BBC BLOGS - Have Your Say
« Previous | Main | Next »

What services would you cut?

08:31 UK time, Tuesday, 8 June 2010

Chancellor George Osborne has pledged a "fundamental reassessment" of the way government works as he outlined plans to involve the public in making cuts. What is your reaction?

He said he wanted the "best people in their fields" from inside and outside government involved and a "wider public engagement exercise" over the summer.

Labour has said the government is wrong to focus on cuts not growth. Shadow Chancellor Alastair Darling said it was thanks to Labour's actions that the government had inherited a growing economy, and the proposal for immediate cuts risked the prospect of recovery.

How should the government cut back? Would public services be more efficiently carried out by voluntary organisations? Should the government be concentrating on growth or cuts?

David Cameron warns on pay and benefits

This debate has now been closed. Thank you for your comments.

Comments

Page 1 of 19

  • Comment number 1.

    OMG! Another expensive consultation exercise which we cannot afford.

    The government should spend our taxes on providing basic services and care for the British population; i.e. not the EU, not foreign aid and not for any more immigration.

    Common sense!

  • Comment number 2.

    I have heard all sorts of things the government should do, usually from some group or other promoting their own interests. Now the government are asking for us to tell them what to cut?

    The governer of the Bank of England has said that the government that tackles the deficit will be very un-popular for a decade or more. Cue 'call me dave' to chicken out again and get the public to carry some of the blame.

    Cue on this posting a lot of daily fail rants against overseas aid, asylam seekers, the unemployed (in fact anyone on benefit).

    Why are we always taking about cuts? We have had this for thirty years. First thatcher, then major/blair/brown.

    And before anyone else rants about brown spending too much on public services, just imagine what they would be like without it.

    The rich won't pay so the poor have to bear the cuts.

    plus ça change?

  • Comment number 3.

    We are not Canada; we do not have the same natural resources and we are overrun. So we cannot use the same model.

    I am all for cutting non-essential services but:

    - do not outsource to companies: this costs more and the service quality drops as we have seen time again.

    - why should essential service be provided on a voluntary basis? The workers need an income. Benefits don't cut it. So you won't get enough able people to do the job.

    Stop providing international aid & stop funding the EU- it looks as though we need the money more.

  • Comment number 4.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 5.

    Stalin-esque Labour projects like HS2 could be scrapped for a start. I like the Lib-Dems scrap-Trident idea. There is £134billion saved immediately. Thereafter, I would personally like to see this blanket justification of "vulnerable" people scrutinised far more. There are indeed vulnerable members (the old, disabled, ill etc). however, people who have serially lost jobs, committed criminal offences, become drug addicts or parented children when not able to fend for them are not "vulnerable", but "irresponsbile". I don't think we should compound the existing costs

  • Comment number 6.

    KarenZ wrote:
    not foreign aid


    ----

    Of course, why should we give money to people who need it more than us? They're not us after all!

  • Comment number 7.

    Sounds like a way to give tax payers money to private companys. I would not trust a private company to run any of our main public services the tax money would soon vanish into the bank accounts of the people who run these companys and not to provide the service they were paid for.

  • Comment number 8.

    The public are looking for specifics and not soundbites. We had enough of them from the last Govt. Andrew Lansley's sermons are a point incase. Where is the money to look after the people for 30 days at their homes after release from hospitals? Please get real! People will welcome any proposals to tighten their belts however hard if the Govt applies those aims on all including MPs, Lords, Judges, BBC etc.

  • Comment number 9.

    The government should not be exercising direct democracy and asking us what we want because it is simply shedding the blame when things go badly. They were given a mandate (debatably) and should exercise their judgement. It may not necessarily be good judgement, but we should have the opportunity to scrutinise that at a general election.

  • Comment number 10.

    The government shouldnt be spending our taxes at all - or at least nowhere near as much as they do at the moment. They do too much, waste too much, interfere too much.

    Why not do the basics (defence, law/order) and leave us with our own money to spend as we choose? I have no doubt at all we'd do a much better job.

  • Comment number 11.

    I've been wanting a say in how my taxes are spent for years. However, the cynic in me suspects that this will be only a one-off, and that it won't affect the wider spectrum of taxes at all.
    Nevertheless, I would like to see the UK not getting involved in any more wars on foreign soil unless we're directly attacked. And while we've got such problems here, I'd like to see foreign aid reduced: charity begins at home.
    I'd like to see public sector pay rates being made more equal: it's ridiculous that most people in the public sector have very low wages, while many at the top regularly pull in over £100k.
    I'd like to see less waste in both central and local government, concentrating on keeping actual services to the public, and getting rid of quangos and spin doctors etc.

  • Comment number 12.

    This question should be where to save first, then where to spend. Because we simply do not have money to spend. So I suggest.....................

    We all know that the gulf between the wealthy and poorest of our nation is widening at an alarming pace. I suspect that we also realise that the gap will increase even further in the coming years. I also suspect that we are aware of the pension problem which will hit in the next 5 years, BILLIONS of £s for doing nothing. a problem created by succesive Governments over the years in an attempt to even up the Private and Public sector retirement payments. That problem has swung much too far the other way and will not go away unless something is done.

    Given that Government is agreed that a pensioner of 65 years can live on about £150 per week, and knowing that at that age it is quite difficult to spend £500 per week on a constant basis, I believe that any pension that yealds £1000 per week is quite sufficient for anybody and att sums above that amount should be taxed, (AT SOURCE) heavily. 90% or 95% would be about right. this would mean that Freddy Goodwins £700,000 pension would work out at £1k + £1235.00 = £2235.00 per week, more than 18 times what the state say is an acceptable pension for the normal person. with about £588,000 giong direct to the coffers of this country. PER YEAR FROM ONE PERSON.

    This is not a swipe at Freddy Goodwin, both he and his pension have been in the limelight recently, there must be many more. Adopting such an idea would in its self, Help claw back at least some of the money wasted by Government in this bad economic cycle. and Possibly bring a little fareness back to our beleagered populas. but I won't hold my breath.

  • Comment number 13.

    We are in a fight for survival and the British people should put the British people first. Cut overseas aid, cut subsidies to a failing EU system, cut the clip board weilding red tape bureaucrats who patrol our hospitals and all the other managers who think they can manage people. Quite simple the maths does not make sense........£157b deficit less £6b savings add interest charges? The national debt is set to increase not decrease. If the government said we needed to cut, save etc £60b then I'd say we stood a chance. Besides, I don't believe this coallition will last long enough to see through any meaningful improvement in our demise.

  • Comment number 14.

    Stop using expensive management consultancies, such as McKinsey, to tell local services what they already know.

    Or is that what CameraOn is proposing they now do more of?

    And voluntary groups? Voluntary groups??? They expect people to provide services for themselves as well as hold down full time jobs just to make this government look like it's doing something positive? Talk about abusing the good will of people.

