Armed Forces and police to face further spending cuts, Danny Alexander warns...

[Willard Whyte]

Armed Forces and police to face further spending cuts, Danny Alexander warns - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9949546/Armed-Forces-and-police-to-face-further-spending-cuts-Danny-Alexander-warns.html)

There may well be some political posturing involved, but a ~5% cut is going to mean the cancellation of (yet another) complete program one would think, whether land, sea or air.

I almost feel sorry for those who decide not to pvr.

[Ken Scott]

This is probably necessary given the dire financial situation but would be considerably more palatable but for the stated desire to maintain the welfare budget. The projected increase in Housing Allowance for example will dwarf any cuts in defence or the Police.

We either get to grips with welfare spending or sink as a nation in my opinion.

[Courtney Mil]

Sad madness, but I can't say I'm at all surprised. They've made cuts to the Armed Forces and they are still doing the job. So, they feel there is still fat on the carcass and can, therefore, make further cuts. I look forward to the day when Dave asks the brave guys and galls to go on his next mission to promote his standing on the international stage only to find they can't. Then it will be too late.

Which programmes do we cut now?

[NutLoose]

3 years benefits and they would then reduce until in year 5 they cease if had my way, rent would be covered for 1 more year, but the rest would cease until they have got a job and contributed back into the system.

I notice no cuts to the 4 independent parliaments etc. give them all a referendum for independence, if they vote against it, shut the Scottish / Welsh ones etc and move it back to parliament, that would cut multiple civil service positions, multiple building up keeps etc.

[VinRouge]

Cut the state pension, cut the NHS and the deficit would be one step closer to solving. Likelihood? Zero.

[tucumseh]

And yet it remains a disciplinary offence in MoD to refuse to knowingly waste money.



Most recent sources, 3 DE&S letters dated 28.11.12, 8.1.13 and 13.2.13, plus one from the Head of the Civil Service dated 18.1.13.



:ugh::ugh:

[high spirits]

It's pretty self defeating if you sack a proportion of those on PAYE every 5 years or so. As well as foreign aid, welfare and the NHS, they should be looking more closely at tax skivers. A great many of whom work on military bases in ex mil jobs who set themselves up as their own company, and then subcontract to 'lowest bidder mil contracts.com'.

[smujsmith]

Whilst we can all "dick dance" around reasons for these cuts, it's very hard to deny that the projected influx of several thousands of benefit tourists from Romania etc are the reason that the "welfare" bill is going up. I have a service pension, 30 years of service and a further 12 years of work and paying my dues. I feel that people are trying to single me out as some sort of "drain" on the establishment. I see however that we have people in this country who have never paid a penny in tax or NI, who get a damn sight more than I do per month in this, that and the other benefit. I doubt my neighbour, after the way the Osborne/Cameron/Duncan-Smith show sets it out, considers me anything other than a Skiver, I can only say that I've done my bit and when some of the incomers can equal my contribution then they deserve their dues.

Smudge (the Skiver)

[VinRouge]

We can all gripe and moan about benefits cheats, but I'd doesn't detract from the fact that these sorts of benefits form a tiny proportion of the dwp budget. Pensions for example, are forecast to grow by 40 billion alone in the next decade. We have some seriously difficult choices ahead, and ring fencing particular budgets for political expedience is quite frankly disgraceful.

I don't see why they allowed grandfather rights to the changes to state pension age which should have been introduced in this parliament, if they change, they should change for everyone. I know this will not be popular, but some form of means testing for state pension will come, it has to. Complete moral hazard, but we cannot afford to pay the reasonably well off (significant private sector pensions or substantial savings) the state pension, nor can we continue to afford to provide the full range of healthcare we have benefitted from to everyone either.

Difficult choices. Unfortunately, I don't see any politicians on the horizon with the cahones to enact such policies.

Emigration unfortunately, seems to be the only forward option for strivers in this country.

[vernon99]

There are loads of ways to save money, but no political will power to do so.

For example all government departments should be given a budget, any surplus at year end is deducted from next years budget. Carry out random audits to check that money has not been wasted, if it has, then the department head should be prosecuted (using a new law regarding waste of taxpayers money) with prison an almost certainty if found guilty, this should focus minds to the right attitude for cost saving.

The NHS should start being less generous with healthcare for foreign visitors. I am sure if I go abroad, I am told I will not get treatment without insurance, use the new law above to prosecute hospitals where they are not getting payment from patients for treatment.

