I'll take a pay freeze to jobless any day of the week and lets face it as much as i dislike labour when and not if the conservatives get in all our necks will be on the block because they sure as hell aren't going to look at reducing the number of teaching staff in schools ohh no.
Maybe it's time for Wales to go alone - fully alone and let Plaid Cymru run our affairs and not those muppets in London.
Unfortunately I think we would all be allot worse off in general without London and I include anywhere north of Watford in that as well. We're in for a rough ride but the 'city' will soon be back bringing in mega cash lets not forget up until before the problems they we're bringing in about 30% of GDP.
In the long term though the focus of wealth generation needs to move from being focused in London, the problem is that for outside investors it's the obvious choice.
The future is the EU, once they've let me clean it up
The reality is the pay cap announcement is just smoke & mirrors politics; the Govt are under pressure to 'limit' public spending, a public sector pay cap will be viewed as a popular move by the private sector.
Truth is we were never going to get a generous pay rise next year, or the year after anyway.... so the pay cap is 'spin' to keep the private sector happy. Look what we got last year... this year.... so next year & the year after is more of the same.
At least they have not announced a public sector pay cut like the Irish did, and there is no immediate threat of mass redundancies....
If the government are looking for ways to reduce national debt, then why not pull out of our current (and unnecessary) conflicts abroad? How many billions a week do we waste on useless wars...
The Sun front page claims that the PBR increases tax for 10 million people ("Darling screws more people than Tiger Woods")
I don't know if that's true but, if it is, that means tax is the same or less for nearly 20 million people (28.93 million people in employment in September 2009; National Statistics Online)
If he'd move the threshold to (say) £25,000 it would affect fewer people which means there's less tax income so instead of a 0.5% rise perhaps you need a 1% rise and so on.
Just strikes me as they've got public spending priorities the wrong way round. But then, as you say it's politiking to appease private sector employees where overall wage inflation is or has been lower than in the public sector.....over the course of the recession atleast.
Touch my money and die. That's the end of that argument.
And as far as I'm aware the whole issue was revoked earlier this morning, or later last night. Pre Budget wasn't final, more a feeler to see how angry the interweb would get if he suggested it.
And as previous said earlier, limiting national debt can be done other ways. I know we have national commitments abroad, with wars and support and the likes, but this can be reduced.
Not to mention the yearly national debt to commonwealth citizens, where every government gets 12p per person.
This includes all commonwealth citizens; South Africa with a population of 48,687,000 = £5,842,440 a year to support, issue's like these need to be addressed, they wanted independence, they can now have it.
2005 estimate shows Commonwealth population around: 1,921,974,000 which in turn = £230,636,880 a year.
Which compared to Cookie_Monsters showing on MOD expenses being in Iraq and Afghanistan comes in just under £2billion. Hell of a cost.
Last edited by witch; 11th December 2009 at 11:41 AM.
Jiser (11th December 2009)
How much are we spending in Afghanistan? If we pulled out today, where would the budget be?
£2.5bn and the Annual bill for all conflicts hits £4.5bn.The new figures mean that the total cost so far of Britain's military engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan since 2001 - not including civil aid money, which also runs into billions of pounds - is now about £14bn
Not as much as I thought but it's still substantial.
ahuxham (10th December 2009)
How much does it cost to keep the army in Afghanistan compared to (say) keeping it on Salisbury Plain?
If we bring the army home, do we just sack all those soldiers? If not, do we really save money? There may well be good reasons for bringing the army out (but not many military people seem to think that there are) but I don't think it should be about the money.
The Conservatives have said that they will "slash" the cost of running the MoD; that might be possible but what that actually means is that they will just dump another load of people (probably mostly quite low paid) on the dole. It's the way they generally try and fix problems and it was a stunning success for Margaret Thatcher back in the early 80s!!!
I think the estimated costs are deployment and consumables costs e.g ammunition, shot down or crashed planes or helicopters, not including the usual overheads which are already budgeted for.
Of course it's difficult to put a price several hundred lives and that's just on our side.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)