  • Comment number 15.

    the question should be save not spend.
    I agree that the NHS should be "protected" I do not believe that government, or anybody should not allow the NHS to defend their place in the market place.
    I have visited several hospitals all over, and I park myself in a strategic place for 5 minutes and write the activities going on around me. Excluding cleaning staff, in the best case 41 staff, Doctors, Nurses, Admin etc. walked past. Doing nothing but walking up and down corridors, the worst case there were 76 people of similar stature, just walking several with clip boards, doing absolutely nothing. The average of all the Hospitals together is 52.3 persons per 5 minute spell (any time but mainly daytime) that equates to 5020.8 people doing nothing in an 8 hour period. Forgive me if I seem a little too simplistic but even if you half the number 2510.4 is much to many. Take into consideration that "anything can be moved from one place to another as many times as you like and you will not add a penny value to it. surely the largest single saving can be made in hospital efficiency just pouring tax payers £ in will do nothing to improve the situation, in fact all it is paralleled to is government spending on Quangos.

  • Comment number 16.

    Not on floating nuclear capabilities.

  • Comment number 17.

    The government could spend a bit more on cracking down on tax evasion and tax avoidance that costs this country £15 billion a year. This is effectively state subsidy to the richest people in society.

  • Comment number 18.

    Foreign aid should'nt be cut as it serves the interest of the people of the United kingdom. when we dont give foreign aid to countries in the middle east children grow up in poverty and are more likely to go into terrorism. If we dont help farmers in countries like columbia they stop growing food crops and end up growing drugs.. Cuting foreign aid is being weak on drugs and weak on national security.

  • Comment number 19.

    The government needs to focus on meeting its responsibilities to its own citizens (i.e. its employers) by ensuring core services - health & social care, education, defence of the realm, a welfare 'safety net' and law and order - are maintained through good stewardship of the taxation money with which they are entrusted.

    Any expenditure which does not directly meet the needs of UK citizens can be dropped until sufficient surplus is available.

    A serious and sustained effort to reduce interest rates on debts needs to be made, as it is a misuse of tax money to provide profits to anyone. Perhaps they should consider an IVA?

  • Comment number 20.

    First of all the government should have the will to collect fair taxes from all the right places. Otherwise there is little point in having a say in spending the money that only should be there.

  • Comment number 21.

    The governments legitimate role is law, order and defence. Nanny state interference in other matters has blurred their legitimate roles and more focus is given to enforcement of silly EU regulations and red tape exercises for industry, rather than what they are meant to be doing. It takes taxes to fund these other operations and so we are overtaxed and get less for our money. Farming, fishing, health and general export has all died because government has become involved and spent billions regulating matters that should not concern them in any other capacity than an advisory role etc. Stop the nanny state and spend our taxes on British born and bred citizens chiefly and our problems will be solved.

  • Comment number 22.

    Great! dump the problem on us to stop the government becoming unpopular.

    Cue lots of rants against those we all love to hate.

    Just remember who to blame when it all goes pear-shaped.

    ----- And it's not us.

  • Comment number 23.

    All I ask is that theya re as careful with my money as I am. So balance books, plan for the future, stay out of major debt, provide a bit for those less fortunate and a rainy day. That shouldnt be too hard now should it?

  • Comment number 24.

    Raise personal tax allowances from 6475 to 8500. Balance this with an increase in basic rate tax to 25%. Childrens trusts should be suspended or scrapped and child allowance should be suspended and incorporated into means tested benefits. Bring back rent controls on benefit claimants.

    Increase 40% to 50% and increase VAT to 20%. Reduce Class 1 and Class 4 National Insurance to 10%. Cap civil and public servant pay at £175k and freeze all pay rates for 3 years. Reduce stamp duty on principle private residences and start taxing property development in accordance with existing tax legislation.

  • Comment number 25.

    1. At 08:55am on 08 Jun 2010, KarenZ wrote:


    immigration.

    ........................................................

    This is getting boring, as the grandson of immigrants I pay my taxes as did my parents and grandparents so lay off .



  • Comment number 26.

    I want the Government to spend as little as possible allowing free individuals to make their own spending decisions. This will restore individual responsibility and accountability for one's actions. The idea that the Government will provide and save us all is killing this country. The Government's role should be to provide defence and law & order. Everything else should be handed to the private sector. The market will determine people's priorities and where money should be spent.

  • Comment number 27.

    Governments should listen to the people they serve eg. not embark on costly foreign military adventures (Iraq, Afghanistan), doling out money as if there were no tomorrow, etc., etc.

  • Comment number 28.

    Pulling out of Afghanistan and scrapping Trident - would plug a very very big hole in the deficit, reducing the need to make swinging cuts to public services. Interesting article in the Telegraph yesterday - headline "Cameron is wrong: the public finances are better than we thought" - yes in the Torygraph!

  • Comment number 29.

    How about not spending it on the near-useless tranche 3 Eurofighter. That'll save £20-£30 billion, money which can be diverted to more deserving causes such as our troops in Afghanistan who actually are fighting a real war, not the imaginary one that the Eurofighter was designed for.

  • Comment number 30.

    the words 'backdoor privatisation' spring to mind. For years governments have been trying to privatise things and the figures show [if you don't believe google the now defunct company instant muscle] that the private sector don't do as it efficently as they want and certainly not more so than the public sector. Time this obesssion with privatisation ended.

  • Comment number 31.

    The Government should provide the minimum services which are necessary for the functioning of society. If it is not absolutely necessary then it is a luxury which should be ditched. The public sector and the private sector are like a married couple - one partner (the private sector) goes to work and earns money. The other partner (the public sector) doesn't earn money and just goes shopping every day for stuff, most of which is not necessary, spending like there's no tomorrow. Personally, as the partner which goes to work and earns money I would like the other partner to stop wasting my money and get a job which brings in money. Actually to be honest I would like to divorce the other partner and keep as much of my hard earned money as I can.

  • Comment number 32.

    In addition to 24, companies in the financial sector operating in the UK must have UK based call centres.

  • Comment number 33.

    Local and national government should scrap all translation services. My taxes shouldn't be wasted on people who can't be bothered to learn English.

  • Comment number 34.

    Ah yes.

    Yet another "pass the buck initiative" from this government. First it was the schools now it's this "you have a say in how we spend your money."

    First of all, we don't REALLY have a say. They will do what they want.

    Secondly, I believe that these are elected representatives who should have an overview of the current situation and therefore be more able to make sound decisions on the budget. It seems to me that they are panicking having made these decisions too soon after coming to power and now want to be able to say, "Well, YOU wanted it that way" when things go inevitably wrong.

    The coalition haven't even been governing for a month and already they have blamed everyone under the sun, including hard-working civil servants for every problem this nation is facing. Sometimes countries fall on bad times.

    I wish these rich boys would work for their millions instead of trying to get us to do their jobs.

    As far as where my taxes should be spent, should it actually influence any decisions: schools (NOT academies), public sector (I like my police/fire dept/nurses/waste collection), NHS - honestly, the British have no idea how good they've got it and regulating the financial sector so that we don't have to live through another recession like this again.

  • Comment number 35.

    The Treasury will ask the public to help decide how taxes should be spent and how the government should scale down its role. What's your reaction?

    Total cynicism.

    If they ask enough people they're bound to get some answers which fit the plans they've already made.

  • Comment number 36.

