[jusdorange]

Originally Posted by Nick the Greek

So Back To My Question.

What Are We Cutting To Eradicate A £90 Billion Annual Deficit?

You fixated on this too much

Debt isn't the biggest concern

[JD6]

Originally Posted by Nick the Greek

So Back To My Question.

What Are We Cutting To Eradicate A £90 Billion Annual Deficit?

Raising taxes - in particular fuel duty, inheretance tax, council tax, and probably VAT. I appreciate that some of these are regressive, but still necessary in my view.

Making aggressive tax avoidance unacceptable - this process has already started but has much further to go. Changes in the law can make some avoidance into evasion, but social pressure is very effective too. It works particularly well on customer-facing companies.

Getting rid of borough councils in favour of larger unitary authorities. The current system is bizarrely inefficient.

I would reform the benefit system so that little if any is paid in cash - a card system that can buy ordinary groceries, ordinary clothes, utility bills, perhaps a basic car like a Kia or a Golf, but not cigarettes, alcohol, Sky TV, drugs, iPhones...

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by jusdorange

You fixated on this too much

Debt isn't the biggest concern

It is the biggest concern

[73henny]

Originally Posted by Brigand

Sort of agree up to a point.

Hill walkers, what's difference between someone living rural out walking dog falling and someone on holiday falling? - what one needs insurance and what one does not?

Yes for those idiots in flip flops in Cairngorms etc.

Smoking - active V passive, how long should someone have smoked for?
Actual takes from smokers is well down.

A high number of respiratory illness is also attributable to work, previously unregulated chemicals, clean air issues, ventilation.

Define self inflicted?

Someone goes to A&E with rash and flu like symptoms? Hyperchondriac or meningitis?

I totally agree about miss use of A&E however there is not simple way of working things out.

Hill walkers - idiots that need rescued because they've decided that going up a mountain in the winter is a good idea. Not saying they shouldn't be rescued, just that they should pay for it. Remember there could well be a fisherman or the like that actually needs rescued by helicopter while its busy looking for an idiot on a hill.
Smoking - doesn't matter if its passive or not - all NHS costs for treatment passed onto a packet of cancer sticks.
Self inflicted - anything you've brought on yourself due to stupidity or loss of self control.
A&E with a rash - for the docs to decide whether they were valid or not. I'd say that was a valid reason to go to A&E. A sore ankle?, no. In any case the mere fact that they might get a charge would filter out the genuine emergencies from the Hypochondriacs.

Originally Posted by Nick the Greek

So Back To My Question.

What Are We Cutting To Eradicate A £90 Billion Annual Deficit?

There needs to be more than just cuts.

Stop ridiculous amounts of foreign aid.
Stop ludicrous immigration. It seems to escape the government that most of the asylum seekers risk life and limb to get from France to the UK. I've been to France, its not that bad. Yet they'll hang on to the underside of a lorry to get to UK benefits.
Benefits should be paid only to those who work for it. Can't get a job after a month or so? - then you'll work in the community for your unemployment benefit. Think you'll find that'll get rid of the lazy sods who'd rather stay at home than go to work.
Lower corporation tax to attract overseas companies then make sure they can't get away without paying it.
Reduce rates on town centres for new businesses. Also seems to escape them that a closed shop pays no rates. So why not allow them to open for 2 years or so at very low rates until they get established.
Give incentives to consumers of UK produced goods - lower VAT on a British built car for example.

I should be a politician I think.

[Tengocity]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Hill walkers - idiots that need rescued because they've decided that going up a mountain in the winter is a good idea. Not saying they shouldn't be rescued, just that they should pay for it. Remember there could well be a fisherman or the like that actually needs rescued by helicopter while its busy looking for an idiot on a hill.
Smoking - doesn't matter is passive or not - all NHS costs for treatment passed onto a packet of cancer sticks.
Self inflicted - anything you've brought on yourself due to stupidity or loss of self control.
A&E with a rash - for the docs to decide whether they were valid or not. I'd say that was a valid reason to go to A&E. A sore ankle?, no. In any case the mere fact that they might get a charge would filter out the genuine emergencies from the Hypochondriacs.