Ditto local councils, they would definitely fall foul of a new law regarding waste of taxpayers money, stop producing documents in a dozen languages, if you cannot read and write in English then pay for your own translation. There are loads of "non jobs" that do not support core services, these should go. Likewise the waste of funds fighting in court over trivial things, like whistle blowers.

We could simplify the tax system, do away with tax credits etc. Give everyone a decent/living tax allowance. If your wife stays at home to look after the children, you can have her tax allowance.

There are dozens of ways to save money without affecting core services.

How about no benefits without 5 years paying into the system, should stop those that think they can go from school to benefits without working. Moving to the uk from abroad, no problem, just need to prove you can support yourself for 5 years rent food etc.(£100k?) Coming to study here - ditto.
If the sort of cuts listed above are not enough, then yes it's time to start on the long term benefit recipients. As above 5 years and tapering to nothing, unless exceptional circumstances, eg genuine disability.

Just no political willpower to actually do something.:ugh:

[Onceapilot]

I refer back to previous posts.., means testing will defo come to state pensions and NHS provision in the next 10 years:ouch:.

OAP

[vascodegama]

Details then tuc??

[BEagle]

...some form of means testing for state pension will come...

Except that most people have been paying contributions to their state pension ever since they first started working....

So why should such contributions now be ignored and some form of fatuous, administrivial-heavy 'means testing' be introduced to factor the pension for such long-serving tax / NI payers?

Certainly end the nonsense of 'NHS tourism'. A couple who lived near me (for 4 years) were both Polish. She cr@pped a couple of brats courtesy of the free NHS, now they've buggered off back to Poland. There must be thousands of similar such cases....

nuLabor f*cked up immigration and swamped the nation with such scroungers, now it seems we're paying for such stupidity.

[Easy Street]

all government departments should be given a budget, any surplus at year end is deducted from next years budget.

That's effectively what we have got already. It's why there is always a mad rush to spend end-of-year surpluses on complete rubbish like flatscreen TVs and other flim-flam.

It would be much better if end-of-year surpluses could be carried over. This would discourage end-of-year waste and would allow departments to benefit from frugality.

[Corporal Clott]

I wonder how they'll pay for this...

DEFENCE: UKIP POLICY

Tuesday, 14th June 2011

Over the years, successive governments have starved the British armed forces of money. This has meant insufficient equipment, overstretched resources and excessive tours of duty, which can badly damage the fabric of family life. UKIP has huge regard for our Armed Forces and the work they do. We are prepared to provide proper defence resources and bring an end to devastating cuts. UKIP will:

· Spend an extra 40% on defence annually, another 1% of GDP

· Restore the Royal Navy to its 2001 strength with three new aircraft carriers and nearly 70 other ships, at the same time guaranteeing the future of the Plymouth, Portsmouth and Rosyth bases

· Increase RAF capability by buying more essential helicopters, transport aircraft and 50 extra JSF Lightning aircraft

· Restore historic regiments, such as the Highland regiments, which are being subsumed into planned European battle groups

· Strengthen our commitment to NATO, while withdrawing from all EU operations

· Reappraise our operations in Afghanistan to create a single, clear and achievable mission or seek to negotiate a withdrawal with our NATO partners

· Maintain Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent with existing Trident submarines and then replace them with four British-built submarines armed with US missiles

· Cut MOD bureaucracy, which has one civil servant for every two military personnel

· Introduce better pay, conditions and medical care for the British Armed Forces personnel and their families

· Introduce a ‘National Defence Medal’ respecting the service of all armed forces personnel and not just those who saw combat

·* UKIP believes that British forces should not have been involved in the Libyan situation.

[Deepest Norfolk]

I'm with smujsmith on that one. I fell singled out as a drain on society.
I have been employed in government service, one way or another, for most of my working life. I was "in" when pay was p1ss poor and the fact that I would get a pension at the end of it was seen as a compensation. I was a Civil Servant and then a Local Government Officer and poorly paid with the excuse that I would have a reasonable pension at the end. My wife is still in local government. She hasn't had a pay rise for over three years (the Tory controlled Local Government Association saw to that before their big brothers got in) and is unlikely to get one in the near future. There are two of them doing the work that kept three fully occupied before a post was cut due to budget cuts. Now Osborne has decided she gets less pension, pays more in if she wants one at all and is now putting the fangs into progression pay. Essentially, she will be taking a pay cut as well as inflation taking its toll.

