40% cuts

[Herr Tubthumper]

I tend to agree, 40% is extreme and is likely to literally kill a department. That said, I was astounded at how many courts were underused when the government put out court closures for consultation last week. Those regularly empty buildings still need maintaining and managing at our cost. Now I know the court service is a pretty small one when compared to other government services but if a service like that can be so wasteful I wonder what the 40% review might turn up elsewhere ?

All recent governments have run a bloated public sector. They ( We ) own swathes of real estate that could be sold off if technology such as home working was properly implemented. Combined purchasing is an utter shambles. Education uses the Janet framework and other government areas use GCAT whilst others are allowed to do their own direct purchasing ( local government being a prime example ). Local police forces still negotiate their own deals for their cars for heavens sake. HMRC sent me over a dozen different letters ( many contradictory ) about a £500 under payment in tax ..... utterly wasteful.

If the 25%/40% review starts to remove these many inefficiencies then it will be a good thing.

If there's 40% cuts the courts will soon get busy.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

I can't see a 40 per cent cut in government grants to local government meaning anything other than a complete abandonment of funding for libraries, swimming pools, public parks and gardens and tourism promotion. The impact on the local economy and the sense of wellbeing felt by local people will be enormous.

Don't be SILLY Ed. The 40% SAVINGS are going to be made simply by addressing inefficent middle-management and by restricting benefits to undeserving malingerers, scroungers and immigrants.

 

[LamieRobertson]

A question for Tory voters - are you comfortable with this?

This is actually a genuine question because to be fair, the ConDem coalition didn't undertake this. Indeed when Osborne cut too deep, the economy started to shrink and so they repealed most of the planned cuts.

It is now looking like that repealing was a LibDem idea, because it seems that Osborne wants to cut between 25-40% now.

I think only now people will see that the LD's held back this Tory party from carrying through a lot of policies they wanted to do last time out.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I'm so glad I left when I did. One of the smartest decisions I think I've ever made.

 

[Lord Bracknell]

Don't be SILLY Ed. The 40% SAVINGS are going to be made simply by addressing inefficent middle-management and by restricting benefits to undeserving malingerers, scroungers and immigrants.

The inefficient middle managers that I knew have already been sacked. I guess it's time now to sack the inefficient private sector agencies that have replaced them. There won't be anyone left with any idea how to flog off a closed down public swimming pool.

 

[Triggaaar]

There are quite a few people like you on here who appear to waver between voting for the Tories and the Lib Dems

Good god man, I've never voted Lib Dem, and I hope I never do. Barstards opposed Falmer for a start. I've voted Labour a few times though.

I'm wondering what portion of those people might share your concerns. I certainly wouldn't have believed Osborne would consider cuts of 25-40% after his last term, so I wonder if those people would have done.

I've read some of the links posted on here about austerity, and whether it works. I don't think there's an easy answer (I know many here will disagree), it can certainly damage an economy, but then so can over spending. I think it helped when the Tories talked about austerity and budget cuts in 2010, because it gave the money market confidence we'd pay our debts, and stopped us paying over the odds for the money we continue to borrow. These latest figures come on the back of the promise to end our deficit by 2020, but they seem ridiculous on the face of it.

I'm so glad I left when I did. One of the smartest decisions I think I've ever made.

We can all drink to that.

 

[BigGully]

Cuts of the magnitude being discussed / considered / 'evaluated' would have to be completely across the board.

The Police force, will have less resources for everything from going into schools to do liaison work, through to patrolling the streets, and up to and including the monitoring of suspected extremists living amongst us. Yet those accepting the idea of harsh cuts will be on here whining when they don't send a car straight round when their wing mirror gets knocked off in the night.

The education system, already on its knees will be hit further - reduced resources for teaching our children. Increased class sizes or reduced options / opportunities are the ONLY possible outcome. In my own comfortable leafy suburb, the existing cuts are already taking hold. My younger son will leave with a minimum of two less GCSEs than his brother, three years older, because the school have had to scrap after-school options they used to run, so they can save resources. Again, will those in favour sit a nod along when THEIR children are being taught in a class of 40, with disruptive kids for whom additional support is no longer available?

The NHS gets it in two directions. Not only does this government seek to crucify it funding wise, but it also seeks to demonise its fantastic staff, to erode any public support for their cause. Its a national disgrace. The nodding dogs nod along, until it is they or their children that need to wait 6 months for a necessary but routine operation. In fact one of mine has to wait 6 months for a consultation to DISCUSS a routine operation.

Councils are being squeezed - get used to pot holes not being filled, to grass not being cut, to your bins being collected fortnightly if you're lucky.

This country is in line for genuine pain, if the entitled decision makers continue on their current path, and millions of people nod along, seemingly of the opinion that 'savings' are something that will only affect 'other people'. Its very worrying.

What a load of drivel, why exactly does it need to be across the board, why can it not be 40% here and nothing there ?

My wife's a teacher and she isnt aware that the education system is on its knees, she is accountable for sure, but why shouldnt she be.