    I thought that was made clear during the general election in the party manifestos. So i must think what is the chancy really saying or suggesting by this proposition?
    Let the public decide what the tax money should be spent on? Does that mean the more tax one pays the more say one has on how it is spent. Would a man on low income have the same power as a man with millions? Would it be the will of the people or would the questions be rigged by press agencies in ways to pass the buck and make the general public feel it’s their decision on all issues. Adolf Hitler did this sort of thing to solve the non Aryan and long term sickness problem. Do all people have the education or moral maturity to understand the needs of the many in times of hardship?
    So i give big thumbs down to this ploy by the current administration to hoodwink the public into believing they are responsible for the application of secret plans that were formulated prior to the election and will be implemented regardless to ill informed public opinion.

  • Comment number 37.

    How many more times do WE, the British public have to tell them.
    a) No more immigration
    b) Repeal the EU human rights act
    c) Because of b) we can now throw out the hundreds of thousand (if not millions) of illegal immigrants who have never contributed anything to this country
    d) Stop (or vastly reduce) the benefits bill to those who clearly are milking the system
    e) Stop funding education topics (and colleges) that are set up not to educate but keep the dole numbers down (ie media studies, sports sciences, etc)
    f) Get control of the Looney Left councils who waste (still) on non jobs (ie walking consultants, etc)
    g) Reduce funding to the EU socialists who waste OUR money on their looney left ideas
    h) Do not have your head turned by very small minority groups who make a lot of noise(some inside the media) who have an agenda which is NOT for the good of OUR country
    i) Reduce red tape to business and let it make more wealth for OUR kids to have jobs

  • Comment number 38.

    At a high level, we can see how much is being spend at the following site:

    http://www.wheredoesmymoneygo.org/dashboard/

    If we could drill into the budgets in more detail it would be possible to really "have a say" to the government.

    Without detail, what input could we possibly have ??

  • Comment number 39.

    While I'm liking Government Open-ness, I can't help but think that asking us what to do every time a difficult decision crops up - gives the appearence that they don't really know what they are doing...

    We just want the country sorted!!! with the most amount of common sense applied. It's one of the reasons why I tactically voted for this coalition government, one party alone can't be trusted to have that much common sense.!

  • Comment number 40.

    1. At 08:55am on 08 Jun 2010, KarenZ wrote:
    Well said Karen really, really well said in a nut shell.
    Just imagine if I was to win a contract to work in say Nuclear Power, LNG production-whatever, then I asked my employers how do I do my Job? Can you even imagine how long I would last in that job?
    Besides that though, full marks to the gov to even ask for consultation on this, such a huge field to cover in detail.
    I would say that any action to enable a Brit citizen to live, stay healthy, pay their bills and work comfortably, which is their right as a Brit Cit, then that should be done.
    Stop all overseas aid, help, foreign influxes, NHS holiday treatment, overseas defence, EU payments, oils spills (suppose the gas pipeline leak in Texas is BP's fault also according to the USA) and concentrate on the Welfare , Pensions, NHS for the brits and send all the rest home.
    All you do-gooders remember we are in a RECESION and can't afford the luxuries of looking after other countries, besides it is NOT OUR PROBLEM.
    Please note the only support I receive is a £60 pension, no luxury hotel, sky tele, car, holidays. My outgoings are a reserved and calculated £202 per week and all I receive is £60. Next year I will lose my house.

  • Comment number 41.

    Not foregin aid to a country with a space program and whitch manufactures its own nucular weapons

  • Comment number 42.

    Cut MP's to 400.
    ALL MP salaries cut by 20%
    ALL council chief exec salaries cut by 20%
    Stop employing job for the boys outside consultants at ridiculous rates and with sky high exes
    Stop moaning about admin costs. If admin staff don't do admin, then front line staff will have to
    There are doubtless lots of efficiency savings to be made, but let's look at these things sensibly and not with knives at the ready. As lots of people have already said, public services are not the same as private businesses and cannot be treated the same. And yes I do include John Lewis as a business so let's not have that tired old argument dragged into it
    Finally is it just me or have the bankers who share a very large portion of guilt been gradually let of the hook since the new forward thinking, open coalition was elected banging the "bash the bankers" drum?

  • Comment number 43.

    Education, health, green technology development, modernising our communication and transport infra structure, protecting the vulnerable and crime prevention.

    The first 2 should be ring-fenced to increase real investment. Green technology is a fantastic opportunity and investment for the future. The economy cannot grow with the right communication structure. In hard times the last two expenditure areas become more critical.

    Cuts should only be in terms of efficiency savings, not cutting into muscle. Government expenditure is critical for keeping the economy afloat. Delay cuts where you can.

    This is not Canada of the late 1990s. Canada cut its government spending when the world economy was on the up. The private sector compensated. Severe cuts now cannot be compensated for by the private economy.

  • Comment number 44.

    This is not you wrote:
    KarenZ wrote:
    not foreign aid
    ---------------
    This is not you wrote:
    Of course, why should we give money to people who need it more than us? They're not us after all!
    ---------------
    Foreign aid has to be looked at, there is a lot of truth in the joke
    'Foreign Aid is the money given by poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries'
    Much foreign aid is wasted or ends up in the bank accounts of unscupulious politicians.
    We should only give foreign aid on the proviso that we administer how and where in is spend, it should not be handed over to foreign governments. If they don't accept this then they don't get it.

  • Comment number 45.

    Cutting back on bureaucracy and red tape in the public sector would help with cost-cutting and improve efficiency. However I imagine it would take some time to prune back the jungle that was so beloved of the previous government, so not a quick fix...

  • Comment number 46.

    One of many unelected quangos I would dearly see go is the disgraceful
    "Supporting People" quango, its completely ineffectual and it cost poor and vulnerable people huge amounts of money they can ill afford,its made a few extremely rich....

  • Comment number 47.

    Simple
    Merge the 43 police forces into 1 - savings include the salaries 42 Chief Constables and their deputies - not top mention 42 payroll and Hr depts
    Reduce the number of Local Authorities by 50% - saving £millions in Chief Executive salaries and agian saving millions in dupilcated HR and payroll departments
    Merge the Armed Services - reducing the senior ranks by 75%.

    The list is almost endless and could be achieved without cutting any front line services

  • Comment number 48.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 49.

    They say they will discuse with the public what the public would like to be the main focus of expenditure.

    If the public states that they would like less to be spent on foreign aid, will the government then break its promises to various countrys and aid institutions, the UN, the EU, the world bank, or will this government prefer to break promises to the UK electorate as is the preferential history of UK governments.

    This government talks about openess and transparancy but ONE VERY VERY VERY HIGHLY IMPORTANT thing is STILL missing.

    The £BILLIONS of national debt that has accumulated via government BORROWING money to pay to banks, I THINK, should be TOTALLY seperated from the total amount of GENUINE national debt. Yes show the total national debt figure, but SEPERATE it into THREE lines, for example (figures are just for example purposes)

    Government debt £550 billion
    Repayable national debts by banks £480 billion
    National Debts/losses incurred via banking fiasco £200 billion
    TOTAL National debt £1230 billion

    It is TOTALLY pretencious, DECEITFUL, IMORAL, and a BLATANT FRAUD to suggest that taxpayers are liable for a total amount of money when in fact a LARGE chunk of that money is OWED by and due to be paid back by the banks.