There needs to be more than just cuts.

Stop ridiculous amounts of foreign aid.
Stop ludicrous immigration. It seems to escape the government that most of the asylum seekers risk life and limb to get from France to the UK. I've been to France, its not that bad. Yet they'll hang on to the underside of a lorry to get to UK benefits.
Benefits should be paid only to those who work for it. Can't get a job after a month or so? - then you'll work in the community for your unemployment benefit. Think you'll find that'll get rid of the lazy sods who'd rather stay at home than go to work.
Lower corporation tax to attract oversees companies then make sure they can't get away without paying it.
Reduce rates on town centres for new businesses. Also seems to escape them that a closed shop pays no rates. So why not allow them to open for 2 years or so at very low rates until they get established.
Give incentives to consumers of UK produced goods - lower VAT on a British built car for example.

I should be a politician I think.

Have you ever been up a hill in winter?

Absolutely fantastic!

Costs bugger all to rescue someone... The RAF would just be doing "training" anyway.

But slightly more seriously, the downside of making everyone have personal insurance in case they have ANY kind of accident, is the law of u intended consequences...

For example:

Only the wealthy could afford to do anything

Or people would be uninsured, and ergo we are back to a two tier health system or society

Or else half the country wouldn't be doing any exercise and we'd pay for the health costs elsewhere

Could be argued that majority of illnesses, except those with a pure genetic cause, have a "lifestyle" factor involved.

The cost of apportioning cost would be too high to justify.

[Tengocity]

And also, this crap is not why we are broke!

If you look at the budgets... It's welfare and pensions. Have to agree that anyone who earns good money shouldn't be getting welfare. This will need to include pensioners who are independently wealthy.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

And also, this crap is not why we are broke!

If you look at the budgets... It's welfare and pensions. Have to agree that anyone who earns good money shouldn't be getting welfare. This will need to include pensioners who are independently wealthy.

Agreed.

Did anyone look over the % distribution of their tax and NI from the tax office?

I was shocked at how much goes to cover both these areas.

Things like winter fuel allowances for people on over 30k is ridiculous.

Disability allowances, while been looked at are still barking mad in some cases.

[73henny]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

Have you ever been up a hill in winter?

Absolutely fantastic!

Costs bugger all to rescue someone... The RAF would just be doing "training" anyway.

But slightly more seriously, the downside of making everyone have personal insurance in case they have ANY kind of accident, is the law of u intended consequences...

For example:

Only the wealthy could afford to do anything

Or people would be uninsured, and ergo we are back to a two tier health system or society

Or else half the country wouldn't be doing any exercise and we'd pay for the health costs elsewhere

Could be argued that majority of illnesses, except those with a pure genetic cause, have a "lifestyle" factor involved.

The cost of apportioning cost would be too high to justify.

Live amongst the hills. And yes have been up in the winter, just on a nice day. Not when there is any inclement weather around. And you're incorrect about the cost. Just look and see what the SAR costs will be once they take over from the RAF / Navy.
We pay travel insurance when going on holiday - we'd be stupid not to right? So why not at home. Can't afford it?, then either work harder or don't go up the hill. Have a walk in the park instead.
We already have a two tier health system - private and NHS. We need to get away from thinking everyone is entitled to everything. You should pay for the lifestyle you want.

[Kal101]

The bottom line in my humble opinion is that we have a fixed pot with too little going in and too much coming out

It's easy to say put more in. But how?? How much more can we squeeze the payers in before they then think sod it I'll go on the dole.

Perhaps a better idea is to monitor/ reduce the outgoings - benefits wars etc etc.
We currently have a system that actually encourages people to stay at home and claim benefits. Why are people better off at home on benefits ??? We have a generation who see the state as a provider / father and regard benefits as a right as opposed to a priviledge.
Compare this to other countries eg America where you get benefits for so long then you have to work or loose it. Draconian??? Or fair and encouraging return to work???

Two things depressed me
1- couple of years a student was made to work for one of the discount retailers for free/ earn her benefits. She took the country to European parliament for slavery and won. This scheme was then discontinued even though as a result she got a management job
2- hearing a member of staff asking a young boy what he wanted to be when he grew up- racing driver, train driver, BMW owner ..... No I want to be on benefits like my dad coz then you get money to stay at home.

