How would you cut costs?

I'd second reducing welfare payments.  It might seem a bit extreme but I'd like to see the benefits received by those not bothering to get back into work reduced on an incremental basis, the longer they spent out of work, and that the base rate that they received if they were out of work for a long, long time was very meagre indeed.

I'd also like to see less red tape and the spending of councils, etc. to be monitored more closely.

Paul

Interesting points.  Companies make the same mistakes as governments, when they let their egos run away with them.  (Never believe your own propaganda). 

The UK is no longer a global power.  We need to accept the fact we are the 5th largest economy, and only have Trident 'on approval' from the USA, so it is not even an independent deterrent.  Does anyone really believe boots on the ground in Afghanistan is making us safer?  What about the 7 July London bombings?  Our armed forces are geared to fight the cold war, not modern insurgency and terrorism - we need to adapt.

Why give aid to governments?  I'd contribute to charities who provide local people with the skills and resources to improve their own lot, not to often-corrupt regimes.

The national mindset and budgets need to reflect reality, not illusion.  Again, a basic management issue that politicians need to learn.

Agreed.  That's part of the equation - a push factor.  We also need pull factors - those that attract people to a different paradigm; e.g. social disdain for a way of being, in the same way that drink/drive is far less acceptable now than 30 years ago.  If there is genuinely no way to pay one's own way, then work should be done for the community in exchange for benefits.  The social initiatives/charities would welcome the help and skills would be accumulated that better enable paid work to be found.  Being given benefits for doing nothing in return is neither just, nor real world.

I agree that the welfare culture should be changed..though it won't be easy to do.  However I'm not sure decreasing payments is the way to go.  Why punish the genuine people who cannot work because of those that choose not to?  Could it not be based on more pragmatic measures; assessing people's ability to work through medical reports and assessments (much like we do at work), monitoring applications made by those on say jobseekers or income support, requiring evidence of applicaitons so people don't make it up.  That sort of thing

I do feel if government departments actually talked to each other and shared information a lot more benefit fraud and the amount of benefits paid out would be tackled ad reduced.

Make it harder for people to qualify for benefits (but not impossible if they are genuine claimants).  What do other countries do?  Should we be learning from them maybe?

I can understand a pay freeze in public sector to bring inline with private sector workers.  However it does concern me that if taxes, VAT etc are going to rise, will companies be able to afford a rise in wages to meet this, otherwise more and more people will struggle to afford to live even at a basic level, increasing the level of debt which surely is what the government should be looking to avoid?  It could see more company closures, more job losses and the impact of that on the UK.

I don't think there is an easy answer to any of this but I do think the government are treading a very fine line.  Time will tell i guess.

Just been reaidng the budget update on BBC website

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/politics/10374475.stm

Interesting reading...

As Vice Chair of a housing charity that helps young, homeless people by managing their lives, I am disappointed by the disproportianate attacks on them and the expectation that it is they who are going to have to feel the pain.

Let me explain: tomorrow we have an emergency EGM of the Board to introduce a 20% cut in our budget which will have an impact on those who deliver and receive our expert support.

This is because we (as well as lot of third sector charities) depend on government funding to deliver our specialist services - of which have been decanted by local councils over the past 30 years.

So - you explain to me how it is we have a government that says on the one hand it wants charities and the third sector to do more whilst it takes away the very resource it needs to deliver the services.

I shouldn't have to explain on this web page that once you dismantle and close an organisation or service, it's damn near impossible to re-create it after all the skills, competences and knowledge has gone.

My last point is this: if you also factor in the cuts in building social housing (see Shelter's comments) I really fear that you will see a return of homelessness and the social costs associated with the withdrawal of the support that has been given: not a culture of dependency; more a culture of picking people up and allowing them to stabalise and move on.

Unless (of course) you are going to tell me, colleagues, that you are going to put your hand in your pockets and start donating to charities to plug the gaps that have now been created? Or perhaps I could encourage you to start sitting on the Board of charities as voluntary executives and bring your fund raising skills with you!

Managing vulnerable people in the third sector requires an extraordinary mix of skills and competences and it is not helped by expecting to them to survive when their funding disappears.

From my perspective: the Budget is attacking the vulnerable by using a temporary fiscal problem to create a culture of cuts and confusion as to how the public sector and the third sector deliver services.

Peter,

Was interesting to read your comments on here.

Working for a charity myself, and having seen a summary of the budget, I do wonder how it will affect us and our ability to maintain and improve the services we offer to our clients.

However, we do not receive government funding or other organisational funding.  We are solely reliant on people 'putting their hands in their pockets' and donating to us.  For me the concern now is how we can at least maintain the donations we receive when people are being hit by VAT increases, benefit changes and so on.  Even the poorest of people manage to find a way to donate to us.  Certainly the next few months or so will be telling.

However, another part of me stands by what I said earlier.  Our welfare system should be changed to make it harder to qualify for benefits, to deter those who claim because they 'choose' not to work, rather than because they are genuinely unable to work, from claiming.  Something needs to be done to make working the more appealling option, rather than claiming benefits. 

Personal opinion only, I realise that there will be some who will disagree.

I'm not really surprised by any of the measures they've implemented.  Sadly a lot of my Labour supporting friends are completely up in arms about it all, with taunts of typical Tories etc.  It's hard to imagine what else they expected given the circumstances.