Enough wasted to wipe out UK deficit

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 11:45 am

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555488/Ministers-waste-1-6-Hard-hitting-report-says-squandered-write-countrys-deficit.html

A report is out highlighting that for every £6 the public sector spends £1 is wasted - on things that include whiskey tasting for golfers, pictures of herbs, and over half a million on lost parts for an anti aircraft system.

The TUC claims the report is extreme.

So should public sector wages reflect private sector? What should the public sector pay for and what should it not pay for? Finally if the claimed savings were made and people asked what they would spend them on would you vote for a new kitchen, tickets to the world cup, or the eradication of the countries deficit?

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:08 pm

Getting rid of the deficit is best for all of us (although benefit scroungers aren't intelligent enough to realise that).

Giving new kitchens, roofs, solar panels and bathrooms to those in council houses benefits those who don't put money in.

It's rather perverse.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:13 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:Getting rid of the deficit is best for all of us (although benefit scroungers aren't intelligent enough to realise that).

Giving new kitchens, roofs, solar panels and bathrooms to those in council houses benefits those who don't put money in.

It's rather perverse.

No you did not read it properly Andy - it is new kitchen for every single home in the UK not just council houses. Or world cup tickets for everyone - not just those on benefits but everyone.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:17 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:Getting rid of the deficit is best for all of us (although benefit scroungers aren't intelligent enough to realise that).

Giving new kitchens, roofs, solar panels and bathrooms to those in council houses benefits those who don't put money in.

It's rather perverse.

Why should the majority on benefits who are actively seeking employment be discriminated against Andy?

Why should their council house not be updated?

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:18 pm

sphinx wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:Getting rid of the deficit is best for all of us (although benefit scroungers aren't intelligent enough to realise that).

Giving new kitchens, roofs, solar panels and bathrooms to those in council houses benefits those who don't put money in.

It's rather perverse.

No you did not read it properly Andy - it is new kitchen for every single home in the UK not just council houses. Or world cup tickets for everyone - not just those on benefits but everyone.

Yeah but that's just ridiculous - those who work hard just don't get anything like that sphinx.

All the 3 parties ever talk about is helping those who sit at home all day.

Go to any ticket website - unemployed get theatre tickets cheap, fishing licence cheap.

It's just the way it is, petal.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:23 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
sphinx wrote:

No you did not read it properly Andy - it is new kitchen for every single home in the UK not just council houses. Or world cup tickets for everyone - not just those on benefits but everyone.

Yeah but that's just ridiculous - those who work hard just don't get anything like that sphinx.

All the 3 parties ever talk about is helping those who sit at home all day.

Go to any ticket website - unemployed get theatre tickets cheap, fishing licence cheap.

It's just the way it is, petal.

Now you are being deliberate thick.

The report is giving examples of what the money could be used for to let people realize how much is being wasted, not saying that it should be spent on it. I asked what people would vote for as a tongue in cheek joke.

As for tickets cheap for the unemployed - that is bullshit. There are usually reductions for pensioners and the disabled that is all.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:27 pm

sphinx wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:

Yeah but that's just ridiculous - those who work hard just don't get anything like that sphinx.

All the 3 parties ever talk about is helping those who sit at home all day.

Go to any ticket website - unemployed get theatre tickets cheap, fishing licence cheap.

It's just the way it is, petal.

Now you are being deliberate thick.

The report is giving examples of what the money could be used for to let people realize how much is being wasted, not saying that it should be spent on it. I asked what people would vote for as a tongue in cheek joke.

As for tickets cheap for the unemployed - that is bullshit. There are usually reductions for pensioners and the disabled that is all.

The examples are thick then, aren't they?

Please tell me the highlighted part is a joke.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:31 pm

sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555488/Ministers-waste-1-6-Hard-hitting-report-says-squandered-write-countrys-deficit.html

A report is out highlighting that for every £6 the public sector spends £1 is wasted - on things that include whiskey tasting for golfers, pictures of herbs, and over half a million on lost parts for an anti aircraft system.

The TUC claims the report is extreme.

So should public sector wages reflect private sector? What should the public sector pay for and what should it not pay for? Finally if the claimed savings were made and people asked what they would spend them on would you vote for a new kitchen, tickets to the world cup, or the eradication of the countries deficit?

the money wasted all over the country with govt., local authorities is ridiculous, it's hardly surprising we are in the trouble we are in, we need more business people in councils people who no how to run things cost efficiently.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:34 pm

heavenly father wrote:
sphinx wrote:http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2555488/Ministers-waste-1-6-Hard-hitting-report-says-squandered-write-countrys-deficit.html

A report is out highlighting that for every £6 the public sector spends £1 is wasted - on things that include whiskey tasting for golfers, pictures of herbs, and over half a million on lost parts for an anti aircraft system.