The left cannot ever even start to comprehend savings, they only know how to spend other peoples money, its your default position.

I cannot be sure, how and where the cuts will bite, but I suspect it will take a lot of the waste out of the public sector, which cannot help itself but over egg its own self importance and the perennial ''we are all doomed'' if anyone chooses to challenge its balance sheet.

 

[Simster]

What a load of drivel, why exactly does it need to be across the board, why can it not be 40% here and nothing there ?

My wife's a teacher and she isnt aware that the education system is on its knees, she is accountable for sure, but why shouldnt she be.

The left cannot ever even start to comprehend savings, they only know how to spend other peoples money, its your default position.

I cannot be sure, how and where the cuts will bite, but I suspect it will take a lot of the waste out of the public sector, which cannot help itself but over egg its own self importance and the perennial ''we are all doomed'' if anyone chooses to challenge its balance sheet.

He's given ACTUAL examples of where the cuts have started to bite, so drivel it ain't. Regardless, if it's 40% here and nothing there, then net cuts are likely to be nearer 20%, not the 25%-40% that are being drawn up. And secondly, rather than unfairly criticising HKFC, how about you give us an example of ONE department that could swallow 40% cuts without being seriously adversely affected seeing as you seem to think that's realistic?

By the way, you have always come across of someone who is dull, pious and clearly thinks he's far more intelligent than he obviously is. So this post was absolutely textbook you. Well done.

 

[Bozza]

40% seems incomprehensible, clearly.

I'm sure here at chez Bozza we run a tighter ship than UK plc, but the thought of trying to save even 15-20% of our household budget would be difficult enough - 40% would be impossible, I think.

It's a shame that the ballot paper didn't have a "Tory with a sprinkling of Lib Dem moderation" box on it, eh?

 

[Westdene Seagull]

40% seems incomprehensible, clearly.

I'm sure here at chez Bozza we run a tighter ship than UK plc, but the thought of trying to save even 15-20% of our household budget would be difficult enough - 40% would be impossible, I think.

It's a shame that the ballot paper didn't have a "Tory with a sprinkling of Lib Dem moderation" box on it, eh?

Interesting that you compare household budgets with government budgets. Over the last two years our household budget has dropped 44% so we've hit our target - now the rest of you need to bloody well get on with it .... along with the government.

*** and yes, I know, it isn't that simple and the two aren't really remotely alike ***

 

[BigGully]

He's given ACTUAL examples of where the cuts have started to bite, so drivel it ain't. Regardless, if it's 40% here and nothing there, then net cuts are likely to be nearer 20%, not the 25%-40% that are being drawn up. And secondly, rather than unfairly criticising HKFC, how about you give us an example of ONE department that could swallow 40% cuts without being seriously adversely affected seeing as you seem to think that's realistic?

By the way, you have always come across of someone who is dull, pious and clearly thinks he's far more intelligent than he obviously is. So this post was absolutely textbook you. Well done.

Get over yourself, HKFC is easy to criticise he talks drivel most of the time as you do.

Thanks for your 20% example, but if you cut 40%, 40% and nothing then I suspect its over the 25% threshold of cuts.

You cannot see that savings can be made, waste is rife and unaffordable in the public sector, police will continue to police, teachers will teach and doctors will doctor and you will still be wetting your bed.

 

[Bozza]

Interesting that you compare household budgets with government budgets. Over the last two years our household budget has dropped 44% so we've hit our target - now the rest of you need to bloody well get on with it .... along with the government.

*** and yes, I know, it isn't that simple and the two aren't really remotely alike ***

It's going off at a tangent now, but without something major like your mortgage being paid off, how did that happen and was it forced upon you or by design?

 

[WATFORD zero]

But surely when they realise the scale of money being stolen through tax evasion, they will turn their attentions to that and the cuts won't have to be so big. Seems like a no brainer to me

 

[Simster]

Get over yourself, HKFC is easy to criticise he talks drivel most of the time as you do.

Thanks for your 20% example, but if you cut 40%, 40% and nothing then I suspect its over the 25% threshold of cuts.

You cannot see that savings can be made, waste is rife and unaffordable in the public sector, police will continue to police, teachers will teach and doctors will doctor and you will still be wetting your bed.

I'm well and truly over myself thanks. I just wish you'd butt out, as you never add anything meaningful beyond a load of nonsensical claptrap.

You're adding absolutely nothing to the discussion beyond your usual self-important rubbish and a laughable attempt to belittle someone far more intelligent than you. Yeah, waste is rife and the police, teaching and doctor professions will all be fine after 25-40% cuts - not because of any evidence that proves as much, just because you say so.

Either that or you're talking pious absolute bollocks yet again.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

40% seems incomprehensible, clearly.

I'm sure here at chez Bozza we run a tighter ship than UK plc, but the thought of trying to save even 15-20% of our household budget would be difficult enough - 40% would be impossible, I think.

