battalions like the rest of the Army.
Squadrons are what one associates with the RAF and not the regular army.
You were sarcastic and cocky about it, and you were wrong, hence you trying to not talk about it now
This govt inherited a massive massive deficit, furthermore Browns recsssion wiped out a chunk of the economy, this was a part of the economy he thought was structural but it turned out it was cyclical after all, and he managed to overspend like mad in the previous growth phase rather than pay back debt.
Thus we have a weakened economy forced to cut the structural and cyclical deficit. Its going to be difficult. So we do need to run surpluses not be satisfied with 2% deficits for a quite a while, we do need to cut our spending to recover all the structural deficit that Brown was running. From what I read we are just a bit over half way through doing that.
It will not be easy for any govt to resist the temptation to 'give away' the surplus, but there is a generation of restraint needed to get back to where we were about 2000.
Still waiting for my peace dividend.
The lower tax rates may encourage more tax to be paid by more people. Corporations look mnow as if they will have to face up to paying tax in the country where they make their profit. Lets hope it helps.
UKIP HOLD Aveley & Uplands (Thurrock).
I pay £1192.18 per year council tax
£36 goes to my parish council. Not sure what benefit I get but not too bad.
£91 goes to the Vale of White Horse DC. Most of this then goes on housing benefit, which doesn't benefit me but it's not too bad.
£125 goes to the police. Happy to pay this.
£940 goes to Oxfordshire CC
Breaking this down:
£170 goes on education. I don't benefit from this myself but I might have one children one day and can see a benefit to society
£94 goes on roads. I don't have a problem with this
£56 goes to the fire brigade. I don't have a problem with this
£56 goes on paying off debt interest. Not great but could be worse
£47 goes on public health. Not really sure what this cover
£47 goers on waste management. OK
£28 goes on libraries and cultural services. Think libraries are a bit old hat in the internet age but this isn't extortionate
The big cost, which completely shocked me is
Adult and Children's social care - £442
Now I don't mind paying for a few meals on wheels services but this is absolutely ridiculous, particularly as Oxfordshire is quite a prosperous county. I downloaded the Oxfordshire CC spending above £500 and it tells an interesting story.
Looking at social services spending above £500 for September
£58k on agency staff
£60k on consultants
£1.9m to various voluntary associations - hard to see what this is actually spent on. May be spent well or badly
£46k on uniforms - doesn't say who for
10k on leasing vehicles for Bucks gypsy services. That looks a prime candidate for a waste of money
Found a few other interesting ones elsewhere - 15k a month to Weight Watchers to tackle adult obesity (surely this should be the NHS if anything). 18k to Unison (hopefully deducted from employees)
The impression I get is that there are lots of grants to various worthy causes which may each by themselves be worthy but add up to a lot combined and are not part of core council services. Part of the issue is that councils don't really have an incentive to look at ways of cutting council tax, when they keep putting it up a few % a year