40% cuts

[Simster]

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 Indeed when Osborne cut too deep, the economy started to shrink and so they repealed most of the planned cuts.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.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I didn't vote Tory and I'm certainly not going to defend a blanket set of 40% cuts BUT I see no harm in each Whitehall department reviewing what would happen if they were to be on the end of a 25% / 40% cut in budget - and that's all that has been announced so far, no actual real cuts. I'd like to see another band added - say 10% - only then can sensible, informed decisions be made on what and where to cut.

 

[Hastings gull]

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 Indeed when Osborne cut too deep, the economy started to shrink and so they repealed most of the planned cuts.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.

As a general rule, I am entirely comfortable with a politician saying that there will have to be cuts, if it then forces an ineffiecent
organisation to rationalise what they do and curb wastage. But the cuts tend to come at the coal face -the administrators given the task of identifying savings, don't of course cut themselves!
Might it also be that 40% is a bit of an exaggeration? It does seem extreme, and I suspect that the reality might be rather different. It is a usual way that politicians go about things -they threaten 40%, get everyone in a panic, and when the cuts are then less, as was always intended, everyone breathes a sigh of relief rather than anger and the party in power gets an easier ride. Does this seem a fair assessment?

 

[Biscuit]

This is GREAT news. What a brilliant idea by our Chancellor! 40% Cuts. That'll get a bit more of the juicy fat off the bone!

Why is it good news I hear you cry? Well - TAX IS GOING DOWN! I mean it must be right? I'm paying through the nose at the moment - and in return all I get is cuts to police, healthcare, education, armed forces, research, investment in business etc.

So I'm going to get a massive cut in tax?

 

[Simster]

I didn't vote Tory and I'm certainly not going to defend a blanket set of 40% cuts BUT I see no harm in each Whitehall department reviewing what would happen if they were to be on the end of a 25% / 40% cut in budget - and that's all that has been announced so far, no actual real cuts. I'd like to see another band added - say 10% - only then can sensible, informed decisions be made on what and where to cut.

I suppose there is no harm in reviewing spending, but 40% is absurd. You can't dress it up - 40% is an utter decimation of resources in anyone's language.

As a general rule, I am entirely comfortable with a politician saying that there will have to be cuts, if it then forces an ineffiecent organisation to rationalise what they do and curb wastage. But the cuts tend to come at the coal face -the administrators given the task of identifying savings, don't of course cut themselves!
Might it also be that 40% is a bit of an exaggeration? It does seem extreme, and I suspect that the reality might be rather different. It is a usual way that politicians go about things -they threaten 40%, get everyone in a panic, and when the cuts are then less, as was always intended, everyone breathes a sigh of relief rather than anger and the party in power gets an easier ride. Does this seem a fair assessment?

Yes, it MIGHT be a bit of an exaggeration. But if it isn't, it spells disaster.

Personally, I want a pragmatic government. Ideological government rarely seems to work. The Tories should make cuts by all means, as that is what they believe in. But 40%?? That is appalling and spells disaster. And what is annoying about it is that Osborne saw the result of cutting deeply on his own watch last term.

 

[narly101]

It's a ****ing review for Christ sake. Back in your box.

 

[studio150]

This is GREAT news. What a brilliant idea by our Chancellor! 40% Cuts. That'll get a bit more of the juicy fat off the bone!

Why is it good news I hear you cry? Well - TAX IS GOING DOWN! I mean it must be right? I'm paying through the nose at the moment - and in return all I get is cuts to police, healthcare, education, armed forces, research, investment in business etc.

So I'm going to get a massive cut in tax?

I thought the armed forces was ring fenced and not subject to further cuts. Some of the proposed cuts may be offset by land sales.

However at this level the cuts are more than efficiency savings and comes down to what can we stop doing.

Im sure that Sir Humphrey would have managed to avoid cuts to his department.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

Osborne is a moron, pure and simple.

How can anyone at all, defend cuts of 25% or more? Its simply not realistic, if society is to smoothly roll along. The health service, policing, social services etc would simply fail to operate properly. 40% is insanity, to even consider. Madness. It'd be like Detroit, with 2 in 3 street lights disabled, and three working ambulances for a whole city.

Of course, when I say 'society' would fall apart - it wouldn't really - it would fray very badly at the edges. The 'society' Osbourne and Cameron and the political elite move in, wouldn't feel a thing.