    The LIE that we taxpayers are actually going to have to pay national debts including money lent to banks, is a very deceitful way in which to scare the life out of many people, and DECEITFULLY create an UNTRUE reality to enable this government to finish what it started in the 1980s.

    SEPERATE the national DEBTS into what has been used for basic UK social expenditure and what has been used to loan to banks and what has been used in expenditure as a DIRECT consequence of the banking fiasco so that TAXPAYERS can see the TRUTH and so that we can OPENLY and TRANSPARENTLY see the balances/amounts of money due.

    WHY I ASK MYSELF, IS GOVERNMENT USING SUCH WORRYING LANGUAGE ABOUT DEBT INTEREST RE-PAYMENTS at upto £70 billion a year, when the TRUE reality is that a LARGE chunk of debt interest payments is actually and FACTUALLY due and repayable via banks who have borrowed it.

    I would like to know WHY it is being said that I PERSONALLY and millions of other UK taxpayers are being made to PAY £BILLIONS of INTEREST on £BILLIONS of MONEY LOANED to BANKS.

    I think this government is going deceitfully use the TOTAL amount of national debt as a horrific and worrying reason/excuse to basically DISMANTLE much of the UKs social structures, and PRIVATISE it.

    It will make businesses grow, but via handing over taxpayers money to them when services etc are sold off, cheaply.

    WHEN THE TRUE REALITY OF NATIONAL DEBT IS PUT TO THE NATION in a fair and just way, THEN and ONLY then WILL I ACCEPT consequential policy and expenditure changes or MY personal part in paying towards our national debts.

    BUT I WILL NOT SUPPORT SUCH A DECEIT/LIE/FRAUD/FALSEHOOD as is PRESENTLY being put to the nation, and if necessary I WILL take to the streets.

    Just do what you said, Cameron/Clegg, openess and transparancy, and fairness. NOTHING less will suffice, so distinguish and seperate what WE owe, and what BANKING system owes.







  • Comment number 50.

    Start by axeing the £10.4m handout to ex MPs. They were paid their wages (and generous expenses) while in office so surely the taxpayer has no further debt to them.

  • Comment number 51.

    Housing provided at public expense should consist of no more than three bedrooms, and if housing in a particular area is expensive and no council-owned properties are available, housing should be found elsewhere.

    Benefits for those with children should be means tested, and should not be available for anyone with more than two children.

    Large NHS trusts means many managers at different levels are required. Smaller hospitals can be run by a few competent managers - stop closing smaller hospitals and A&Es.

    How much are ATOS paid to do medical checks (which would be recognised as medical checks by no one else in the medical profession), which result in appeals which are costly to the taxpayer? If you do medical checks, at least put in place an organisation which does a medical which everyone, including the person being assessed, will recognise as such. They are getting money for nothing.

    Does anyone with savings in excess of, say, £500,000 need free travel after they have retired? Do they need winter fuel allowance? Free television licence? I would keep the savings level high so that anyone who has carefully saved is not penalised.

    For anyone who has never contributed financially to the country other than those who are disabled or those actively looking for work, benefits in vouchers only with a small amount of spending money.

    I would INCREASE the state pension unless there is also a substantial private pension. Anyone with a small private pension may simply have removed themselves from the position of being able to ask for any assistance, but are actually worse off than anyone with no other pension.

    Put a stop to the golden handshakes when the person leaving is actually leaving under a cloud they have created or allowed to accumulate themselves.

  • Comment number 52.

    how should taxes be spent is a complex question that few people are qualified to talk about, there are many conflicting views and demands. However they fall into groups:

    + Defence of the UK and its society - this means paying the junior Military the same as PCSOs plus 10% as the former are dying for this country they need to be rewarded for this.

    + Health and social support for those in society who really cannot do either paid or voluntary work. It cannot be right that those on benefit do nothing to get it. Nor is it right that any new arrival from EU or elsewhere is entitled to housing and welfare immediately from the state. Nor is it right that families are better off on benefit than doing some work (paid or vountary). No longer can UK workers appaear as fools for actually working by those on benefit.

    + Education must be supported at the highest level by infrastructure and staff, with minimum government intervention. Teachers must work as contracted, no in term "inset days" and compulsory refresher training in the summer holidays.

    + Business must be supported especially the development of a major and significant manufacturing base in new green industryies supported by a patents culture to create long term value.

    + Environmental issues where standards are set and management developed to reduce the UK impact on the world and influence others in the same way.

    + Financial and economy - deliver a stable and efficient economy/currently with a regulated and controlled banking/financial services sector.

    The above is all government should do. Hozever they should not waste money on prestige plans for Trident and Aircraft Carriers we do not need and will never use.

  • Comment number 53.

    If you are not able to express your views loudly enough or not in-step with the rest of the herd then look out. If you don't join in with this sham, you will be viewed as negative, unpatriotic and not willing to pull together for the common good. We shouldn't be brainwashed by all of this - there will be some easy targets out there and some cuts will gain general poipularity, but cause a lot of pain for a few who happen to be disadvantaged - look out if you happen to be down on your luck. We elect a government to make the big decisions, which may sometimes be unpopular, not to buck responsibilities. The public sector has in part, cushioned this country from a potentially catastrophic recession - this doesn't seem a popular view - many in the country will quite simply view most things in the public sector as costs that we can slash and much of the public sector now look like sitting ducks, waiting for the shooting season to start.

    The big discussion should be on how people can get together to come up with ideas on how to increase exports and tool our people with the skills to react to a post recession economy. There has to be targetted wealth redistribution to create and nurture business activity, broadening the nature of the business base in this country, with the investment money coming from those who have it and don't spend it in the economy or contribute little financially to UK plc. We shouldn't forget that there is plenty of wealth in this country, which is squirrelled away and unproductive economically - this locked up wealth should be invested and be part of the solution. Any good business knows that in times of recession, it isn't just about cutting costs - the strong ones, will increase liquidity and invest, just compare the strategies of Tesco and Sainsbury's in the '80s and guess which one invested most during the recession and which one cut back heavily!.

    We mustn't be brainwashed by low grade psychological tunes played through the media .

  • Comment number 54.

    Don't ask me George, it's YOUR job; it's what YOU were elected for, so just get on with it.

    If you do want my opinion you'll have to pay for it, because unlike you, George, I don't have a 6-figure salary.

    This is just a cheap, quick 'Let's appease the public, by asking their opinion' exercise which also has the side benefit of spreading the blame if it all goes wrong. (You thought I hadn't noticed, didn't you?)

    George, you must think I came down with the last shower - go and do some work, will you, and make sure you get it right because you'll only get one chance. If you get it wrong the Labour idiots will be back in next time, perish the thought.

  • Comment number 55.

    I think the media should report the real numbers.. then the 'people' would realise how big a mess we are in

    We don't owe £70bn, thats interest, we already owe over £900 billion
    The most the bank bail out costs is around £25bn - so under 3% of debt

    We are currently overspending each and every year by £100 billion - thats all the taxes and revenue collected less everything we spend

    We should be asking how to cut the defecit down to £0, then we can start paying back the £900 bn of debt, say another £50bn of cuts a year for 18 years (ex interest) so its more taxes for everyone, less benefits, less everything

    We are the equivalent of a household with a £50k credit card bill, cut the card up and STOP spending

  • Comment number 56.

