UK to start taking on debt

In the real world
SolkaTruesilver
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:49 am

UK to start taking on debt

Post by SolkaTruesilver »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/bre ... king4.html
The UK government will cut 490,000 public sector jobs over the next four years, the chancellor George Osborne said today, as part of an £83 billion cut in public spending.

Unveiling a comprehensive spending review, Mr Osborne insisted his plan of cuts would drag the country "back from the brink".

The chancellor told MPs: "Tackling this budget deficit is unavoidable. Today's the day when Britain steps back from the brink, when we confront the bills from a decade of debt."

And he added: "To back down now and abandon our plans would be the road to economic ruin. We will stick to the course. We will secure our country's stability. We will not take Britain back to the brink of bankruptcy."

On the job losses that will result, Mr Osborne confirmed that the UK's Office for Budget Responsibility had estimated that 490,000 could go over the four years.

But he sought to reassure the public, saying: "Much of it will be achieved through natural turnover, by leaving posts unfilled as they become vacant.

Estimates suggest a turnover rate of over 8% in the public sector.

"But yes, there will be some redundancies ... that is unavoidable when the country has run out of money. We feel responsible for every individual who works for the Government, and we will always do everything we can to help them find alternative work.

"In fact, in the last three months alone the economy created 178,000 jobs." Mr Osborne indicated that even the Queen was doing her bit.

He said she had agreed to a one year cash freeze in the Civil List for next year.

He added: "Going forward, she has also agreed that total royal household spending will fall by 14 per cent in 2012/13 while grants to the household will be frozen in cash terms."

The chancellor announced that people would have to work longer before they get their state pension.

He said the state pension age for men and women will reach 66 by the year 2020 - four years sooner than previously expected.

He said this would involve a gradual increase in the state pension age from 65 to 66, starting in 2018.

The move would save over £5 billion a year - "money which will be used to provide a more generous basic state pension as we manage demographic pressures", said Mr Osborne.

The chancellor pointedly observed that former Labour leader Gordon Brown was not in the Commons today.

He said "How ironic that it was the last Labour prime minister himself who once observed that the 'public finances must be sustainable over the long term. If they are not then it is the poor ... that will suffer most'."

Mr Osborne added: "That's why we are restoring order to our public finances before that is allowed to happen." As expected Mr Osborne confirmed that spending on the NHS, schools and overseas aid would be ring-fenced.

But he said spending on police would fall by 4 per cent each year.

However, he added: "By cutting costs and scrapping bureaucracy we are saving hundreds of thousands of man hours. Our aim is to avoid any reduction in the visibility and availability of police in our streets." Overall, the Home Office budget will fall by an average of 6 per cent a year. The Ministry of Justice's budget will be cut by 6 per cent a year. And the Law Officers Department will reduce its budget by a total of 24 per cent over the four years, with the Crown Prosecution Service "greatly reducing its inflated cost base", Mr Osborne said.

Savings of 24 per cent in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office budget were also announced.

The Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition has already agreed to cut 17,000 military posts and 25,000 civilians from the ministry for defence, to close the British army's bases in Germany by 2020, sharply to reduce the number of tanks and heavy artillery and to delay the introduction of a replacement for the Trident nuclear submarine as it struggles to meet its targets.

The UK's defence budget will fall in real terms by 8 per cent over the next four years - though it will rise in cash terms. Prime minister David Cameron insisted the cuts would not affect the British army's Afghanistan mission, since it is paid for directly out of the treasury, and not out of funds allocated annually to the ministry for defence.

However, the UK will not be able to mount a similar mission once the cuts have been implemented. Instead, it will be able to keep a 6,500-strong force in the field indefinitely - 3,000 smaller than the force deployed in Afghanistan, though it would be able to send 30,000 troops into action for a one-off operation.

All branches of the military will face cuts. The Royal navy will lose its only aircraft carrier, the Ark Royal, while two replacements will not be ready until 2020. There is a danger that the aircraft necessary for them may not be in service at the time. Meanwhile, the Royal Air Force will lose its Harrier jets, Nimrod surveillance aircraft and several bases.

Conservative MPs are clearly unhappy about the measures, particularly the decision to delay Trident's replacement. Peter Tapsell, the longest-serving MP, said the national interest has been "subordinated to the coalition's interest" - a point that was echoed publicly by fellow MP Julian Lewis, and, privately, by many others.