I don't remember any government saying that the poor public servants were getting a raw deal when the private sector was doing so well and people were making money hand over fist and putting megga pension pots away. I don't recall anyone saying it had to stop and they were a drain on society. First time the Tory paymasters start feeling the sqeeze and pointing the finger "please Sir, they're getting something instead of us now, please take it off them" thay dance to the tune and start on public service pay and pensions.

I'm not surprised, given their behaviour in the house at PMQs et al.

[NutLoose]

Here is one hole they can close, in case you are unaware if you come from abroad you are still entitled to still claim Child Benefit for those children not even living in this Country.

£1m a week in child benefit paid to children living overseas - Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/9846029/1m-a-week-in-child-benefit-paid-to-children-living-overseas.html)

Put car tax on petrol, you then pay for what you use, you wipe out car tax avoidance at a stroke, you have a whole dept you no longer need at the DVLA, if you need a disc make it a requirement to display an insurance disc in the windscreen.

It would be much better if end-of-year surpluses could be carried over. This would discourage end-of-year waste and would allow departments to benefit from frugality.

I believe the defence budget surplus is getting carried over for a couple of years?

[sycamore]

It should be easy to `bill` each country for the money spent on giving benefits to immigrants .Furthermore, they should not be entitled to any benefit here which is of greater value than that which they receive in their own country.
Same applies to those from UK living in other countries.

[BOAC]

I wonder how they'll pay for this... - heard UKIP today suggest no benfits/NHS for immigrants for 5 years. That would help.

[racedo]

For example all government departments should be given a budget, any surplus at year end is deducted from next years budget.

Biggest buying time for equipment suppliers is the months up to year end as all departments work like crazy to spend the budget so they won't get hit next year.

A much better idea is at end of September .............half way through the year is to then freeze all spending and watch the surplus go up.

[vernon99]

Whatever mechanism is put in place to control/reduce spending waste, it needs backing up with some law that makes wasting public money a criminal offense with large prison sentences up for grabs for department heads. That way you will ensure that people don't waste money on new office chairs at year end etc, and also those at the top cannot weasel their way out of taking the blame. They get the pay yet expect none of the responsibility. Only when they are made accountable will things change.

[racedo]

7 million people living on benefits need to be paid for.

At what point in time does the continued theft of working peoples income to fund the not working stop ?

[blimey]

Can the Climate Change Act which is increasing the cost of everything in the UK, stop ring fencing overseas aid or tie it to the forces or British companies, get a grip on unearned welfare and the international health service, adopt a flat rate tax system, ditch or limit the ECHR and the EU, put rigour back into schooling and health care and punishment back into the penal system, respect old codgers and the family, and no pushing before the scrum half puts the ball in (straight!).

It's going to be an uphill task: one well dressed lady asked by the BBC last week what she thought of the budget said there was too much reliance on the private sector.

[Deepest Norfolk]

I'm with smudge on this one. I'm fed up of being targeted because the private sector is doing so poorly just now. I don't remember successive governments making howls of protest when the private sector was riding high and giving huge salaries, bonuses and the ability to mass huge pension pots etc etc. I don't recall any politician saying this is unfair on public servants and it has to stop.

However, as soon as their mates in the private sector cry "Please sir, they're getting something we can't have anymore" there is a rush to level us all down to the lowest common denominator. Before long, it won't be worth being in a pension scheme at all and any "good" schemes will be brought down to the level of the annuity purchase schemes. The amount of money I would have had to put aside in one of these "designed to cream off your money to the provider" schemes in order to receive the same amount as my RAF pension would have been prohibitive, especially as a young man with a family on, lets face it, what was at the time pretty p1ss poor pay.

I'm totally fed up of successive chancellors constantly having his hand in my wallet so he can give it away to countries who can afford nuclear programs, space programs and to the army of useless wasters in our own country who neither work nor want. If they want what I've got, get off their fat, lazy arses and go out and work bloody hard for several decades as I have and my lady still is (and I will be as soon as I can find more than a part time job in this depression).

[The Old Fat One]

Vin Rouge,

I have not read the whole thread, so apologies if anybody else has picked up on these two comments.

Cut the state pension, cut the NHS and the deficit would be one step closer to solving. Likelihood? Zero.

Completely out of touch with reality and macro economics.

