[Closed] Spending review - who's watching/listening?

Zulu - actually I am completely vindicated in what I said. ?This is exactly as I predicted

these cuts are far greater than those proposed by labour and are averaging around 25% with some depts as high as 40 % - exactly what I said as I was quoting the tory party and their propaganda organs.

Ok - it looks like the actual average cut is around 20% not 25%

Dept of sport media and balh is 41% cut.

I'm fairly sure that you said that the cuts on average would be between 40 and 25% actually and were suggesting that it wouldn't be towards the lower end...

actually I am completely vindicated in what I said. ?This is exactly as I predicted

TJ, you should go into politics mate, you would fit right in.

# About 490,000 public sector jobs likely to be lost
# Average 19% four-year cut in departmental budgets

close to waht I predicted

Business, Innovation and Skills

Annual budget: £21.2bn

Outcome:[b] Annual cut[/b] of 7.1% year.

Environment, Food and Rural Affairs

Annual budget: £2.9bn

Outcome: 8% annual cut

Simple fact. Some depts will be less than 25% - but as 25% is the overall cut wanted then some depts will be 40%

Is what I said as nicely quoted by zulu

Now the figures are slightly less than that. The average cut looks to be around 20% some depts well over 30% and some 40%

Sounds fairly much as I predicted.

I can't do compound interest

If you could then you would realise that the effect of it would be to bring the average cut down.

30% of x-30% is less than the original 30% of x.

Is what I said as nicely quoted by zulu

Now the figures are [s]slightly[/s] less than that

Sounds [s]fairly much[/s] nothing at all as I predicted.

Seriously......

TandemJeremy - Member
Outcome: Annual cut of 7.1% year.

thus its pushing 30% over the 4 years ( I can't do compound interest )

Nope: 0.929 * 0.929 * 0.929 * 0.929 * = 0.745 eg 74.5% so a 25% cut.

so thats well over 30% over 4 years

Its still pretty much in line with what I predicted. Which is unsuprising seeing as I was quoting tory mouthpieces.

Edit - ta for the lesson in compound interest.

I shall call you the eel from now on TJ.

LOL - TJ just admit that you're disappointed that it's not the 40% across the board that you were suggesting it could be because that was one of the projections the depts had been asked to come up with 😉

TJ, see if you can pick out the inconsistencies in your own reply!

# Average 19% four-year cut in departmental budgets
[b]close to waht I predicted[/b]

Zulu - actually I am completely vindicated in what I said. ?[b]This is exactly as I predicted[/b]
these cuts are far greater than those proposed by labour and are averaging around 25% with some depts as high as 40 % - exactly what I said as I was quoting the tory party and their propaganda organs.

Ok - it looks like the actual average cut is [b]around 20% not 25%[/b]

Dept of sport media and balh is 41% cut... [i][u]in administration costs[/u], not overall budget![/i]

Call me what you like

What I said would happen is pretty much what has happened not suprising as I was quoting tory spokesmen
Average of 20% not the 25% I quoted and dept cuts up to 40%

I think the point being made TJ is that you were being rather dramatic as usual and trying to talk up your case beyond what they'd said would happen which as it turns out (suprisingly TBH) seems to be exactly what they have said now...

(who's got a link to the thread - can't seem to find it)

So you're ~20% inaccurate?

From BBC:

Culture, Media and Sport

Annual budget: £2bn

What's being cut: Budget cut 24% over four years. A[b]dministration costs to be cut 41%[/b] while core arts programmes will see a 15% fall in funding. Free museum entry to remain in place. BBC licence fee to be frozen for next six years. Corporation will also fund World Service and BBC Monitoring. [b][u]Adds up to equivalent of 16% savings over the period.[/u][/b]

Come on TJ - wheres the much vaunted 40%

Clubber - I never said that - look at the quote from em that Zulu kindly provided.

Zulu - I am far closer to it that you were with your - "there will be no cuts mantra" - like to admit you were wrong?

I fully admit I said 25% average and its nearer 20% I did alsoi say that it was possible there was an element from the torys of say X % cuts then when you go for Xminus a bit cut people will be relieved.

clubber - no as usual people were and are claiming I said things that I have not. Read the quote from Zulu that I said.

Had Labour come up with proposed cuts for clearing their own mess up?

That's just a single quote - I'm talking about the thread. Give me a link and I'll happily quote (or retract should I be proven wrong...).

I have no idea what thread you are talking about. That quote from Zulu is and was always my position.