It's a shame that the ballot paper didn't have a "Tory with a sprinkling of Lib Dem moderation" box on it, eh?

One down, 11,999,999 to go

 

[Westdene Seagull]

It's going off at a tangent now, but without something major like your mortgage being paid off, how did that happen and was it forced upon you or by design?

Forced by double redundancies. Strictly speaking for a period of six months our budget dropped 80%. How do you deal with it - well our shopping was slashed from £500+ a month for a family of five to £50 ( and yes it is possible but very boring ). All luxuries went out the window. We slash our gas and electric consumption by about 25% ( Mrs Westdene got more than a tad annoyed with my evangelical habit of turning things off - you know, if you put timer plugs on freezers and fridges you can set them to only be on for every other hour and everything is OK ? ). Went into mortgage arrears and we were given a little money every now and then by family members.

You'll be amazed how 40% feels entirely possible once you've dealt with 80% !

 

[wellquickwoody]

Osborne is a moron, pure and simple.

Seeing as Gideon is arguably the third most important/powerful person in the UK (after HRH and the PM), is at the helm of the 6th biggest economy in the world, and will go on to be very rich and lead a comfortable life, and be able to pass on much of this to his kids, where does your assessment place you in the pecking order?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

Seeing as Gideon is arguably the third most important/powerful person in the UK (after HRH and the PM), is at the helm of the 6th biggest economy in the world, and will go on to be very rich and lead a comfortable life, and be able to pass on much of this to his kids, where does your assessment place you in the pecking order?

Rubbish argument. George W Bush ran the USA. You don't need to be bright, you just need sufficient idiots to vote for you. Quite different.

 

[BigGully]

I'm well and truly over myself thanks. I just wish you'd butt out, as you never add anything meaningful beyond a load of nonsensical claptrap.

You're adding absolutely nothing to the discussion beyond your usual self-important rubbish and a laughable attempt to belittle someone far more intelligent than you. Yeah, waste is rife and the police, teaching and doctor professions will all be fine after 25-40% cuts - not because of any evidence that proves as much, just because you say so.

Either that or you're talking pious absolute bollocks yet again.

Jeeeez, listen to yourself.

The protected departments are not included in the proposed cuts, education, NHS, security and overseas aid, so then why are you and others citing these as departments that will be effected.

 

[Hastings gull]

Cuts of the magnitude being discussed / considered / 'evaluated' would have to be completely across the board.

The Police force, will have less resources for everything from going into schools to do liaison work, through to patrolling the streets, and up to and including the monitoring of suspected extremists living amongst us. Yet those accepting the idea of harsh cuts will be on here whining when they don't send a car straight round when their wing mirror gets knocked off in the night.

The education system, already on its knees will be hit further - reduced resources for teaching our children. Increased class sizes or reduced options / opportunities are the ONLY possible outcome. In my own comfortable leafy suburb, the existing cuts are already taking hold. My younger son will leave with a minimum of two less GCSEs than his brother, three years older, because the school have had to scrap after-school options they used to run, so they can save resources. Again, will those in favour sit a nod along when THEIR children are being taught in a class of 40, with disruptive kids for whom additional support is no longer available?

The NHS gets it in two directions. Not only does this government seek to crucify it funding wise, but it also seeks to demonise its fantastic staff, to erode any public support for their cause. Its a national disgrace. The nodding dogs nod along, until it is they or their children that need to wait 6 months for a necessary but routine operation. In fact one of mine has to wait 6 months for a consultation to DISCUSS a routine operation.

Councils are being squeezed - get used to pot holes not being filled, to grass not being cut, to your bins being collected fortnightly if you're lucky.

This country is in line for genuine pain, if the entitled decision makers continue on their current path, and millions of people nod along, seemingly of the opinion that 'savings' are something that will only affect 'other people'. Its very worrying.

I thought the NHS was ring-fenced? As whether its staff are fantastic, well, I am sure that applies to many, but even "fantastic" staff will avoid any sort of change, if it means that their vested interest is eventually threatened. And as to wastage - perhaps your child would have more prompt treatment, if waste would be cut out. I take my mum to an appointment for her Alzheimers every 6 months, and every time, I plead with them not to send any more tablets, as we have more than enough. It is ignored and we have over a year's supply at home and the chemist has another load, which we don't take, as they would otherwise not be able to re-sell it. When I talk to him about this, he says that you would be amazed at what is thrown away. Presumably this is happening hundreds of thousands of times.
I can assure you that education is not on its knees, though you would obviously want to claim this to lend some credence to your bias. My granddaughter has had a very full year with several trips this summer. Yes, it is not easy and they are finding that increasingly that schools are having to divert staff to the "social side" as other agencies have suffered staff cuts, and your point about disruptive children does have some truth to it. I do find your description odd that a reduction in after school options should result in two less GCSEs. GCSE courses should not rely on anything done after school, and feel sure that there is more to this. It is highly unlikely that class sizes will go to 40, and I am sure that you do not have any evidence for this, other than, again, wildly claiming something to add some credence.