The TUC claims the report is extreme.

So should public sector wages reflect private sector? What should the public sector pay for and what should it not pay for? Finally if the claimed savings were made and people asked what they would spend them on would you vote for a new kitchen, tickets to the world cup, or the eradication of the countries deficit?

the money wasted all over the country with govt., local authorities is ridiculous, it's hardly surprising we are in the trouble we are in, we need more business people in councils people who no how to run things cost efficiently.

I disagree.

Reduce management wages in every public sector job.

Business people, from big business, do it for money.

Normal people on normal salaries aren't there for money and won't be on the take.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:34 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Now you are being deliberate thick.

The report is giving examples of what the money could be used for to let people realize how much is being wasted, not saying that it should be spent on it. I asked what people would vote for as a tongue in cheek joke.

As for tickets cheap for the unemployed - that is bullshit. There are usually reductions for pensioners and the disabled that is all.

The examples are thick then, aren't they?

Please tell me the highlighted part is a joke.

No it is not a joke

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:35 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

the money wasted all over the country with govt., local authorities is ridiculous, it's hardly surprising we are in the trouble we are in, we need more business people in councils people who no how to run things cost efficiently.

I disagree.

Reduce management wages in every public sector job.

Business people, from big business, do it for money.

Normal people on normal salaries aren't there for money and won't be on the take.

just losing layers of management would save a fortune, that is where most the trouble is throughout the country..

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:43 pm

For sphinx (even though we've been over this elsewhere):

Birmingham Rep:

Area Seating Plan
Event : Frozen On 13/02/2014 14:45
Location The STUDIO at The REP Area : The STUDIO
Price Type : Standard Over 60 Disabled Student (ID Required) Unwaged (Job Seekers) Child (Under 14)

Would you like me to search more websites sphinx?

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:51 pm

Evita - ooooh, that's a favourite of the unemployed!

Choose Your Tickets (iPad users tap Best Available)

Select Your Own

Best Available

Evita (Tour)
Palace Theatre, Manchester: Evita (Tour)
Wed Mar 19 2014 - 7:30 PM

Seat Quantity

12345678910
Full Price

12345678910
Child

12345678910
Contains choice of nibble box, welcome drink and programme or theatre gift.

12345678910
Senior

12345678910
Student

12345678910
Unemployed

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:54 pm

In every walk of life, the unemployed scroungers have it better than those who work full time.

Doctors, dentists, those hospital appointments?

Yeah, bit tricky getting time off when you work.

Reduce the benefits!

By at least 50%!!!

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 12:58 pm

Trust me nothing like that where I live.

Perhaps you would like to show me where the unemployed get reduced price fishing licences?

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:01 pm

sphinx wrote:Trust me nothing like that where I live.

Perhaps you would like to show me where the unemployed get reduced price fishing licences?

It appears they don't - it's "just" blue badge holders:

** You can apply for a disability concession rod licence if you have a Blue Badge parking concession or receive Disability Living Allowance. Please provide us with your Blue Badge Number or National Insurance Number when buying your licence.

Because they need cheaper licences, don't they?!

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:13 pm

sphinx wrote:Trust me nothing like that where I live.

Perhaps you would like to show me where the unemployed get reduced price fishing licences?

Is that so?

Would you like me to check?

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:13 pm

Not really.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 1:19 pm

sphinx wrote:Not really.

Didn't think so.

Now zip it!

by nicko Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:07 pm

I am a disabled pensioner,i have a blue badge,i get a cheaper fishing licence

Andy,would you cut my pension by 50%?

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:16 pm

nicko wrote:I am a disabled pensioner,i have a blue badge,i get a cheaper fishing licence

Andy,would you cut my pension by 50%?

Nah you're alright nicko.

Just them Labour voters...

Just kidding.

Pension? No.

I don't think those with a blue badge should get cheaper fishing licences nicko.

Does having a blue badge mean you can't afford things? You've got the flaming blue badge - that's the benefit, you do not need things cheaper!!! (when I say you, I mean they)

by nicko Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:20 pm

I really don't know how to take you sometimes Andy.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 2:23 pm

nicko wrote:I really don't know how to take you sometimes Andy.

No problem nicko.

Take the above exactly how it is - I mean it.