Maybe, maybe not. Assuming we're talking about the same thread, my reading of your comments was that you were suggesting that the 40% option that depts had been asked to prepare a report on was the position that they were driving to take and that 25% was just a lowest starting point.

Zulu - how about the 50 or 60 % cut in social housing?

TJ, you're floundering!

Labour's proposed cuts amounted to 20%, and did NOT protect the areas ringfenced by the coalition.

Lets get this straight TJ, once and for all

i) [b]The Evil TORY coalition cuts are [u]lower[/u] than those proposed by Labour[/b]

ii) [b]The Evil TORY coalition cuts are not the 25% average that you claimed they would be[/b]

well clunbbber that not what I have ever thought or said. People like to make up stuff they think I have said or will say

I merely quoted the troy spokesmen who said " average 25% some depts 40% Not far from what has happened is it. There is still detail to come out yet

Zulu - that is simply factually wrong. Logic failure as well.

clunbbber?

Let's settle this - thread link, please!

Despite the hype today's announcements mean very little. The real detail will be revealed as departments announce what programmes they are planning to cut.

clunbbber sounds more friendly does it not? 🙂

Fat fingers.

I guess that zulu held onto the most damming quote he could of mine. I really doubt you will see anything more than that.

heh, only on STW can 16%=18%=20%=25%=40% (especially funny when dealing in £bn)

incidently, black is actually the same as white and fish is the same as chips

Call me a thicko (and people often do!), but can someone explain how these cuts will work?

Scenario A)
If department 'x' currently has a budget of £1m, and have to cut by 10%, they will operate on a budget of 900k in year 1. In years 2, 3 and 4 does their budget get cut by 10% each year meaning they will operate on £656,100 in year 4.

Or..

Scenario B)
If department 'x' currently has a budget of £1m, and have to cut by 10%, they will operate on a budget of 900k in year 1. But in years 2, 3 and 4 will they still operate on a budget of 900k rather than the original £1m. But its still called a 10% cut as is lower than where they started?

Ta!

Scenario A usually and in the examples TJ quoted/calculated (incorrectly) above.

our dear NHS (The UK's largest employer) is looking pretty safe.

is it ****! I find the news about Thatcher in (a bupa) hospital today of particularly awesome irony and bad timing.

 

our dear NHS (The UK's largest employer) is looking pretty safe.

No chance - though that's the same regardless of which power-hungry self-interested bunch of [s]greedy sods[/s] politicians had got into power...

Zulu - that is simply factually wrong. Logic failure as well.

[b]Hahahahahahaha[/b] - like saying that the cuts are "[b]exactly as I predicted[/b]"

Come on TJ - break it down, which of the following is [u]factually wrong[/u]:

i) The Evil TORY coalition cuts are lower than those proposed by Labour

ii) The Evil TORY coalition cuts are not the 25% average that you claimed they would be

I suppose that actually they're not wrong, they're [u]exactly as you predicted.[/u]..

Maybe the Tories have all been wearing helmets and had a crash

Spending Review: NHS gets small funding rise

That is the headline on the BBC website summarising the spending review. Not sure what I missed there.

[url= http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-11582619 ]BBC on NHS[/url]

tory cuts are not lower than that espoused by labour. Not that labour had a solid figure but even if you accept the 20% then its the same as the tory cuts. I don't think they e3ver got to a costed figure tho and it was going to be delayed a further year

Teh cuts are a little less than I thought but far closer to what I said than what yo said - which was that there would be no cuts at all. So while I was a little high in my estimates, in broad I was not far off and far close than you were with your denial of any cuts at all.

Jeezo your life must be sad if such a trivial "victory" over me means so much to you.

Osborne wields UK spending axe

Is the headline I see...

Jeezo your life must be sad if such a trivial "victory" over me means so much to you.

[Wipes tears of joy from eyes]

EDIT: clubber - added a link for you old chap
EDIT2: Between me posting and me checking my link worked they have only gone and changed the fricking headline haven't they!! they are trying to make me look daft, I assure the headline was correct at the time of publishing. [dons tin foil hat]

Must have been a swivel-eyed evil Tory who did the original headline 🙂

Spending Review: NHS gets 'bare minimum' funding rise

Is the headline now 🙂

Doesn't the NHS have to find £14bn of efficiency savings? That sounds like a cut to me.

"Swivel eyed right wing loony" is the correct phrase. You can exchange "zealot" for "loony" for PC time.

Trouble is that swivel eyed left wing loony is just as apt as most of the recent politics threads have demonstrated...