    Make all the British Housing Associations PAY the market price for the property (council houses)they have been given(for a pitance)by the councils across this land, One sold all of its stock for just over £8k per property and the HA is asking £150k from the tenant if they want to buy the roof over their heads.There are many BILLONS of pounds that have been stolen from the public purse with this scam.........

  • Comment number 57.

    If things are as dire as the Government says it is, we should get rid of Trident and reduce our military commitments, we always seem to be the nation providing the second highest number of troops in any conflict anywhere in the World after the US.
    We should also tax child benefits and winter fuel allowances, so that the less needy do not get the full benefit.
    I also think we should reduce the number of MP's and the size of the House of Lords. The Tories proposal to reduce the number of MP's by 10% is not radical enough, why not reduce by 50%. I also don't see why the Lords is limited to say 100 members.
    We should reduce the amount of statistics that have to be gathered to comply with numerous government targets. They seem a good idea, but the cost in collecting them is substantial.
    We also need to reduce the vast amounts of money wasted in the courts system, with trials going on for far too long. We also need to look at how we use police resources. We have hundreds of police working on the Cumbria shooting case for example, what's the point we know who did it. I am absolutely certain we will waste lots more money over the next few years on various enquiries as to why it happen. Just as we have done in investigating the Iragi war.

  • Comment number 58.

    As someone on Employment support with some disability living allowance I already know what the "people" will say thanks to a hysterical media. Should I paint the bull's eye on the front or the back?

    I would like to see a hold on Trident and a closer look at the books of the EU. It was once the case that a country had to fulfil certain economic obligations before they were allowed to join. It seems that those obligations are gone and we are having to pay to improve the quality of life for people who, twenty years ago, would have been denied a place.

    To accept that it is all right for a change for the British Isles to no longer feel that they should be the world's social worker or policeman and look within our own borders for a while.

  • Comment number 59.

    The prime aim here must be to reduce costs and borrowing thereby reducing debt ! So what are the costly areas that warrant drastic reductions :-

    1. Immediately withdraw from the EU - this costs £ millions per day - restricts our economice development and reulates our manufacturing base !

    2. Withdraw all troops and resources from Iraq - Afghanistan and similar immediately - This is not our war at all - these troops and resources can protect our Island at home at far less cost in terms of lives being lost and finance !

    3. Immediately half the number of active MP's while stopping expenses and ancillary costs - Then renumeration by result only !

    4. Immediately eliminate all Managers - IT Consultants and supportive facilities from the NHS.

    5. Immediately stop all unnecessary and unessential immigration into the Country.

    6. Immediately stop the massive drain financially through golden handshakes, Pay-offs, Pensions and similar.

    7. Immediately increase import duty on all goods, to allow redevelopment of our own industrial base on a level playing field.

    9. Stop immediately the continual lowering of prices for alcohol, smoking and harmful substances as the aftereffects are costing £ billions.

    10. Immediately stop all expansion of roads,rail,airports,etc. We just cannot afford it.

    Lastly be HONEST - OPEN - FAIR - TRUTHFULL in all discussions, to avoid further mis-trust !!!

  • Comment number 60.

    The UK wastes billions on overseas aid, we have hundreds of thousands of overpaid overhyped self-aggrandising pointless unproductive QUANGO's, councillors simply pay themselves too much, all civil servants do not need to work in central London in expensive offices - but our biggest waste of money is paying billions into the EU so that there can be beef mountains and olive oil lakes.

  • Comment number 61.

    By not putting our services in private hands for a start.EU withdrawal a definite, cut benefits for foreigners whom have lived here less than 15 years, this includes NHS treatment. Make the welsh pay for there prescriptions same as England. Rid this country of the jobs for the boy`s quango`s. Councils have to do there bit also, as well as streamlining they also cannot expect us to foot a shortfall in there pensions whilst we have to add extra to our own, this is perverse. A fair tax maybe a bit radical and maybe unpopular a one off like if you earn £10,000 you pay a one off £100, £20,000 you pay £200 etc etc, Tax hikes and other plans are a short term fix, sooner or later jobs get lost and this adds to the burden to the rest left in work, and starts a rot. re-nationalize our utility's and rail eventually, as the whole point of privatizing these was to save the public purse IE subsidies, well at least then it was going to the infrastructure or back in taxes, now it goes to shareholders sometimes abroad. Which brings me on to foreign aid, this has to be looked at seriously, I think if we sort out ourselves and make us stronger we eventually will be able to give more.

  • Comment number 62.

    How should the government spend my taxes?

    In the opposite way to how Labour spent my taxes: stop giving my money to the bone idle, criminals, illegal immigrants, drug addicts, chavs and teenage mums.

    Reward those who make a contribution to society. Punish those who can't be bothered to pull their weight. Stop the 'incapacity benefits' gravy train.

  • Comment number 63.

    2. At 09:04am on 08 Jun 2010, JohnH wrote:

    And before anyone else rants about brown spending too much on public services, just imagine what they would be like without it.

    The reality John is that Brown took actions that allowed Public Spending to increase at a rate way beyond inflation. As just one example we have heads of Housing Associations on massive salaries now. This has not inproved the service provided one jot so why was it deemed necessary ?

  • Comment number 64.

    Scrap all overseas aid until the country has no debt. We should not have to suffer increased taxes and reduced services to allow money to be sent abroad.

  • Comment number 65.

    David Cameron is so excited about the prospect of Tory slash and burn on the public sector that he can't wait until the budget to get off on talking about it.

    We could axe Trident, slash senior posts in the armed services, reduce the civil list, cut MP's expense allowances, abolish OFSTED and similar thought police bodies, scrap the academies (inequality) scheme, remove public school "charitable" status and have income tax rates rising proportionally with income ie 10:20:40:80% but I can't see him adopting any of these.

    New Tory old (s)Tory

  • Comment number 66.

    on health, police and education. And much, much less on the military.

  • Comment number 67.

    The Government is looking for ideas on how to cut, they all come on TV Radio and tell us it is going to be tough we are all going to suffer. I have not heard one of them suggesting that the MPS should be the first to suffer and show the British people they believe in what they say. No the ones who lost out we are told are going out with big Golden handshakes, why, they lost out tough, so if we are all going to suffer that is a place to start.
    Come on set us a good example.
    Question to the Government we have lost more than 200 troops to mines why are we not using the 1944 idea which worked exceptionally well using the tank out front not the men and the tank had a flayer out front that blew up the mines in advance.
    Any shots I see on TV I have never seen a tank being used WHY.
    George Thomson

  • Comment number 68.