[JD6]

I quite enjoy hill walking, and have some knowledge of the rescue services. The first point is that Mountain Rescue is a self-funding charity that gets no state aid. They can't even reclaim VAT. Secondly when they call for a helicopter to collect a casualty, this is often a charity-run air ambulance. Only if there is a very difficult situation requiring a winch or a search for a lost person do you need the RAF. They do use the RAF sometimes just to pick up a casualty when they could have used an air ambulance, but generally if they are in the area.

On the whole, hill walking supports a multi billion pound tourist industry. It is worth over £2bn a year in just one national park, the Lakes, so the amounts involved in publicly funded rescues are trivial. If we insist on insurance for hill walking, where do we stop? Better just to accept that there is a small cost involved, but trivial in comparison to revenues.

As it happens, we required a helicopter off a mountain (a charity-run air ambulance) when friend broke his leg a couple of weeks ago. I don't feel too guilty about the costs involved as we do pay a significant amount of tax. We will make contributions to Mountain Rescue and the Air Ambulance to cover their costs though.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Live amongst the hills. And yes have been up in the winter, just on a nice day. Not when there is any inclement weather around. And you're incorrect about the cost. Just look and see what the SAR costs will be once they take over from the RAF / Navy.
We pay travel insurance when going on holiday - we'd be stupid not to right? So why not at home. Can't afford it?, then either work harder or don't go up the hill. Have a walk in the park instead.
We already have a two tier health system - private and NHS. We need to get away from thinking everyone is entitled to everything. You should pay for the lifestyle you want.

SAR costs have never been that transparent.

The services is actually for pilots that eject etc.

It was never put in place for civilian cover.

Yes it is used by civies, climbers, fishermen, sailors (clowns with yahts unable to listen to radio).

Personally, SAR and hospital helicopters should have remained under HM Forces (transferred in case of medical ones).

Now that we are pretty much out of Stan, it is very easy to loose a skills capability.

One thing that may have been looked at is car allowance for anyone working in NHS etc. Yes it's nice for people to have a great package etc, however its a government department, that should mean anyone employed does not get an allowance.

Edit: +1 to what JD6 put. Having done a stint on Mountain Rescue, they are very much undervalued, again as well as civilian team they are/were RAF Mountain Rescue teams.

[Tengocity]

The subject of who should and shouldn't be rescued when in trouble is not what needs to be solved!

I'd like to hear suggestions as to how we deal with welfare costs. What should the state be expected to provide?

[73henny]

Originally Posted by JD6

I quite enjoy hill walking, and have some knowledge of the rescue services. The first point is that Mountain Rescue is a self-funding charity that gets no state aid. They can't even reclaim VAT. Secondly when they call for a helicopter to collect a casualty, this is often a charity-run air ambulance. Only if there is a very difficult situation requiring a winch or a search for a lost person do you need the RAF. They do use the RAF sometimes just to pick up a casualty when they could have used an air ambulance, but generally if they are in the area.

On the whole, hill walking supports a multi billion pound tourist industry. It is worth over £2bn a year in just one national park, the Lakes, so the amounts involved in publicly funded rescues are trivial. If we insist on insurance for hill walking, where do we stop? Better just to accept that there is a small cost involved, but trivial in comparison to revenues.

As it happens, we required a helicopter off a mountain (a charity-run air ambulance) when friend broke his leg a couple of weeks ago. I don't feel too guilty about the costs involved as we do pay a significant amount of tax. We will make contributions to Mountain Rescue and the Air Ambulance to cover their costs though.

Well aware of the fantastic job the MR teams do. The point I was making was that while the RAF are looking for a lost climber in the hills, there will at some point be someone else who needs their help through no fault of their own. And the lost climber has meant the rescue services have to risk their own lives.
Your contributions to the MR and AA are effectively retrospective costs. All I'm saying is these contributions should be mandatory.
As for the industry hill walking supports, its not like that would stop if the walkers had to pay for SAR. They're not heading up a hill thinking 'Its only because I'll get rescued for free that i'm going up here'

Originally Posted by Brigand

SAR costs have never been that transparent.