Meanwhile, the BBC is to be forced to pay for all of the £300 million-a-year bill for the BBC World Service. The service has been funded for decades by the UK foreign office. The corporation also faces a six-year licence fee freeze in a bid to stave off demands from ministers that it should not be compensated for the £600 million bill left by paying for licence fees for the over-75.
It will be painful. There will be protests. There will be problems on the way. But I am happy to see the U.K. government has the courage to turn your public finance around. I'd only be so happy if the U.S. would try to do the same.

Canada went through such "cut down" regime in the 90's, and we ended up from 38% of the public spending spent on debt to only 17%. We completely killed out deficit within 3 years of cutting in fat. Again, it wasn't easy at all, but we ended up much, much better-of in the long run.

Godspeed, UK.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Mikey »

SolkaTruesilver wrote:I'd only be so happy if the U.S. would try to do the same.
Why, exactly, do you have such a personally-vested interest? I'm not trying to be sarcastic (this time,) I'm interested to know.

And yes, the U.S. has seen this all too often. And yes, whenever someone has the testicular fortitude to actually propose to do what needs to be done, they invariably do not get elected because everyone here wants something to be done; but nobody is willing to make the necessary sacrifices themselves.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
Reliant121
3 Star Admiral
3 Star Admiral
Posts: 12263
Joined: Thu Jul 26, 2007 5:00 pm

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Reliant121 »

The spirit is fine but there are elements of the spending review that have me really very worried. Namely the university fees. If I get high enough grades to get into one of the top 20 universities, one of which is just 20 miles down the road, I could be paying anything from £7000 (nearly $11,000) to £12,000 (nearly $18,500) Per annum depending on the course to go to uni. It's effectively turning education into a mortgage.
SolkaTruesilver
Commander
Commander
Posts: 1406
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2007 2:49 am

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by SolkaTruesilver »

Mikey wrote:
SolkaTruesilver wrote:I'd only be so happy if the U.S. would try to do the same.
Why, exactly, do you have such a personally-vested interest? I'm not trying to be sarcastic (this time,) I'm interested to know.
Because the U.S.'s economical health is directly related to my own country's and nation's economical health. The richer you are, the better off we are too. We'll often be less rich (on average) than the americans, but we do get our lot from your fortune.

I yearn for another Democrat Presidency/Republican Congress of the like we have seen in the Clinton Era. This combination managed to create budgetary surplus for the U.S.. Too bad that, in the event the Republicans got elected now in the Congress, in their current mindset, I doubt they would govern as soundly as their predecessors.

Edit: I would have thought it's obvious. I mean, the U.S. are our biggest trade markets, and a lot of our economy is centered around exportation. Many countries in the world have the U.S.'s economical health as their best interest, as we depend on you buying our products. China, for example, is feeling the pain of your misfortune right now. Quebec, less so, because Ontario stole our main manufactures about 20 years ago and we had to diversify our economy, but we are still impacted strong ennough. A strong Loonie might be fun, pride-wise, but it's a pain, export-wise.
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Mikey »

Reliant121 wrote:The spirit is fine but there are elements of the spending review that have me really very worried. Namely the university fees. If I get high enough grades to get into one of the top 20 universities, one of which is just 20 miles down the road, I could be paying anything from £7000 (nearly $11,000) to £12,000 (nearly $18,500) Per annum depending on the course to go to uni. It's effectively turning education into a mortgage.
You guys can rightly complain about your "petrol" prices, but I've got to call you on this one. That's a ridiculously low cost for higher education compared to what we pay in the states. My first year of "uni," as you would call it, was 20 years ago - granted, it was (at the time) the number-one rated engineering institution in the world, but it's still two decades ago - and tuition alone was $25,000 US per annum.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
USSEnterprise
Lieutenant jg
Lieutenant jg
Posts: 262
Joined: Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:30 am
Location: Stuck inside of a temporal rift.

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by USSEnterprise »

Reliant121 wrote:The spirit is fine but there are elements of the spending review that have me really very worried. Namely the university fees. If I get high enough grades to get into one of the top 20 universities, one of which is just 20 miles down the road, I could be paying anything from £7000 (nearly $11,000) to £12,000 (nearly $18,500) Per annum depending on the course to go to uni. It's effectively turning education into a mortgage.
Thats not bad for a top-tier university. When I checked prices for a 4 year college here in the US it was about 17k minimum per year. It ended being like 70k for a degree, thats just the classes and not even from a prodigious school. I chose community college and :) (even if most of the teachers are idiots)
Tsukiyumi
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 21747
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 2:38 pm
Location: Forward Torpedo Tube Twenty. Help!
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Tsukiyumi »

