Osborne cuts £3bn - the last ones!

They can monitor my posts. Gracesgran started the threads, for which I am very grateful. I might even find the names of the boardmembers in the companies, and drop them in occasionally.

What - and not yours, durhamjen? I'd have thought this was your opportunity to shine!

They are being asked to report daily on keywords on twitter, posts and blogs about the government.
Do you not think they will be monitoring Gransnet? After all, we are an important demographic.
I hope they are monitoring all of Gracesgran's threads.

your comment

I was addressing soon's concerns about whether you comment about GO cooking the books would 'get gransnet HQ into trouble', durhamjen.

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/government-awards-contracts-to-monitor-social-media-and-give-whitehall-realtime-updates-on-public-opinion-10298255.html?origin=internalSearch

Just for you, Ana. Do you think Gransnet is included?

I doubt that GO's going to be seriously worried by what durhamjen says about him, soontobe.

Could that remark get gransnet HQ in trouble? I can never remember what the rules are.

Do you mean the last ones, Gracesgran, or the latest? It would be good to think they are the last ones, but the complaint is that he has announced them before his emergency budget next month.
Why does he need an emergency budget? Surely he knew what the books were like; after all he'd been fiddling them for five years.

£80 million from HMRC at a time when we need to be able to get all the tax we can.
There are not enough tax officers at the moment.
Figures I have seen say that every £1 spent on HMRC officers brings in an extra £9 to the tax coffers. He should be spending more on HMRC, not taking £80 million from the department.

Why isn't HMRC important enough to be ringfenced?

www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/george-osborne-accused-of-tricking-voters-as-3bn-cuts-imposed-earlier-than-expected-10298369.html?origin=internalSearch

Today's take on Gracesgran's OP. A link for you, Grannyonce.

I like the way the spokesperson says there will be expected underspends. What on earth are they? How can they expect underspends when they do not give them enough money in the first place.

I put loads of links on and everybody ignores them. No win situation here, Gracesgran.

I would also like to mention an article in yesterday's i about Charlotte Church.
She says she would be willing to pay 60-70% tax in order not to have those cuts that Gracesgran mentioned.
She is going to the demo organised by The People's Assembly on 20th June, the ant-austerity march. She said that voluntarily donating 70% of her income to the taxman would not be enough and would not encourage the richest in this country to get a conscience and follow suit.

I think that the reality is, that it is difficult for ordinary people to definitely know which departments can take cuts better than others.

From my own point of view
I am wary of more cuts coming from justice, and HM Revenue and customs.
Justice is so important.
And HM Rev and Customs - I know a couple of peeople at local level who work in it, and there have already been lots of cuts. Plus in the news, it is being said, that so many cuts have been made, that they no longer have enough staff to chase everything.

Local Gov - I expect cuts can be made, but they seem lean/maybe understaffed now in my opinion.

I could - or anyone could ignore the threads they aren't interested in grannyonce.

I really did want to highlight the areas that are being cut. If I had put on one thread with a link I think (just my opinion of course) that one topic could have been picked up on and run with and others lost. As I have said, different areas interest different people and also one person could be in favour of cuts in one area and against in another one.

I did it this way because cuts that were undefined before the election offend me. I have told you it is in yesterday's "I" so perhaps, if you feel that is how it should be done, you could start another thread with the link. Otherwise, I will continue to do it the way that seems to make the point I am choosing to make if that's OK with you.

perhaps if you put a link to the news story (although I do hate overuse of links to the Guardian and left wing rags) we could read the information for ourselves (if we want to)