The services is actually for pilots that eject etc.

It was never put in place for civilian cover.

Yes it is used by civies, climbers, fishermen, sailors (clowns with yahts unable to listen to radio).

Personally, SAR and hospital helicopters should have remained under HM Forces (transferred in case of medical ones).


Edit: +1 to what JD6 put. Having done a stint on Mountain Rescue, they are very much undervalued, again as well as civilian team they are/were RAF Mountain Rescue teams.

I think the Bristow SAR contract is worth £1.6bn I believe. Ouch.

[73henny]

Originally Posted by Tengocity

The subject of who should and shouldn't be rescued when in trouble is not what needs to be solved!

I'd like to hear suggestions as to how we deal with welfare costs. What should the state be expected to provide?

The state should provide for those who need it through no fault of their own. Thats it. End of. Not those who can't be arsed or choose to sit and do nothing. And what it provides should be the minimum requirements. There was a programme on a while back about social housing in London, and followed tenants who, when offered a property, declined as 'it wasn't suitable'. They should have 2 choices - take it, or leave it.
The UK is far too soft with benefits.

[....,,,,..,,..]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Well aware of the fantastic job the MR teams do. The point I was making was that while the RAF are looking for a lost climber in the hills, there will at some point be someone else who needs their help through no fault of their own. And the lost climber has meant the rescue services have to risk their own lives.
Your contributions to the MR and AA are effectively retrospective costs. All I'm saying is these contributions should be mandatory.
As for the industry hill walking supports, its not like that would stop if the walkers had to pay for SAR. They're not heading up a hill thinking 'Its only because I'll get rescued for free that i'm going up here'



I think the Bristow SAR contract is worth £1.6bn I believe. Ouch.

Yeah however that 1.6bn is for the life of contract, covers things such as through life support for 22 helicopters, the costs for 4 MCA's, training budget.
It reduces the current coverage of about 8 bases to 4.
Also that is purely for UK, as FI was I believe tendered out to BIH.

Anyhow, we digress.

[jusdorange]

Ok drifting into something I didn't want but I will give my view ;

Job seekers is a very emotive thing, and few view it as strict economics

The two results is, you often want things out of emotions that end up costing more

Despite the negative press, the majority of people are looking for work and don't wish to be there

Two things I will touch on

1. Vouchers in lieu of cash

This will cost more, and doesn't fix it

You need someone to administer it, (costs) then not everywhere will accept

What if you need petrol? Milk from local store?

Also since its a transfer payment, you'd affect those in work, who need them to spend that money

Nothing preventing the resale of goods bought from the vouchers to pay for the alcohol / cigs as you say

2. Working for benefits

This defeats the point of benefits, if there is a legitimate job available, hire them at full price

This gives Tesco free labour and you have two people out of a job (the benefit claimant and the person who would have otherwise filled that slot)

Or pointless courses, so they can fiddle the statistics

Because being on a course means technically you are employed

I don't bemoan anyone who is unfortunate enough to be out of a job

Yes I can't deny some people are 3rd generation benefit claimants but demoralising the others will do nothing

Simple stats: there simply aren't enough jobs to go around

I've applied to every single coffee shop, but sheer volumes dictate I have been rejected from all

The recent EU entrants haven't helped, I have a game called "spot the Brit" in London, in retail / food, very hard to find

Because managers know they can abuse them (extra unpaid hours)

Its not that "British are too good" to do them jobs, rather we will complain if asked to do extra unpaid and min wage doesn't always pay the bills

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Hill walkers - idiots that need rescued because they've decided that going up a mountain in the winter is a good idea. Not saying they shouldn't be rescued, just that they should pay for it. Remember there could well be a fisherman or the like that actually needs rescued by helicopter while its busy looking for an idiot on a hill.
Smoking - doesn't matter if its passive or not - all NHS costs for treatment passed onto a packet of cancer sticks.
Self inflicted - anything you've brought on yourself due to stupidity or loss of self control.
A&E with a rash - for the docs to decide whether they were valid or not. I'd say that was a valid reason to go to A&E. A sore ankle?, no. In any case the mere fact that they might get a charge would filter out the genuine emergencies from the Hypochondriacs.