Tuition was why I ended up giving up on MIT.
There is only one way of avoiding the war – that is the overthrow of this society. However, as we are too weak for this task, the war is inevitable. -L. Trotsky, 1939
User avatar
Deepcrush
4 Star Admiral
4 Star Admiral
Posts: 18917
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 8:15 pm
Location: Arnold, Maryland, USA

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Deepcrush »

Thank God for GI:Bill and low budget colleges... :lol:

At least for those of us not getting into MIT... :wave:
Jinsei wa cho no yume, shi no tsubasa no bitodesu
Foxfyre
Lieutenant Commander
Lieutenant Commander
Posts: 1002
Joined: Tue Dec 11, 2007 4:16 am
Location: TEXAS!!!!!!

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Foxfyre »

Deepcrush wrote:Thank God for GI:Bill and low budget colleges... :lol:

At least for those of us not getting into MIT... :wave:
That will be me in August of next year using the new GI bill and going to a local college to get a degree. Then using troops to teachers for a teaaching cert.
Genius insania et conseri manum
User avatar
Graham Kennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 11561
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Banbury, UK
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Graham Kennedy »

Reliant121 wrote:The spirit is fine but there are elements of the spending review that have me really very worried. Namely the university fees. If I get high enough grades to get into one of the top 20 universities, one of which is just 20 miles down the road, I could be paying anything from £7000 (nearly $11,000) to £12,000 (nearly $18,500) Per annum depending on the course to go to uni. It's effectively turning education into a mortgage.
I don't mean to sound unsympathetic, but what does going to one of the top 20 universitites do to your future earning potential, as opposed to not having a degree?
Give a man a fire, and you keep him warm for a day. SET a man on fire, and you will keep him warm for the rest of his life...
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6232
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by IanKennedy »

Mikey wrote:
Reliant121 wrote:The spirit is fine but there are elements of the spending review that have me really very worried. Namely the university fees. If I get high enough grades to get into one of the top 20 universities, one of which is just 20 miles down the road, I could be paying anything from £7000 (nearly $11,000) to £12,000 (nearly $18,500) Per annum depending on the course to go to uni. It's effectively turning education into a mortgage.
You guys can rightly complain about your "petrol" prices, but I've got to call you on this one. That's a ridiculously low cost for higher education compared to what we pay in the states. My first year of "uni," as you would call it, was 20 years ago - granted, it was (at the time) the number-one rated engineering institution in the world, but it's still two decades ago - and tuition alone was $25,000 US per annum.
When I went to university it was free, they even paid me to live while I was there. It was about £5,000 a year in 1983, which is about £12,650 to £18,550 in today's money...
email, ergo spam
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Mikey »

IanKennedy wrote:they even paid me to live
Well, that's certainly better than paying you not to.

Of course, I had fellowships and scholarships as well. My point is just that Reliant's estimate of average tuition seems low compared to tuition stateside.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6232
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by IanKennedy »

Mikey wrote:
IanKennedy wrote:they even paid me to live
Well, that's certainly better than paying you not to.

Of course, I had fellowships and scholarships as well. My point is just that Reliant's estimate of average tuition seems low compared to tuition stateside.
No, this was not a scholarship, it came directly from the government. Everyone who attended university had the right to get a government grant. This included full payment of all tuition fees, and living allowance. If your parents where rich then you got less money to live, as they where supposed to contribute, but everyone got the fees and at least some money.
email, ergo spam
Mikey
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
Posts: 35635
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:04 am
Commendations: The Daystrom Award
Location: down the shore, New Jersey, USA
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by Mikey »

Ah, we've got similar financial aid institutions. Most are in the form of low-interest loans with a long grace period starting from graduation, but there is a lot available in the form of Pell Grants and other no-repayment aid packages. Certainly it seems, though, that the qualifications for receiving financial aid is a bit more elitist stringent over here.
I can't stand nothing dull
I got the high gloss luster
I'll massacre your ass as fast
as Bull offed Custer
User avatar
IanKennedy
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 6232
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2007 2:28 pm
Location: Oxford, UK
Contact:

Re: UK to start taking on debt

Post by IanKennedy »

Mikey wrote:Ah, we've got similar financial aid institutions. Most are in the form of low-interest loans with a long grace period starting from graduation, but there is a lot available in the form of Pell Grants and other no-repayment aid packages. Certainly it seems, though, that the qualifications for receiving financial aid is a bit more elitist stringent over here.
You did have to get accepted to a university of some sort. Other than that there was no other requirement.
email, ergo spam
Post Reply