David Cameron today stands accused of starting a campaign to reduce the funding of the UK benefits system with an attempt to stem fraudulent activity which is costing the UK taxpayer around £5 billion a year. However, the truth is that the UK benefits system, one of the fairest and most lucrative in the world, was initially created to help those on very low incomes. Over the last 20 years or so the system has been expanded and some families earning in excessive £30,000 a year are often eligible for some form of state financial assistance.
The UK government believes that in excess of £5 billion a year is milked from the UK benefit system by fraud and benefit cheats. As a consequence, the UK government is set to introduce credit rating agencies and private surveillance companies to monitor potential fraud in the system. When you consider the amount of money at stake there are few who can really complain at the UK government's attempt to shake up a benefits system which is wide open to massive fraud allegations. But will the new system actually work?
Southern Cross, the UK's largest care home operator, has today issued a profits warning suggesting that the company will miss full-year targets because of a reduction in spending by local authorities. The company operates 730 care homes throughout the UK providing over 37,000 beds although total occupancy rates have fallen from 87.5% last year to 85.4%. Is this the start of a significant reduction in spending by local authorities?
Despite the fact that the UK government has yet to make a final decision with regards to tuition fees and the introduction of the potential graduate tax in the UK, there are grave concerns about the proposed system. There is a feeling that high earners in the UK will be penalised to a greater extent than those on lower incomes and actually end up paying significantly more in graduate tax than the cost of their further education.
UK unions are now starting to challenge the UK government's decision to slash the public sector budget deficit in such a relatively short space of time. They believe that the government's short timetable to cut the deficit could potentially lead to 2 million job cuts in the UK and a period of immense economic pressure which could set back the UK many years.
It has been revealed that more than a third of charities in the UK have no cash reserves to fall back upon and will need to introduce massive cost savings in the short term. Indeed there are fears that many charities in the UK will actually fold over next couple of years. However, plans by the UK government to "redistribute power" from the state to individuals could place more pressure upon the charities sector.
A Reuters survey has today cast doubt on the Bank of England's forecast for UK economic growth in 2011 of 3.4%. A total of 18 people out of the 22 people surveyed expressed an opinion that the Bank of England would be forced to reduce growth forecasts for next year from 3.4% to around 2.5%. So where would this leave the UK government, the Bank of England and the UK economy?
News that social housing maintenance group Connaught will make a "material" operating loss this year as opposed to forecast profits only a few weeks ago of around £60 million has given a short sharp shock to those who believed that the UK private sector would take up the "slack" from the public sector. There is now great concern that contracts which were agreed some time ago may well be wound down and in some cases cancelled as local authorities around the UK look to rein in their spending. So where does this leave public services in the UK?
The UK coalition government today stands accused of attempting to privatise parts of the NHS via the back door with the announcement that NHS Professionals, an agency owned by the government, is up for sale. This is an agency which works wholly with the NHS and has 50,000 workers available to cover 2 million shifts a year for over 70 UK healthcare trusts.
There was a rather alarming piece in one of the Scottish newspapers earlier this week which seemed to suggest that the Scottish government, or at least the Scottish NHS, is actually considering charging patients up to £200 a night for staying in hospital!
While there is no doubt that the cost of the NHS and other public services has increased dramatically over the last 20 or 30 years, surely our taxes should cover taxpayers for periodic health care?
