Older generation suffers the most from Government cuts

Have your say

From: Geoff Sweeting, Station Road, Wressle, Selby, North Yorkshire.

I SUSPECT that many of my generation, who were born in the 1940s are sick to death of the whingeing and nimbyism that is prevalent in the news media.

The Luddite union leaders are having a ball opposing anything that this Government puts forward, simply because it is not a Labour government. Yet most people who think about the financial mess that this country has been left in, recognise the need for the proposed cuts in public spending.

Even Gordon Brown and Alistair Darling said that there would have to be cuts, which was quite an admission for them. In some ways, it is a pity that they were not re-elected to sort their own mess out, although they would probably have made it worse. It is my generation that suffers the worst from the cuts, with low and sometimes fixed incomes, low or zero returns from any investments that they may have and a higher inflation rate than the general public. Yet we soldier on without complaining (too much).

Does the general public realise that the Government is simply trying to bring our borrowing under control? The “structured deficit” term that politicians are fond of using, simply means borrowing more than we are earning. The Government isn’t even thinking about trying to repay our debts, which are costing us about £50bn a year in interest payments, depending on which figures you believe. This is a colossal amount of money, which could be put to much better use than enriching our creditors.

The “two-Edded” Opposition must be the worst qualified ever to complain about the Government’s cuts as both Eds were close advisers to Gordon Brown and therefore responsible for the financial mess that we are in.

Even now, Ed Balls thinks that we should keep borrowing until the economy improves. He forgets to add that Labour did keep borrowing, even in the so-called boom years. When exactly would he turn off the tap?

So, most people agree that cuts are necessary but not in their department, their services or their councils.

From: Jeffrey Stirk, Newton-le-Willows, Bedale.

SHE would say that, wouldn’t she? I refer to the article by Margaret Eaton, chairwoman of the local Government Association (Yorkshire Post, March 8) and her assertion that cutting top salaries in local government would save just £157m. She makes it sound such a paltry amount.

Does she live in the real world? Or is she of the opinion the saving of that amount is so small? I would say it would be a start and I am sure nurses and the Armed Forces would be glad of such an amount to sustain them in their worthwhile jobs.

That’s the whole point, isn’t it? Worthwhile jobs.

These jobsworth characters seem to think that money grows on trees and treat millions as monopoly money.

Try telling that to a refuse collector, a policeman facing a yob with a knife, or, for that matter, their own lollipop personnel, Madam Chairwoman.

From: David Bentley, Pickering.

REGARDING Margaret Eaton’s remarks, for far too long, the upper echelons in local government have operated a system of Buggins Turn with every move racking up higher and higher costs at the expense of us, the public. This includes persons who leave one authority under a cloud and within weeks appear elsewhere at an even higher salary.

Only in the public sector.