There needs to be more than just cuts.

Stop ridiculous amounts of foreign aid.
Stop ludicrous immigration. It seems to escape the government that most of the asylum seekers risk life and limb to get from France to the UK. I've been to France, its not that bad. Yet they'll hang on to the underside of a lorry to get to UK benefits.
Benefits should be paid only to those who work for it. Can't get a job after a month or so? - then you'll work in the community for your unemployment benefit. Think you'll find that'll get rid of the lazy sods who'd rather stay at home than go to work.
Lower corporation tax to attract overseas companies then make sure they can't get away without paying it.
Reduce rates on town centres for new businesses. Also seems to escape them that a closed shop pays no rates. So why not allow them to open for 2 years or so at very low rates until they get established.
Give incentives to consumers of UK produced goods - lower VAT on a British built car for example.

I should be a politician I think.

Good post.......I'd vote for you.

Why are we paying child benefit? I actually recieve Child benefit, but WTF??? Why should I? If I want kids, I understand I need to finance them...simples!!!

Yet on an estate near you, there is a single mother plotting to get a bigger house by popping out another one.

[Tengocity]

Sorry, I don't get why a fisherman gets rescued for free but not someone walking along the coast or walking up a hill?

The fisherman is out there for their for profit, so the government should subsidise private enterprise you're saying?

This sounds very socialist...

[vikz55]

Originally Posted by SkyJawa

That's because, if the GPs we've had over the last 5 years are anything to go by, they can't be arsed to work with you in the first instance and its like you are bothering them. Then they look stuff up on the internet and send you to a consultant.

They need to be a better "first line of defence".

Steering this back to the NHS, I agree with much of what has been said on this thread, however the media bashing and general demonisation of general practice needs to be addressed. Our A&E colleagues (who have to weather a shit storm every winter and do a remarkable job) at least get some appreciation and sympathy from the public. Yet comments about lazy, overpaid GPs remain rampant - as if they are somehow to blame for the problems in A&E and secondary care. Yes there are some bad GPs out there, but there are bad A&E doctors, bad accountants, bad lawyers, bad engineers and bad employees in every field (the nature of being human I guess). But I feel obliged to make a few points to educate some of the clueless with regards to GP's.

General practice NHS consultations account for over 90% of all NHS patient contact. Yet primary care receives less than 10% of the NHS budget.
Herein lies the problem. It's all very well people moaning about not being able to get a GP appointment but consider why - there is nowhere near enough GPs in the UK and this is for several reasons. Despite what the Daily Fail would have you believe GPs work extraordinarily hard for a reasonable (but by no means extravagant) salary and the problem is getting worse. Being shat on my the government, media and public in general is taking its toll - more GPs are emmigrating to places like Aus and NZ for better working conditions than ever before. By 50 burnout is widespread and many are taking early retirement, eating away at your pension being a far better option than losing your sanity. Medical school graduates are no longer choosing general practice because the hours are too long to make it worthwhile any more. In the East Midlands over 30% of GP training posts remained unfilled this year - we are heading for a crisis.

The major problem with the NHS is inappropriate patient demand. The general public are unfortunately for the most part, morons. GPs are inundated with people who should be self-treating or speaking to their pharmacist. We have so much bullshit to deal with that the patients who should be seeing their GPs can't get appointments and then rock up to A&E. Hospitals are full so A&E just becomes a holding unit for the sick whilst the wards are filled with elderly patients who can't be discharged because they need carers and packages of care in place, but social care is in the same shitter as the rest of the NHS.

One way of dealing with inappropriate attendance is to charge, but as usual only the poor will suffer this and those with serious medical problems will avoid coming to avoid charges. You could make the charge refundable if the medical problem is appropriate but then just like the benefit's system - there will be those who play the system, and doctors/nurse's by their very nature aren't the best people to be the fare enforcer's.