Cut the state pension (by even a small amount), you collapse the economy by removing a stimulus from the money supply and throwing hundreds of thousand of pensioners, currently (just) self sufficent, into the infinitely more expensive care system (and when that has collapsed, into the yet more infinitely expensive NHS).

....cannot afford to pay the reasonably well off (significant private sector pensions or substantial savings) the state pension...

Whilst I agree that means testing the State Pension might be an option, look at the wording of your post (I've bolded it).

Surely you aware that large private sector pensions are a thing of the past...or don't you read anything that does not fit with your view. The overwhelming majority of large pensions being paid nowadays are in the public sector and coming from the public purse.

Case in point...I'm an ex Sqn Ldr, my missus is an ex Director of a large UK PLC. Her salary was more than twice mine. Her pension is less than half mine.

[Winco]

I wonder if I might offer up an option to save some money, particularly for the RAF?

Why not extend senior officers (Sqn Ldr+) tours of duty?

We have all seen someone come into a post or project and then after two years, they get posted and someone else takes over. That new incumbent then changes things slightly (or largely) and the project continues on, only to be changed again and again as those at the top get replaced every two years or so. It is lunacy. The result is extended and costlier projects and no one accountable at the end when things go wrong.

Apart from this, there must be some significant savings that would be made to the admin bill for the postings etc. and it would allow a bit of continuity on Stations, Squadrons, Units and for projects that is always lacking.

It has never made any sense to me to take someone, train them up to eventually become a Sqn cdr or Stn Cdr and then post them before they have had time to really get to grips with the job or sort out problems etc. We have all seen it, one Stn Cdr decides on this only to have it changed by his successor.

I'm not suggesting that this would solve the ££££ problem overnight, but it must surely help out? I can't help but think that for major contracts/projects etc, the people who head-up such projects need to be kept in that appointment until the projects completion, the same goes for key players in the project. Why not?

I know that this might 'stall' promotion slightly in some cases, but so what? There seems to me to be no really valid reason why senior officers tours of duty couldn't be a 3, 4 or even 5 year stretch.

Just a thought in these hard pressed times for you guys

Winco

[NutLoose]

Apart from this, there must be some significant savings that would be made to the admin bill for the postings etc. and it would allow a bit of continuity on Stations, Squadrons, Units and for projects that is always lacking.

I did Wessex Puma, Chinook, Jaguar and VC10 during my RAF career, but I thought posting cross types was a thing of the past these days.
I know a guy who has done 33 years on Chinook, another that to get off Merlin had to do an exchange posting.
Variations in types and postings has its disadvantages and advantages, not posting to other types is ok if the person is happy at the location and type he is posted on and it allows for a high level of knowledge to be built up in a narrow field, on the other hand, various places and types allow the person to move from an area he may not like, from a type he may not like and increases his knowledge base by making him a more all rounded person with a wider skill set he can employ on the type he is currently on, whilst bringing something to the party and possibly a fresh view on how things could be done to their advantage.

[BEagle]

Why not extend senior officers (Sqn Ldr+) tours of duty?

It might also see less 'NIMTS'..... Not In My Tour Syndrome. Such as when there's a new requirement on the horizon, preparation for which might cause a lot of hard work on the part of some staff chair-polisher. But if the deadline is more than 3 years hence, they simply bury the requirement at the bottom of a pending tray, secure in the knowledge that it won't be a problem in their personal tour.

Some years ago, 137 MHz VHF extension, 8.33 kHz channeling, FM immunity, Omega decommissioning and IFF Mode 4 all seemed to come as something of a surprise to the relevant IPTs.....

[Melchett01]

Why not extend senior officers (Sqn Ldr+) tours of duty?

I believe that is the intent, to some extent at any rate, behind the New Employment Model which will create an Executive Stream and a Main ( Professional) Stream.

The high fliers will bounce around Defence every 2 or so years as they currently do, gaining experience rather the understanding, in order to prepare them for the highest ranks. The majority of individuals in the Main Stream could find themselves in posts for several years - up to 5 was a number I heard bandied about. The exception to this would be for those high fliers sent to procurement or similar posts that rely on continuity, where they would probably stay for longer than the 2 years.

Case in point...I'm an ex Sqn Ldr, my missus is an ex Director of a large UK PLC. Her salary was more than twice mine. Her pension is less than half mine.

TOFO, the whole pensions debate is something I feel very strongly about for a number of reasons. Primarily because we are having to fight a rearguard action against envy and spite amongst the majority of the population who as Deepest Norforlk rightly noted, are annoyed that they are no longer creaming it in as they once were and want everyone to be dragged down to the lowest possible level.