But please respond, so I can respond too - nothing annoys me more than when certain posters don't come back and then claim some sort of "victory".

by eddie Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:46 pm

Joy Division wrote:
BigAndy9 wrote:Getting rid of the deficit is best for all of us (although benefit scroungers aren't intelligent enough to realise that).

Giving new kitchens, roofs, solar panels and bathrooms to those in council houses benefits those who don't put money in.

It's rather perverse.

Why should the majority on benefits who are actively seeking employment be discriminated against Andy?

Why should their council house not be updated?

Hi JD, I totally agree
Not all people on benefits are sitting on their arses, some hate being jobless and are desperate for work.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:47 pm

eddie wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Why should the majority on benefits who are actively seeking employment be discriminated against Andy?

Why should their council house not be updated?

Hi JD, I totally agree
Not all people on benefits are sitting on their arses, some hate being jobless and are desperate for work.

But far too many have made it a career choice and are several generations dole collectors..

by eddie Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:49 pm

heavenly father wrote:
eddie wrote:

Hi JD, I totally agree
Not all people on benefits are sitting on their arses, some hate being jobless and are desperate for work.

But far too many have made it a career choice and are several generations dole collectors..

Afternoon HF, that nay be true and I won't disagree, but that is no reason to punish the people who are genuine.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:53 pm

eddie wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

But far too many have made it a career choice and are several generations dole collectors..

Afternoon HF, that nay be true and I won't disagree, but that is no reason to punish the people who are genuine.

Good afternoon Eddie, I completely agree but the lines are becoming blurred, i really hoped when minimum wage came in the would make some people on the dole do community work at the rate of minimum wage so they were at least earning their keep so to speak but it would appear that was never discussed ..

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:55 pm

Make everybody work, unless found unfit through sickness.

It's the only decent and fair way to hand out money.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 3:57 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:Make everybody work, unless found unfit through sickness.

It's the only decent and fair way to hand out money.

I agree..

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:34 pm

And where are these jobs?

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:36 pm

sphinx wrote:And where are these jobs?

there must be tons of community work that needs doing

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:39 pm

heavenly father wrote:
sphinx wrote:And where are these jobs?

there must be tons of community work that needs doing

Is there?
So where is the money going to come from to pay for it to be done?

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:52 pm

sphinx wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

there must be tons of community work that needs doing

Is there?
So where is the money going to come from to pay for it to be done?

As i said now we have a minimum wage all you would have to do is divide the benefit payment by the minimum wage and that's what hours they work each week. :D

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:54 pm

BigAndy9 wrote:In every walk of life, the unemployed scroungers have it better than those who work full time.

Doctors, dentists, those hospital appointments?

Yeah, bit tricky getting time off when you work.

Reduce the benefits!

By at least 50%!!!

not everyone claiming benefits are scroungers, a lot of people are just unfortunate to lose their jobs and have no choice but to sign on and claim simply to survive.

I agree there are some who are just lazy and wont work and get by on benefits, but most are hard working decent folk who are wanting another job .

I haven't seen any reductions where I live for the unemployed , maybe its just Birmingham

by Captain May Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:55 pm

There is a huge assumption that just because this organisation says something is a waste of money it isn't.

I have spent a lot of money on women and booze now a Methodist may say I've wasted a lot of it on the booze.

I would say I haven't wasted a penny.

It all depends on your perspective. Oh by the way the Methodist ran away with my woman.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:57 pm

Hamster wrote:There is a huge assumption that just because this organisation says something is a waste of money it isn't.

I have spent a lot of money on women and booze now a Methodist may say I've wasted a lot of it on the booze.

I would say I haven't wasted a penny.

It all depends on your perspective. Oh by the way the Methodist ran away with my woman.

This is why in opening post I asked what should public money be spent on and what should it not be spent on.

What do you think is acceptable and unacceptable.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 5:59 pm

sphinx wrote:
Hamster wrote:There is a huge assumption that just because this organisation says something is a waste of money it isn't.

I have spent a lot of money on women and booze now a Methodist may say I've wasted a lot of it on the booze.

I would say I haven't wasted a penny.

It all depends on your perspective. Oh by the way the Methodist ran away with my woman.

This is why in opening post I asked what should public money be spent on and what should it not be spent on.

What do you think is acceptable and unacceptable.

cycle paths are a a waste of time and money, this way on they all still use the roads anyway, well until they come up to traffic lights of course they they nip round them.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:00 pm

eddie wrote:
heavenly father wrote:

But far too many have made it a career choice and are several generations dole collectors..