    Energy and knowledge are the factors which provide our standard of living.
    Education is vital to improve knowledge at all levels from primary school children to pensioners. Education, particularly scientific and social science education should therefore be expanded. Religious education should be aimed at removing the idea that some benign external interference relieves people from acting rationally.
    Energy from fossil sources is running out. Renewable energy must provide the energy we wish to use as soon as possible. Education, in particular technical education, will be vital for this. Conservation in the meantime is essential, again education is vital.
    The benefits derived from the exploitation of natural resources must be spread across the population. This should be done by giving every individual a share in the nation's natural resources of land and energy as of right. The shares will earn a dividend (as for example in Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend which has paid out $24,000 to every Citizen!)
    Citizens Income would remove the need for most benefit systems and remove the need for government involvement in employer/employee relations.
    All energy is taxed at source so that the tax is 'embedded' in every product sold. This tax income allows all other taxes to be abolished. Tax evasion, avoudance, collection, tax crime, tax policing and court cases are also abolished. The tax pays the dividend on the Citizens shares as well as all other Government expenditure.
    Millions of public and private business bureacratic workers can be released for retraining on full pay to carry out work of their choice.
    Removal of taxes on jobs would allow manpower intensive activities to thrive and energy intensive industries would need to be more competitive than at present. This would increase the employment opportunities at every level of skill.
    I'm a pensioner and my main hope is that these changes could make the future UK a better country where security of a job, a home and a future is made available to all.

  • Comment number 69.

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

  • Comment number 70.

    37. At 09:48am on 08 Jun 2010, AuntieLeft wrote:
    How many more times do WE, the British public have to tell them.

    a) No more immigration

    e) Stop funding education topics (and colleges) that are set up not to educate but keep the dole numbers down (ie media studies, sports sciences, etc)

    i) Reduce red tape to business and let it make more wealth for OUR kids to have jobs


    ---------------------------------------------------

    a) I'm an immigrant and I pay higher taxes than the average Brit and have no claim to any benefits. Would you like me to leave and stop giving you my money?

    e) I take it you never go to the cinema, watch tv or go to the theatre or have ever played an organised sport. You may not be interested in these subjects, and quite frankly, neither am I, but it doesn't mean that we can take away the creative side of education. Look at governments who do hinder creativity...you'll see a scary side of history.

    i) I believe we have learned a very hard lesson (or have we?) in what happens when we let businesses do what they want.

    I'm just wondering now if your post wasn't just a joke to wind people up.

  • Comment number 71.

    Here we go again! Back to the Thatcher years of massive cuts and allowing private companies to line their own pockets at our expense! We are not Canada. What may have worked for them probably won't work for us. Thatcher took advice from an American economist and then set about applying a mix of US policies to us, which really only applied to the US system, not ours. Why on earth should volunteers run public services? Don't volunteers have to live and eat as well? This just goes to show that our politicians still live on a different planet to the rest of us. For goodness sake, get real!

  • Comment number 72.

    Out source ALL Government functions to private companies, then TAX the companies profits at 100% to return any surplus to the public purse. Of course thats what we do at present.

    More seriously.
    1. Start by throwing many of the Rule Books out of the window, allowing Public service managers to manage, allow decisions to be made at a lower level, stop the culture of Blame which has resulted in extra layers of management. Accept a small amount of 'wastage' in the Public finances, so often we see an overseeing body that costs more than the possible waste they could reduce.
    2. In Public Service buying do away with the 'three quote' farce, allow the buyers to negotiate properly. We recently saw how 'three quotes' was worked in the construction industry to inflate the price of public contracts, lets allow proper cost control by the customer at local level, rather than by Head Office.
    3. Avoid the myths that cutting jobs saves money. There are many low paid public service jobs that can, in theory, be carried out more efficiently, but on fuller examination there is no real saving. AN example would be our local road sweepers. They use old style barrows and brooms, walk the streets picking litter and sweeping up. They could 'in theory' be replaced by one man with a machine. The job would be done 'more efficiently' but at the cost of putting people on benefit, any saving on the Council wages account would be lost in the Benefit office accounts.
    4. Before any cost cutting look carefully at the FULL implications. We had this farce in the 1980's with many cost cutting exercises, where the actual effect was to transfer the cost from one account to the other, with in many cases an increase to the public cost. A prime example locally was the push to reduce Council Rent arrears. The Councils were encouraged to evict those with rent arrears, locally this amounted to £14 PW. The same councils them found they had a legal obligation to rehouse those they had evicted, locally in B&B at around £100PW. Money saved on the Council House account was more than wasted on the Social Services Account.
    5. Keep Lawyers out of it.


    Just a short list, there are many other ideas possible, including doing away with the Annual method of calculating council Taxes, allowing Public bodies to carry forward any surplus monies to the next year thus avoiding the annual end of term spend up.

    The most important thing I can think of is to think it through and keep Private profit out of the Public purse.

  • Comment number 73.

    The RAF is massive waste of money as it only operates from land bases and lets be honest theirs not that great a chance of us going to war with france or germany. merge it with the RFA ( royal fleet auxillary) which is run by the royal navy and does all the work on the field.

  • Comment number 74.

    6. At 09:18am on 08 Jun 2010, This is not you wrote:
    KarenZ wrote:
    not foreign aid


    ----

    Of course, why should we give money to people who need it more than us? They're not us after all!


    ----------

    Like China and India you mean?

  • Comment number 75.

    A Treasury official said: "Anyone who thinks the spending review is just about saving money is missing the point.
    "This is a once-in-a-generation opportunity to transform the way that government works."
    This proposed 'star chamber' will challenge what services should be provided by government and which would be 'better provided' by local councils, the private sector or charities.
    Cameron wasn't just providing a rhetorical flourish when he said our whole way of life will change.
    Service provision will disappear or what was once free(paid for by general taxation) will now have to be paid for.
    Cameron is going to use the task of deficit reduction to mask the Tory desire to withdraw government responsibility from a large number of areas of service provision. As his partners in the coalition are all Orange Book Lib-Dems they will be his willing partners.

  • Comment number 76.

    I wholeheartedly endorse comment:
    49. At 09:57am on 08 Jun 2010, by MrWonderfulReality




    The most significant portion of the budget deficit is caused by interest from loans we gave to banks.

  • Comment number 77.

    "Foreign aid has to be looked at, there is a lot of truth in the joke
    'Foreign Aid is the money given by poor people in rich countries to rich people in poor countries'
    Much foreign aid is wasted or ends up in the bank accounts of unscupulious politicians.
    We should only give foreign aid on the proviso that we administer how and where in is spend, it should not be handed over to foreign governments. If they don't accept this then they don't get it."


    What we give as foreign aid always has strings attached. The main reason for foreign aid is to use it as a bargaining chip to win lucrative contracts in those countries. BAE Systems is a large benefactor of this system.

  • Comment number 78.

    A key issue is the balance between tax increases and cuts when dealing with the deficit reduction plan. The government currently is suggesting 80% cuts and 20% tax increases.

    I think the government should consider an emergency 3 year income tax surcharge of 2.5 pence bringing in £45 billion rather than a regressive VAT increase which would hit poorer people most.

    Deficit reduction through 40% tax increases, 40% cuts and 20% through the benefitsof growth might then be possible reducing public sector redundancies from 500,000 to 300,000.

    I am very much afraid that any other approach could threaten the fabric of our society for a generation as stagflation kicks in and hope disappears out of the window.

  • Comment number 79.

    should of let the banks fail, as all we have now is alot of debt, money being loaned abroad as there is no profit in lending to small businesses, we could of had a new start with people getting property cheap. oh I forgot the establishment wouldn't be able to live of our backs that way!