But your statement about the pensions of you and your good lady raise an issue that many companies seem keen not to address. All too often it is the ordinary workers that suffer from the decisions of those at the top who seem to make sure that they are not affected by those very decisions. Many ordinary workers are angry and jealous of Service pensions because theirs have been closed down, collapsed, re-rated and in general buggered about with to make them viable for the shareholders but completely unviable for the individual. But whilst all this is going on, the Chief Execs award themselves rather nice pension packages that in some instances make my phone number look like a small number.

Before the private sector throws too many stones at the Services, maybe they should look closer to home and ask if an individual company's pension scheme is not viable, what arrangements are their own Chief Execs and Board making - I suspect they won't like the answer!

Edited to add - irrespective of these points, I still think Danny Alexander is a very very dangerous individual on a number of levels. Both the aspirational hard working individual and now it appears the security of the nation are under a direct threat from his particular brand of political jealousy and envy. I wonder what he, and the Lib Dems in general, would do when their vote collapses even further if the country at large realises that their policies are so far to the left they are almost identical to policies proposed by the Communist party in the 19th century. Do we as a forward leaning 21st century liberal capitalist nation really want to be governed by a bunch of 6th form pseudo-communists?

[Heathrow Harry]

There were some numbers in the Economist a couple of weeks back - immigrants are far less likely to be on benefits than your good old British citizen.

pensioners in particular have a load of benefits over the rest of the working population

As we're pulling out of Afghanistan I'd have thought SOME savings were possible in the defence budget

[Melchett01]

As we're pulling out of Afghanistan I'd have thought SOME savings were possible in the defence budget

Not so sure there - many of the costs associated with HERRICK are likely to be picked up by budgets other than the main Defence budget. On many of the unit level business cases I have produced in recent years for training or equipment J8 have been at pains to ensure that I annotate them as HERRICK related so they can set the costs against NACMO funding.

Even still, the draw down from Afghanistan will only see the ramping up of contingency planning and re-structuring the Services for operations and life outside of 'stan; those costs will have to be borne somewhere and I doubt the Treasury will allow MOD to claim against conflict funding lines for day-day running.

[Bastardeux]

What a f*@king joke! Somehow, we have come to accept that a department for culture, media and sport spending £1.5 billion a year (it didn't even exist before 1997 and everything was okay then, right?) is entirely necessary along with sending £10 billion a year out of the country. Moreover, the government thinks it's a brilliant idea to ringfence over a third of its total budget, when there is absolutely no reason why health and education couldn't just cope with flat budgets. Yet our political class was happy to send us to war, while simultaneously starving us of cash for the last decade and a half.

Half of all income tax payers pay a net contribution of absolutely nothing into the system, or even make money out of it, so why the f*&k do we bother taxing them at all, employing an absolute army of civil servants just to push money round the system? How has it gotten to the point where people are genuinely against capping benefit claims at the same as an average salary?? Why the hell do we pay people at the DWP to work out our income tax and then pay yet more people to work out our NI, why not just have 1 single income tax ffs!? Why is it that jobseeker's allowance is not seen as a loan from the government that has to be paid back, just like it would if you borrowed it off joe taxpayer directly?...and how the f*&k have we ended up with a society that lets people fester on benefits their entire lives, yet they're still able to afford their sky+ bill and flat screen tv?? There is, quite frankly, a horrendous amount of waste that goes on, just to buy votes.

Just like the education system being destroyed for "fairness", it's all total left-wing nonsense. Fairness isn't equality, fairness is getting what you deserve and right now, the guys and girls that have done 2 or 3 or however many tours of Afghanistan and Iraq deserve much, much better.

The government needs to start with a blank sheet of paper and actually decide what is absolutely necessary for a government to provide and then work out the most efficient way of raising the funds to provide that. There would no doubt, be a lot of bellyaching from people who think museums should be paid for by the government, or that employing people for the sake of employment will stimulate the economy (which it wouldn't, all it does is reduce productivity), but the government needs to quickly get a grip on the fact that this isn't their money, it's ours that we've entrusted to them to spend correctly and they're doing a p!ss poor job of it!!