 

[Westdene Seagull]

I suppose there is no harm in reviewing spending, but 40% is absurd. You can't dress it up - 40% is an utter decimation of resources in anyone's language.

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.

 

[severnside gull]

As others have pointed out the cuts finally ensuing will be markedly less . They are after all for public consumption to indicate that the government is "doing something"
What will happen is that there will be a furore from the civil servants' union and behind the smokescreen created there will be front line funding and service cuts while the number of staff engaged to manage the increasingly complex systems actually increases. The only job losses will be those taking early retirement at enhanced rates on top of their already superior and protected benefits.

Sorry. Seen it all before.

 

[Simster]

It's a ****ing review for Christ sake. Back in your box.

Sssh. The grown ups are talking.

 

[severnside gull]

Osborne is a moron, pure and simple.

How can anyone at all, defend cuts of 25% or more? Its simply not realistic, if society is to smoothly roll along. The health service, policing, social services etc would simply fail to operate properly. 40% is insanity, to even consider. Madness. It'd be like Detroit, with 2 in 3 street lights disabled, and three working ambulances for a whole city.

Of course, when I say 'society' would fall apart - it wouldn't really - it would fray very badly at the edges. The 'society' Osbourne and Cameron and the political elite move in, wouldn't feel a thing.

Excellent post. I especially agree with your first and last sentences.

 

[Bry Nylon]

I thought the armed forces was ring fenced and not subject to further cuts. Some of the proposed cuts may be offset by land sales.

However at this level the cuts are more than efficiency savings and comes down to what can we stop doing.

Im sure that Sir Humphrey would have managed to avoid cuts to his department.

In fact Sir Humphrey would have been able to propose a 30% increase in his departmental budget and a 17% increase in white collar headcount to conduct outline feasibility studies into proposed efficiency savings in the Civil Service.

 

[Simster]

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.

I won't disagree with your analysis of inefficiencies at the HMRC and the police - I've seen shocking examples of both in the past two weeks. But the problem is, some of those examples are actually just examples of plain incompetence, which will actually need a short-term increase in spending (on training) to overcome before efficiency savings can consequently be made. And of course, 25-40% is pie in the sky.

I just wonder whether some of the more centre-right of the electorate regret casting out the Lib Dems in the way they did. It's a shame they sold their principles down the river for a sniff of power, because economically I think they have done far more good than they were given credit for.

 

[Hastings gull]

I won't disagree with your analysis of inefficiencies at the HMRC and the police - I've seen shocking examples of both in the past two weeks. But the problem is, some of those examples are actually just examples of plain incompetence, which will actually need a short-term increase in spending (on training) to overcome before efficiency savings can consequently be made. And of course, 25-40% is pie in the sky.

I just wonder whether some of the more centre-right of the electorate regret casting out the Lib Dems in the way they did. It's a shame they sold their principles down the river for a sniff of power, because economically I think they have done far more good than they were given credit for.

I am not sure I follow this. Presumably the centre-right, as you call it, voted conservative, as they usually do, and the step decline of the Liberals was surely due to their own supporters deserting in droves. Did all those deserting the Liberals then switch to the conservatives? If that is the case, then fair enough, though whether "they sold their principles" is debatable and is only really your spin on it, and if they did not, then the issue of principles is irrelevant.

 

[Simster]

I am not sure I follow this. Presumably the centre-right, as you call it, voted conservative, as they usually do,[/B] and the step decline of the Liberals was surely due to their own supporters deserting in droves. Did all those deserting the Liberals then switch to the conservatives? If that is the case, then fair enough, though whether "they sold their principles" is debatable and is only really your spin on it, and if they did not, then the issue of principles is irrelevant.

That is clearly not the case in some key marginal consituencies like Eastleigh or those in the south west of England, where voting is fairly evenly split between Tory and Lib Dem candidates. But this time, those people deserted the Lib Dems in their droves in favour of the Tories, which is why the Lib Dems have gone from a minority government party with 57 seats to their current position of 8 seats, and being a complete irrelevance.

 

[hans kraay fan club]

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.

 

[Triggaaar]

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

I've only seen brief details, and I'm not keen.

The 'society' Osbourne and Cameron and the political elite move in, wouldn't feel a thing.

Good news, thanks for reassuring me.

 

[Simster]

I've only seen brief details, and I'm not keen.

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

 

[Lord Bracknell]

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.