Osborne is showing his intention at last

Not all Departments, might be better to wait and see what the Review actually says whitewave, rather than speculate wildly.

Absolutely no one has said every budget is slashed - The NHS and per-pupil schools budgets will be protected in the review, which will be published on 25 November (BBC website)

I AM NOT SPECULATING!!!!!!!!

I didn't say every budget if you look at my list. Which of those will not feel the effect of Osborne's savagery? A nasty nasty government. As you may gather I am annoyed

The NHS budget encompasses Elderly Care, Social Services and Children's Services, so they are protected according to my MP James Gray, and will NOT be cut.

As you may gather I am beside myself with fury at what I see as an utterly morally bankrupt government. I am totally unclear how this is going to be achieved without major hardship. I weep for a more gentle, empathetic time that was once the UK.
I shall now retire to bed and sleep on it.

I wholeheartedly agree with you whitewave. This is a truly vicious government and it frightens me what this country will look like in a few years' time when this dog eat dog society is fully established.

So do I, whitewave. You are not speculating. He has asked every department apart from the ringfenced ones to find 40% cuts.
He is a psychopath.
Loopy, do you actually read the news? The government has said it will give £8 billion to the NHS, but they have to save £22 billion. How does that mean even the NHS will not be cut? So sorry, your MP is wrong.

Really? A psychopath? So somewhere there is a document from a qualified person confirming this?

I'm not really a very political person, but I do find it a bit much that you tell someone that they are NOT speculating, and then in the next sentence announce that the Chancellor has a mental health disorder!

These anti Tory rants are getting wilder and wilder!( shakes head, and goes off to find a bowl of cornflakes.)

Having had a brief google, all I can find currently is the Dept of Media, Culture and Sport have been told to look for savings in its department of up to 40%.

Are there links for the rest?

Will 40% equate to 20% in the end for Media Culture and Sport? But it does say up to.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/21/spending-review-george-osborne-20bn-savings-clear-deficit

Similar in the DM.

It does say up to.
And some departments appear to be exempt.
I'm going to leave it at that for tonight.

www.theguardian.com/society/2015/jul/20/benefit-cuts-to-hit-huge-number-of-children-government-figures-show

How about reading this, soon. This is before the 40% extra cuts.

Soon, did you not read the headline of the article to which you linked?

Spending review: Osborne orders Whitehall to draw up plans for 40% cuts

It was in the Guardian so it has to be true!

It's not automatically false either.

Here we go again, anti Tories unable to refrain from the 'psychopath' chorus.
Little chance of civilised debate, yet again.
Pointless trying so give up.
Obviously whitewave & Co. have already read the Review, four months before it's public, and come to their own conclusions......

I should know better than to even expect otherwise by now

I was under the impression that it was George Osborne's intention to reduce the deficit. This is what he is trying to do and the outraged squawks from those with what they choose to call a social conscience are predictable. However, to remark on a public forum that he has mental health issues reflects badly on the person who made that remark IMO.

durhamjen - but if you read only a few lines in, it does say up to.
And the Daily Mail article has up to.
And another one I glanced also said up to.

I want to add my name to the name calling issue too.
I realise that people are scared and angry but I dont agree with the name calling.

"Osborne orders Whitehall to draw up plans for 40% cuts"

phrase most worthy of note there is: draw up plans. Plans are plans not actualities. Yet. Just saying. Time will tell.

Easy to see how alarmism gets whipped up (on any subject) when one reads some things.

OK having now slept on it, I am in a somewhat calmer frame of mind. However, my thoughts and questions are these:-
What is Osborne trying to achieve?
Why is he trying to achieve this?
How is it going to be achieved?
Who will be affected?
Are we clear what the end result will be?
Is there an alternative?

I hate what is happening to this country. The post-war contract of welfare, care and inclusion is gradually being dismantled by successive governments who have bought into the ideology of individualism and unhindered capitalism.
My whole formative years were ones of a strong Christian tradition, along with the background of the new welfare state which was an outstanding achievement on the part of our parents. These things instilled in me a belief of care for my fellow man/woman and fairness.and although I can no longer count myself as one of the Christian faith these ideas remain a bedrock of my very being.

just had 2 lots of visitors- which we really enjoyed- but we had to do a lot of lip zipping. First lot were close relatives, who are Conservatives with a big C- and second lot just gone, ex colleague and family, who are Socialists with a big S, perhaps a C... and in both case, we felt totally pig in the middle re the budget and proposed cuts.

It is clear that there are likely to be big cuts in the budget of our services - I don't think that is in doubt.

I can understand that whitewave feels angry - it is not just about the figures (which we do not yet know in detail) but about the concepts behind them. The shadow of "There is no such thing as society" has dogged us for years. It is a frightening attitude in these times of fractured societies within our cities.

I suppose what scares me is that the people pushing through this agenda appear to have little idea of the potential effects on those who are less well off or otherwise disadvantaged and have no alternative but to rely on the integrity of the society they live in and the services that should be on offer.

It is about British values as DC rightly says - but his idea of what that means and mine are greatly at odds.

Just to clarify, I was the person who used the phrase "mental health disorder" but if you go back and read my post in context, I was NOT saying that he had any problem of the sort.

My comment was in response to him being referred to as a psychopath!