[Courtney Mil]

^^^^ Very well said :D ^^^^

[Melchett01]

What he said :D

[CoffmanStarter]

B ... I'd vote for anyone who's clear stated aim was to counter all the ills you have set out above ... none of the current lot, irrespective of political shade, have the wit or ba11s to do it :ok:

[PeregrineW]

We seem to have a government at the moment whose unstated ambition is to put the blame for all of the country's ills on the shoulders of a few sections of the population. From what I read and hear on this and many other forums, and in the media at large, they are having no small success with this.

I seem to remember another European government, some 75 years ago, taking a similar line.

[VinRouge]

If we want to find someone to blame, I suggest we all take a long good look in the mirror.

[Bastardeux]

Vinrouge, I see the point you're making, but I'm going to have to largely disagree.

If we want to find someone to blame, I suggest we look at the successive career politicians who have put so much pressure on our housing supply that humongous mortgages for minuscule houses were the only real option for a lot of people and are going to be a massive drain on our economy for decades to come. The governments that expedited an unnecessary industrial decline through excessive energy prices and taxation. The governments that binged on debt, not to pay for repaving all our pothole-ridden roads or rolling out fibre-optic broadband country wide, but for bloating an already extensive welfare state and creating as many unnecessary and unproductive public sector jobs as is humanly possible.

I could literally go on and on about how self-serving, power hungry politicians have f*&ked up beyond all recognition to bring us where we are today, but I won't. And of course I know the bankers blah blach, but that line's already been flogged and everyone already knows their input.

I admit that as consenting adults, people should have known better than to take mortgages that would ordinarily be outside their pay bracket, but having been lucky enough to get an affordable mortgage before the bubble, I can't help but feel sorry for those who simply wanted to buy their own house.

The worst thing about it all is that the MoD received none of the benefits of the spending, yet is now [allegedly] being forced to take more of the burden for something it literally had no part in creating and is in no danger of exacerbating.

[VinRouge]

We all voted in the politicians who told us we could have any healthcare treatment under the sun, we could have rising property prices forever, happy to believe the lies whilst they managed to keep the plates spinning.

It doesn't take a genius to work out a major demographic boom will work out well until that hump needs state support on the NHS and state pensions... Then the majority supporting the minority now become the minority supporting the majority. It's completely unsustainable, and always was going to be. As I say, you didn't need to be a genius to figure that out.

I fear for the youngsters currently going through an education system they have to pay for, which before was completely funded. To then enter a jobs market with 25% youth unemployment. To then try and start a family with home prices that are completely unaffordable (your average first time buyer is now 35). All of this whilst paying for earlier generations who are enjoying retirement a full decade before they will get to do the same and as a result of demographics, have significantly less in the way of services that previous generations enjoyed. I for one don't believe this will remain politically tenable, especially when those now grown up youngsters become politically motivated to do something about it.

One thing is for sure, we are going to be means tested on winter fuel allowance in the future!

[kintyred]

I take it we all have/had experience of MOD. Does anyone think that the taxpayer gets value for money from that department? If their airships et al are as clever as they think they are then finding cost savings without affecting the frontline shouldn't prove too taxing, I would venture.

[Lima Juliet]

VR

Average age of a first time buyer is 30 according to this article...

BBC News - House purchases by first-time buyers 'up 12%' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20862745)

...apparently, shock horror, it was 29 last year! (big deal, it is an average after all!). I know the Telegraph claimed it was 35 two months before the BBC article. I wonder who is right? I know I was a first time buyer at the ripe old age of 33 over a decade ago.

With regard to "we all had a choice who to vote for" - do we really? I would venture that the choice is pretty poor. Career politicians, champagne socialists or Union-sponsored Marxists with their noses in the trough is mostly what I see. I like the look of UKIP, but they seem, in all reality, to be a bunch of dreamers with no serious backers, statesmen within their ranks or anywhere near any major policy to back up their ideas.

I would say that people are starting to make their choice, though; just look at the average polling turn outs and they soeak for themselves. General Elections, Local Elections, even Union Ballots are suffering from really low turn outs of voters - the general populace has had enough of the lot of them. Maybe, it is time to put our Queen back in charge and get rid of the Commons!!! :ok:

LJ

[Bastardeux]

I think you know the answer to your value for money question! Unfortunately I don't think that another £1.5 billion hit won't seriously hit the frontline, even if there is money to be saved by cutting at the top!

[racedo]

There were some numbers in the Economist a couple of weeks back - immigrants are far less likely to be on benefits than your good old British citizen.