Afternoon HF, that nay be true and I won't disagree, but that is no reason to punish the people who are genuine.

agree with you eddie , like I posted in my reply to bigandy not everyone are scroungers most are decent folk who want to work and support their families, a lot of people are losing their jobs these days and have no choice but to sign on and claim benefits , its the only way to survive . These people have paid into the system also so why can't they get the help they need when they need it

by Captain May Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:08 pm

I think we should run courses on "The influence of Ancient Persian Languages and their effects on the ancient sub culture on nomadic Botswanan tribes in the years between 1820 and 1832 and its subsequent influence on Womens suffrage".

Towns with particularly horrible names should be twinned with Chernobyl and councillors should spend their own money on holidays there to offset the costs of the vital courses described above.

by Captain May Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:28 pm

Maine coon lover wrote:
eddie wrote:

Afternoon HF, that nay be true and I won't disagree, but that is no reason to punish the people who are genuine.

agree with you eddie , like I posted in my reply to bigandy not everyone are scroungers most are decent folk who want to work and support their families, a lot of people are losing their jobs these days and have no choice but to sign on and claim benefits , its the only way to survive . These people have paid into the system also so why can't they get the help they need when they need it

I have mixed views as a life style option no as a fill in for hard times yes. Accent on a fill in. Many people use the system for years not months.

Defence of those who you know aren't really up for work brings the whole welfare state into disrepute.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:31 pm

Hamster wrote:
Maine coon lover wrote:

agree with you eddie , like I posted in my reply to bigandy not everyone are scroungers most are decent folk who want to work and support their families, a lot of people are losing their jobs these days and have no choice but to sign on and claim benefits , its the only way to survive . These people have paid into the system also so why can't they get the help they need when they need it
I have mixed views as a life style option no as a fill in for hard times yes. Accent on a fill in. Many people use the system for years not months.

Defence of those who you know aren't really up for work brings the whole welfare state into disrepute.

well said it was never intend as a substitute for work...

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 6:34 pm

Hamster wrote:
Maine coon lover wrote:

agree with you eddie , like I posted in my reply to bigandy not everyone are scroungers most are decent folk who want to work and support their families, a lot of people are losing their jobs these days and have no choice but to sign on and claim benefits , its the only way to survive . These people have paid into the system also so why can't they get the help they need when they need it
I have mixed views as a life style option no as a fill in for hard times yes. Accent on a fill in. Many people use the system for years not months.

Defence of those who you know aren't really up for work brings the whole welfare state into disrepute.

yes what you say is right , there are those who live off benefits for years , but for those who genuinely need them I have no problem and I don't consider them scroungers, we could all fall on hard times at some point and we need to be compassionate to those genuinely in need .

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 7:34 pm

The problem is that there is a massive difference between what people perceive to be the rate of "scrounging" and the actual recorded rate - and that is even with a government which is desperate to make it look like scrounging is more common than it is.

by veya_victaous Mon Feb 10, 2014 9:37 pm

heavenly father wrote:
sphinx wrote:

Is there?
So where is the money going to come from to pay for it to be done?

As i said now we have a minimum wage all you would have to do is divide the benefit payment by the minimum wage and that's what hours they work each week. :D

that is actually an ok idea.

it could create problems where what would normally have been a full time job which allowed someone to support a family will get split up into half a dozen of these work for the dole roles.

so there does need to be some controls around it, to make sure it doesn't undercut people who are currently working .

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:24 pm

eddie wrote:
Joy Division wrote:

Why should the majority on benefits who are actively seeking employment be discriminated against Andy?

Why should their council house not be updated?

Hi JD, I totally agree
Not all people on benefits are sitting on their arses, some hate being jobless and are desperate for work.

..alright Eddie, that's quite correct, and I just wish more people had their eyes open like us...

Some paint a picture of life on benefits as some kind of lavish lifestyle!

Andy...you really have some opinion of the unemployed, we know some are idle and do to help themselves , but the majority do want to better themselves, but where do all these jobs come form?

And I think a Sphinx is right when she says it's usually only disabled folk and students who recieve discounts, never heard of the unemployed getting into the cinema for discounted prices!

by Captain May Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:35 pm

I think benefits should be time limited and diminishing. Those leaving work due to redundancy should receive benefits commensurate with the taxes they have been paying but slowly reduced to avoid dependency.

That way those that have paid in get a fair return.

by Guest Mon Feb 10, 2014 10:41 pm

So, at the end of given time, if there is no work for them, even if they can prove they have searched and been to interview after interview, you would leave them destitute and on the street?

by Sponsored content