  • Comment number 80.

    People paying into private pensions have had to bear the brunt of the recession and are left with virtually hardly anything, why should their taxes support the pensions of people in the public section.

  • Comment number 81.

    I believe the greater share of the burden has already fallen on the Private Sector - ie the Pensions hit of 1997,the below Inflation (or zero and less)pay increases of the past few years , job losses and short time working to mention the major ones. It is time that the burden was shared out more. The Public sector will not like it but in the Interests of job protection,they need to seriously consider the way forward-the more concession they make the better the chance of actually preserving their jobs. In my view there has to be a rethink about the Pension issue as to what is affordable in the long term. We need a freeze on recruitment and this will need to be for a long time,essential jobs can be backfilled by eliminating non essential jobs. A pay freeze also needs to be in place for a few years - I would actually go further and impose a cut but to protect the lower paid that burden would need to be borne more proportionately by the higher earners - I know in my own Council for instance that the number of people earning in excess of £ 100k has mushroomed in the past 10 years.What I would also say is that when we do eventually get our deficit down to zero,we should then embark on a programme to repay all of our debt over a period of say 30 years and have it written into law that government cannot borrow money without a vote of say 75% of the house or a referendum.

  • Comment number 82.

    Now that I am invited to advise the Government on addressing the defecit may I offer the following suggestions:-

    Before designing or implementing any spending cuts make sure all the tax-avoiding loopholes have been closed....including Lord Ashcroft's. Only then might we know exactly what and how much we have to cut!

    In order to reassure us that addressing the defecit is not merely an excuse for diminishing public services, let us know the procedures for reinvesting in public services as the defecit reduces.

    Reassure us now that the promises made before and during the election will not be broken under the pretext of.... 'THE SITUATION IS EVEN WORSE THAN WE THOUGHT, FEEL FREE TO PANIC...etc etc'

    Explain why ordinary people are having to tighten their belts to the point of abdominal asphyxiation while Bankers are still getting their bonuses.

    Once all that is done I will send the government my ideas. Until then I will treat it as the gimmick I suspect it is!

  • Comment number 83.

    32. At 09:41am on 08 Jun 2010, Confuciousfred wrote:

    In addition to 24, companies in the financial sector operating in the UK must have UK based call centres.

    _________________________________________________________

    I'm with you on that one Confuciousfred. The other day my mother encountered a very distressed elderly lady at an Age Concern centre. The lady had gone in to her local branch of her bank to withdraw her pension only to be told that she was unable to conduct this transaction over the counter because she was not withdrawing enough money. She was told that she could get her money out from the cash point, to which she replied that she didn't have a cash card. She was given the number for the banks call centre....IN INDIA. She tried to have a conversation with the operator on the other end, but was completely unable to understand a word being said to her (I can fully sympathise there, I have good hearing & I struggle to understand an Indian accent especially over the phone). By this time the poor lady was in a serious state of distress. This lady was one of the fortunate ones, who knew she could get help at Age Concern. I can see more elderly people getting in to this kind of situation because banks aren't really interested in their custom, have become very impersonal & only care about big money accounts. With these swingeing cuts I can see the invaluable service organisations such as Age Concern provide to our most vulnerable will disappear because people just can not afford to donate to keep them afloat.

  • Comment number 84.

    They shouls spend it on the British people. Ditch the Commonwealth,EU, foreign aid etc etc.

  • Comment number 85.

    Doesnt take much thinking about really.
    First up.
    Ditch the EU, they need us far more than we need them. Saves 10 billion.
    Ring fence money for the Armed forces, basic education, pensions and the NHS.
    But, get rid of half the NHS managers and put half the savings into frontline services.
    Instruct ALL government depts to 'buy British', this will provide jobs for all those 'able' unemployed, reducing benefits.
    Scrap all quangos.
    Scrap all consultants.
    Halve foreign aid until the books have been balanced.
    Make a 20% cut to all salaries in the public sector over say 80000.
    Cap salaries in the public sector at say 150000.
    Stop contributing to public sector final salary schemes, after all hardly anyone in the private sector now has a decent one.
    For a brave government the list of cuts is almost endless.
    This country has to begin to live within its means and to start generating real wealth once more not fictitious paper money generated buy service industries that add little of value.
    We need export led manufacturing and agriculture.
    We need to generate a culture of 'BUY BRITISH'.
    Stop ALL immigration now, not just from outside the EU but from within the EU as well. Brussels wont like it but tough.
    I could go on and on and on and on and on ad infinitum.
    But i doubt that Cameron and Clegg will take a blind bit of notice of anything the public says on the matter, They will already have their eyes firmly fixed on the next election.
    Come on Dave and Nick, prove me wrong.

  • Comment number 86.

    What I want
    - limit (cash) benefits to £5000 per household. Preferably move a portion to vouchers instead of cash.
    - reduce motability to just those who REALLY need it, and put a limit on mileage allowed
    - general public sector pay freeze at low end, pay cut at top end, general public sector pension review
    - require 5%-10% cut in spending in government departments and local authorities NOT including job losses.
    - cut translation services for public sector services (except for translation to other native British languages - eg Welsh) - increase ESL teaching availability to compensate
    - Cut tax credits, and increase tax thresholds to compensate - will simplify taxation, helping businesses and reducing staff needs at HMRC
    - limit child benefits to the last two children, and cut totally for those earning over £40k PA
    - increase VAT to 20%
    - increase income tax basic rate to 22%

    - all government call centres must be in the UK
    - re-evaluate public transport infrastructure, encourage community cooperatives for public transport, rather than huge national companies who just have profit as their goal.
    - encourage more freight on to rail
    - restructure benefits to encourage returning to work, and help people if they choose to start their own business instead of being unemployed
    - encourage legal system to fight against the 'no win no fee compensation' culture, and restore 'personal responsibility' for looking where you're going. (This will reduce insurance costs, and over-strict health & safety costs)
    - help small businesses to grow by cutting employer's NI for small businesses, and reviewing employer legislation for small businesses

  • Comment number 87.

    JohnH (2) I couldn't agree more. How about making sure the people and areas targeted for cuts are those most able to afford them?
    Fat chance, I'm sure.

  • Comment number 88.

    How should the British government spend our taxes? On the British people. We could save a fortune if we slashed foreign aid and EU spending. Let us sort our own country's problems out, and then we'll be in a better position to help others sort theirs out. Elsewhere, just cut the bureaucracy - starting with the DWP.

    With that in mind, troops home - that'll save us a ton not just in logistics but also in the recompense paid to families of people killed in unjust wars.

  • Comment number 89.

    "6. At 09:18am on 08 Jun 2010, This is not you wrote:
    KarenZ wrote:
    not foreign aid

    Of course, why should we give money to people who need it more than us? They're not us after all!"

    May be because we do not have the money in the first place?

    Just what is it you do not understand about trillion(s) of debt & no more money? This country is bankrupt.

    Many of the countries we give aid to are better off than we are.

  • Comment number 90.

    For a start, before hitting poorer people on benefits, he should claw back the huge sums paid as 'bonuses' to the bankers who were laregly responsible for the mess we are in.