Pretty much no surprise as if you have the get up and go to leave home country WTF would you want to live on Job Seekers Allowance.

[Lima Juliet]

With the British Army back in the UK over the next few years in the biggest numbers for a long time, will they attempt another coup like the one in 1974?

There is a reason why they're not called the Royal Army ;)

[BEagle]

...I know I was a first time buyer at the ripe old age of 33 over a decade ago...

After Lord knows how many moves around the UK at personal expense (bugger-all disturbance allowance for singlies back then), I bought my first house at the age of 32.

It cost £34K, roughly 2.3 x my annual pay as a Flt Lt with 8 years in the rank....

Similar houses now sell for £212K. I don't imagine that a Flt Lt with 8 years in the rank is paid £92K though?

But how would someone of lower rank ever buy a house near Brize? Even to rent a 2 bedroom flat in Cartoontown costs about £725 pcm these days.... That's £8700 per annum and the property isn't even yours...:(

[Bastardeux]

BEagle,

I guess we have good ol' Gordon Brown to thank for that, what an absolute clusterf*ck.

It's a pretty telling, and depressingly sad sign of the times that all of the 5 people my younger brother lived with at university are emigrating. And they aren't holders of degrees in basket weaving either!

[Lima Juliet]

Lower Rank at BZN?

Here you go - Windrush, Highworth, Swindon - 3 bedroom mid-terraced house - Allen & Harris (http://www.allenandharris.co.uk/buy/property-details?r=HWT101692&src=1&index=7&searchType=buy&geographyName=Highworth%2c+Swindon&radius=5.0&maxPrice=140000&propType=100003&includeSSTC=0&isSharedOwnership=0&isAuction=0)

3 Bed property in Highworth. 11 miles from Brize Norton. Asking price £129k. £15k deposit makes mortgage of remaining £114k about £650 a month at 4.5% mortgage rate.

A tecchie Cpl takes just over £30k per year and normal mortgage multiplier is 3.5 times salary - so with a bit of haggling it should be doable. £31k salary after tax is about £1950 a month - so £1300 left to pay for the other stuff each month.

Must be better than spending £725 a month renting a 2 bed flat? Or stay in qtrs a bit longer and save for a bigger deposit and get your third up!

LJ

[smujsmith]

I Know it sounds a daft question, but, for all the announcement of cuts to this that and the other, difficult decisions and how hard it is being a minister. Has anyone actually heard how Parliament is "in it".with the rest of us ? As far as I know the HOC bars are still selling tax payer subsidised booze, the restaurants subsidised food, they've just given themselves a £100 a month increase for their second home payments and they are trying to give themselves a £20 pay rise. We still have 650 MPs and god knows how many Lords. Most with little or nothing to offer the country (Prescott for example). I've heard the argument that cutting a few millions here and there are just a drop in the ocean but it all adds up and may help maintain a decent services budget.

Smudge

[newt]

Solved at the stroke of a pen!

Cancel Trident and any thought of a replacement!:ugh:

[VinRouge]

Either that or move it back out of the defence budget.

[OafOrfUxAche]

Put car tax on petrol, you then pay for what you use, you wipe out car tax avoidance at a stroke, you have a whole dept you no longer need at the DVLA


Totally agree. Won't solve all our economic problems though...

[Heathrow Harry]

10% levy on Bank deposits might help...............

[Melchett01]

10% levy on Bank deposits might help...............

And then you might just have a repeat of 1974 ... "a coup Sir, don't be silly. This is just a counter terrorism exercise. Well you never know when someone might launch an attack on Heathrow and we might have to ahem re-secure it. Consider this practice for if and when ..."

[N707ZS]

I see Church Fenton got the chop today.

[skydiver69]

I Know it sounds a daft question, but, for all the announcement of cuts to this that and the other, difficult decisions and how hard it is being a minister. Has anyone actually heard how Parliament is "in it".with the rest of us ? As far as I know the HOC bars are still selling tax payer subsidised booze, the restaurants subsidised food, they've just given themselves a £100 a month increase for their second home payments and they are trying to give themselves a £20 pay rise. We still have 650 MPs and god knows how many Lords. Most with little or nothing to offer the country (Prescott for example). I've heard the argument that cutting a few millions here and there are just a drop in the ocean but it all adds up and may help maintain a decent services budget.

As well as delaying any increase to their pension scheme until November, which will mean that they will have had about an 18 month delay in comparison to the increase in payments for anyone else in a state pension scheme.