Straw poll: Budget cuts and protests

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by IndependentBoffin, Mar 27, 2011.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Disagree with the protesters

    55 vote(s)
  2. Agree with the protesters

    10 vote(s)
  1. What do you all think about the protests, a small portion of which was violent, in London this weekend?

    2011 anti-cuts protest in London - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    I think the right to protest is important but disagree with the premise of the protests entirely and disapprove of the minority that caused problems (vandalism, criminal damage, etc.)

    I think budget cuts are essential to the recovery of the economy, as the public sector (military excepted) has grown too bloated, pedantic and convoluted under Labour. It is a symptom of government trying to make a law for everything and micromanage other people's lives to the nth degree. As the public sector is supported by taxes they do not actually generate wealth and at most support the generation of wealth by the provision of infrastructure.

    Many roles currently taken up by government - e.g. BBC, local authorities, healthcare even crime prevention - can be done by the private sector. In fact it is more democratic to give people the power to hire and fire, based on collective approval, for poor service.
  2. I disagree, in many instances. The MOD has for too long relied on a bottomless pit of a budget and it has been spent on the wrong things. Who else would pay £500 for a plain formica coffee table for an RN warship mess square? When I drunkenly smashed a seventies push-button phone in the mess I was C126'd about £300 quid for it. The MOD pays well over the odds for many things and haemorrages money to the wrong areas.
  3. ...sounds about right supermatelot

    Call me Dave says "we're all in this together" and the MPs' will not get a pay rise this year and will have to scrape by with £65+k basic (no cuts though!), but are now allowed to claim for family expenses and more.

    But then we have a "parliamentary democracy" and MPs' are somewhat moree equal than the rest of the electorate.

    Camoron, and the other politicos' would do well to study The Art of War by Sun Tzu (c. 500BC) and apply the lessons learned to government.
  4. Also, I don't know about the Army but - in the New labour years a shed load was spent on naval establishments, making them fully compliable with disabled access etc and massive numbers of civil service posts created that were previously covered by shore based matelots. Created with a significant disability component to up quotas.
    HMS Collingwood for instance in 2001 - a civvy with a disability who's sole job was to run a duty watch roster and allocate duties. I think those sort of jobs were advertised at around 13k PA.
    Block officer jobs - Civvies being allocated a job that was previously just a component of a shorebased matelot's duties - being in charge of a block and allocating bed spaces etc. 20k PA in 2001.

    I remember that many of these civil servants had mahoosive chips on their shoulders as well. Some of the most obnoxious people I have ever had to deal with. I'm talking about a grey haired civvie twats wearing Burton's finest pastel colours demanding to be called "sir" by junior rates. I had to grip a few on many occasion over this. Many were "untouchable" though as they fell under the disability umbrella.

    Yes, the MOD has, and still continues to waste too much money.
  5. We are all in it together, some are more in it than others. Firstly Cameron has a job and is renting out his house while he lives in number 10. Job cuts therefore don't affect him. Fuel increases, Gas, Elec, wage cuts. These again don't affect him in his bubble.

    I understand the need for cuts, but he should take into account the impact that they will have on the average person, not the impact they will have on him before implementing them.
  6. In the same way that Gordon Red Ed and Bug Eyed Balls and wife took into account the hardship they will impose upon this country by borrowing all that money and pissing it up against a wall. Cameron may be in charge and taking the flak for the cuts now, but the problem started and is wholly that of a Labour Government, and its uncontrolled spending.
  7. VerticalG,

    I see your point re: disabled etc but I don't believe the disabled friendly mods were made with any degree of foresight of current scenarios. It was to comply with regulations and allow quotas to be upped.

    - The civilian jobs and roles I mentioned that were created were largely only components of ordinary duties for matelots at Collingwood. It was not as if they released people out to sea etc. 1% of a shore-based PO's duties being removed from him and allocated to a civvy as a sole job description. That's what I'm on about. Many of these "roles" were also created by people who were coming to the end of their 22 years - left the job on a friday and started as a civvy doing something miniscule for a fair amount of cash.
  8. I'm not disagreeing with you bob, but the comedy duo in charge of the country (and the rest in government of all political hues) seem to be perpetuating the rottenness within parliament whilst telling the populace to tighten their belts.
  9. What alternative is there to a tax funded military subservient to the taxpayer?

    Nuclear submarines, carriers, fighters, bombers and ICBMs are all unprofitable investments (unless used for Imperialistic purposes, and even then it remains to be seen whether the spoils will outweigh the costs) that require substantial technical, chronological and monetary expense. Unless the people who buy them can do so without consideration of the profitability of doing so, no one will invest in R&D to develop and eventually deploy them.
  10. I seem to recall Comrade Gordon Brown giving money to every crackpot dictator every time he opened his mouth.The same for failed banks with 'Scotland" in their name.

    The creation of public sector non-jobs in Labour voting areas as another area of deliberate waste.

    Labour have very nearly ruined Britain.
  11. What do you guys think of the idea to make members of the Commons and Lords pay for a say in how the country is run, rather than the other way around?

    So the Prime Minister has to pay (say) £10M a year for the role and an MP needs to pay (say) £500k. That way the people running the country:
    1) Must have had some past aptitude for accumulating and not blowing wealth
    2) Put their money where their mouth is
    3) The rest of us can pay less (if any) tax.

  12. So most of the country would be disenfranchised from being PM, and your option 1 would exclude most MP's now sitting in parliament, especially on the Labour and Lib Dem benches.
  13. Even now, being PM is already a position that is disenfranchised to all but a few. So in practical terms it wouldn't make much of a difference.

    Now, people who competently generate wealth in a free market, may indulge in their success but it can be the case that their success is a blessing to those around them as well, e.g. Dyson & Co., Google's shareholders, etc.
  14. Well do I agree with cuts is a bit black and white, you might as well ask do you like paying money, who the **** is going to say yes? However the cuts whilst nessecary , the level and scale are more to do with politics than finances.
  15. More bollox from the welsh lunatic that thought that the Japanese earthquake/tsunami was a matter for levity.
    The cuts are necessary, and the sooner the debts left us by Red Ed, Bug Eyed Balls and that one eyed lunatic Brown are repaid the better.
    • Like Like x 1