    Pehaps he might also ask some of the better off people to forgo a few luxuries, like the second or third home, cut back to only two cars each, maybe only have three holidays a year, and put off buying the new luxury yacht.

  • Comment number 91.

    Taxes should be spent on front line services, I watched a programme last night regarding a child protection unit in Surrey, I was shocked and could not believe what I was watching, (I am also surprised that there is no mention of this in the news this morning).

    We should bring our troops home from Afghan, sort out immigration, and get rid of the ,000s of non front line non jobs that Labour have created over the last 13 years, these measures would save billions, and we should than spend this money in places that really matter, like protecting Vulnerable kids, and not just ticking boxes on government forms.

    The state that this country has been left by Labour is criminal, how on earth 8 million people voted labour in the last election is a mystery. And now Ed Balls and the rest of his pals are saying that they did not know the full extent of major issues like the immigration agenda Labour had, these people should be stripped of their positions for what they have done to this country.

  • Comment number 92.

    These cuts are going to hurt but they are fundamentally necessary. I agree that we need rapid action to reduce the national debt - we don’t want to spend more on interest payments than some essential services do we. The interest payment could be £70bn within five years.

    I have just written a short piece on my blog about this - read and discuss - http://robgreenhalgh.wordpress.com/2010/06/08/so-we-are-going-to-get-a-say-on-funding-cuts/

  • Comment number 93.

    The government will never spend my taxes the way I would like them to, my list would no doubt be censored - sorry moderated!

    But how they should not be spending them is by building re-settlement centres in Kabul!

    Having paid for these people to be here during their endless appeals, which we have also paid for, paying for them to go home we are now expected to pay for re-settlement when they were never invited to this country in the first place! ABSOLUTE NONSENSE FROM A GOVERNMENT WANTING TO SAVE MONEY!

  • Comment number 94.


    How should the government spen my taxes? By paying off the vast debt incurred by the last feckless government.

    They can do this easily by abolishing all state provided education.

    It is unable to do what it says on the tin (as the stats confirm) and only encourages the worst possible kind of utter irresponsibility.

    If someone makes a the personal life style decision to bring a human being into existence on an over populated, resource-drained, environmentally degraded planet then they should be solely and financially responsible for providing and caring for that child.

    The status quo of exponential increase in human population is utterly unsustainable and has no possible future so the government is going to have to get a grip on this issue anyway.

    Now that bankrupt Britain is completely bust, this is an excellent opportunity to make parents pay for the children that they have chosen to have and to force them to provide for their child's education by scrapping state schools.

    Also abolish maternity and paternity pay and child benefit for the same reasons. The state shouldn't penalise people if they want to have children but neither should the state reward them for doing so as that can only lead to welfare dependency and disaster.

    Having children is now a luxury that very few can afford and if people do so irresponsibly then the government should seriously consider sterilising them so that their wreckless behaviour does not effect other people in society.


  • Comment number 95.

    "18. At 09:28am on 08 Jun 2010, vilacelestin wrote:
    Cuting foreign aid is being weak on drugs and weak on national security."

    So do you think if we'd handed all 770Billion to other countries everything here would be utopia? We can't even prevent drug growers and terrorists in our own blooming country!


  • Comment number 96.

    @ weallmustvote (posts 12+15)

    Heaven forbid a doctor or nurse should walk down a corridor to the next ward to find that elusive venflon they need for a patient because their ward has none. Heaven forbid a doctor should walk to the next ward to find his patients because his ward is full and they have been put elsewhere. Heaven forbid you should mistake a medical student for a doctor, for they look similar but have much less to do. Heaven forbid the on call doctor should answer a page from a ward with a sick patient. Heaven forbid a doctor or nurse allow themselves five minutes of time for a tea break and heaven forbid any of us should be sensible enough to save our money in our own pensions for our retirement.

    Are you aware of the parable about walking a mile in another mans shoes? I suggest you find out about it before coming down so hard on people whos lives you know nothing about.

  • Comment number 97.

    Ask us? What a cop out. Why are they elected if they have to ask us all what to do - so when it all goes badly wrong, someone can say " we asked what you wanted, it's not our fault".
    An absolute and utter sham!

  • Comment number 98.

    I find it odd that people think that we live in a democracy. That is only an illusion. It is the multi-billion £ corporations who run and dictate this country. Strange that they have asked our opinion on the above matter, whilst they have rarely asked us of anything else. Tax cuts, sort out tax evation, the biggest fraud in this country. I just wish to shatter the belief of the the moral majority that it is not welfare claimants. End the war in Iraq and Afghanistan. Cut the wages of our multi-millionaire politicians. Sadly, charity does begin at home and therefore we need to reduce the aid we give to other countries. Knock parliament down, sell the land and then we will get a couple of quid from that aswell. Reduce what we give to the royal family.

  • Comment number 99.

    Stop giving my money to selfish parents who can't be bothered to care for their own children, I'm quite happy to see parents on genuinely low incomes get assistance from the government but when greedy and uncaring parents are getting benefits that they do not deserve, it makes my blood boil. For the record, I worked wherever & whenever it was necassary in order for my children to get the upbringing thaT every child deserves but I don't think that it is right for my taxes today to be used to subsidise holidays & cars for people who can't be bothered to look after their children properly.

  • Comment number 100.

    End the majority of welfare benefits for the lazy, such as those that can work but don't fancy getting their hands dirty. Benefits must be a safety net for those that need them, not a life choice for those who don't want to work.

    Slash quango's that do nothing.

    End private consulting from the Big 4 accounting practices, if we need that advice, employ them and perhaps sell their time to the private sector rather than the other way round.

    Cut out all the bureaucratic nonsense of government and reduce the house of Commons by 20% with redrawn constituancies reducing city representation.

    FINE ALL PUBLIC BODIES THE COST + 100 % PUNITIVE FINE FOR TRANSLATING DOCUMENTS AND OFFERING TRANSLATION. THE LANGUAGE OF THIS COUNTRY IS ENGLISH, NOT POLISH, GUJARTI, FRENCH, GERMAN, TURKISH ETC. THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS ARE WELSH AND GAELIC. ALTHOUGH BOTH POINTLESS, THEY ARE INDIGENIOUS. Last week I got a flyer from Thames Water that had been translated into 21 languages. If you want to live here, learn the Lingo or go somewhee they speak your language.

    Simplify and eradicate levels of government, the jokes in Cardiff and Edinburgh, which are just homes for useless unelected politicians to spend English tax receipts. Some Scot will now bang on about oil money when the economic argument is that they still would need a block grant from London if they kept all of it. Abolish the Greater London Assembly, elected mayors in one horse towns and in Borough's. London needs a mayor, Tower Hamlets does not. But London does not need all the bureaucracy that goes with it. Allow an assembly in Ulster as a prelude to a referendum to them joining the Irish Republic. Simply the county council system, to cut duplication and waste.

    No international aid without reform of the host countries. Many would like to see an end to this, but Britain has an obligation as a former colonial power.

    LEAVE THE EU

    Most important of all remember, ITS NOT YOUR MONEY YOU SPENDING ITS OURS.

    This country is in the mess its in today because Labour always think they can tax and spend.

 

Page 1 of 19

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.