I firmly believe the only way to deal with the problem is patient education about what is and what isn't appropriate.
For example when I worked in A&E, the father who called an ambulance for his 3 year old because his ex-wife hadn't cut his toenails and he seemed to think this was a safeguarding issue.
Or the drunk who needs expensive scans to make sure his dickhead behaviour isn't because he has an intracranial bleed.
Or Jeremy Hunt who could be arsed to wait for a GP appointment for his kids so took them to A&E.
This winter I can't even begin to count the number of people we have had to bat away when they keep turning up with their viral coughs.

Patient expectation is also huge issue. People who believe the NHS is their birthright to exploit however they want.
At my practice every day we have an open access system so any patient attending between 8 and 10.30am can come and WILL be seen by a GP. Our workload has gone up massively. I see up to 35 patients in the morning and then deal with 25 more on the phone. Starting at 8am, we finish morning surgery by 2pm - without a break. Then there is on average 2-3 home visits before afternoon surgery starts at 3pm. In between that there will be 100 repeat prescriptions to deal with, up to 20 medication reviews, 100 sets of blood results, 50 hospital letters to deal with, sick note requests, insurance reports. If you're a GP partner there is the practice admin too.
This after a minimum 10 years of training to be a GP. For between 80-100k a year! Its no walk in the park.
You might think that giving EVERY patient access to their GP on the SAME day would mean our patients are happy - no, they now just complain about waiting and the fact that we ask them to attend with one problem at a time only in order to get through all the patients. Despite the fact we have doubled our workload in order to improve patient access

So you're GP who can't be "arsed to work" during his 12-14 hour day with hardly a free moment to fart works a lot harder than you think. So next time think twice before you call you're GP lazy.

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by jusdorange

2. Working for benefits

This defeats the point of benefits, if there is a legitimate job available, hire them at full price

This gives Tesco free labour and you have two people out of a job (the benefit claimant and the person who would have otherwise filled that slot)

Or pointless courses, so they can fiddle the statistics

Because being on a course means technically you are employed

I don't bemoan anyone who is unfortunate enough to be out of a job

Yes I can't deny some people are 3rd generation benefit claimants but demoralising the others will do nothing

Simple stats: there simply aren't enough jobs to go around

I've applied to every single coffee shop, but sheer volumes dictate I have been rejected from all

The recent EU entrants haven't helped, I have a game called "spot the Brit" in London, in retail / food, very hard to find

Because managers know they can abuse them (extra unpaid hours)

Its not that "British are too good" to do them jobs, rather we will complain if asked to do extra unpaid and min wage doesn't always pay the bills

What would working for benefits do? :

1. Help those with confidence issues (and this is a massive issue) to get them into a 'confident enough to work' state of mind.
2. Reduce the requirement for unskilled workers from other countries.
3. Get the lazy types that are against work trained out of that habit.
4. Reduce the opportunity for the types that 'work illegitimately' cleaning windows for cash, or selling drugs, or robbing houses, and get them into a legal (socially responsible) form of work.

Maybe some other benefits too.....

[NISFAN]

Originally Posted by 73henny

Well aware of the fantastic job the MR teams do. The point I was making was that while the RAF are looking for a lost climber in the hills, there will at some point be someone else who needs their help through no fault of their own. And the lost climber has meant the rescue services have to risk their own lives.
Your contributions to the MR and AA are effectively retrospective costs. All I'm saying is these contributions should be mandatory.
As for the industry hill walking supports, its not like that would stop if the walkers had to pay for SAR. They're not heading up a hill thinking 'Its only because I'll get rescued for free that i'm going up here'



I think the Bristow SAR contract is worth £1.6bn I believe. Ouch.

I've got to say......as a keen snowboarder.......I have to pay insurance in case I need a medivac in the Alps. It costs thousands of Euro for a helicopter medivac, and that is on a pretty simple 'route' not using a winch, using a fairly small machine (You'd not get anything bigger than a Eurocopter), crew of no more than 2.

Why shouldn't it be the same for UK hill climbers, and fisherman?

[MWA]

How about setting up government funded gyms to tackle obesity and psychological insecurity of feeling weak and vulnerable.

If the nation was more active, naturally we would be healthier, stronger and more tolerant to illnesses.

Last time I checked with my local gym (David Lloyds) their monthly membership was around £90 per month and your stuck on 12 months contract.