Clown's adminstration tottering - election soon?

Rochdale_Pioneers

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

If policies are working, why will he need to do this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8007482.stm

"Chancellor Alistair Darling is expected to announce some £15bn of spending cuts over the next few years when he delivers his Budget statement."


Trying to steal Tory ideas as usual...after rubbishing them for months.

That'll really impress the electorate.

£15bn of efficiency savings. Thats on top of the c£35bn made over the last 4-5 years(?) following the Gershon report. Thats NOT a cut in frontline public services or teachers pay as proposed by Osborne.

Graham_Devon

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

If policies are working, why will he need to do this?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8007482.stm

"Chancellor Alistair Darling is expected to announce some £15bn of spending cuts over the next few years when he delivers his Budget statement."


Trying to steal Tory ideas as usual...after rubbishing them for months.

That'll really impress the electorate.

Good innit. For about a year now they have said you can't do what the do nothing tories are saying they should do.

You need to spend in a decline, says Brown, and the do nothing party would simply cut, says Brown.

He will now back this up with his keyword "prudence" and say the do nothing tory party has no idea.

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

£15bn of efficiency savings. Thats on top of the c£35bn made over the last 4-5 years(?) following the Gershon report. Thats NOT a cut in frontline public services or teachers pay as proposed by Osborne.

Makes you wonder why they couldnt just do this when they came in guns ablazing with "things can only get better" doesnt it.

I'm gonna spin it and say your party has been wasting billions each year in this case.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I'm gonna spin it and say your party has been wasting billions each year in this case.

Fine - we inherited it from the Tories. "How much did the last Tory government cut in efficiency savings" etc

Accept it - efficiency savings are not cuts to front line services. That will be the main line of attack against Osborne.

Cannon_Fodder

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

£15bn of efficiency savings.

Just re-read that for me...£15Bn, just in efficiency savings.

(For the sake of this post, I won't argue "bollox" - its the same as when banks cut back-room, they just make the front-line do back-room stuff as well as their front-line duties, etc etc (oh, I appear to have done just that)).


£15Bn, just in efficiency savings...

And that should not have been saved for the last 5 to 10 years ?
(let them off the first two, when they rode the back of previous Govt)

!!!!!!. It makes you want to scream. "That's what a lot of people have been saying for years" Govt did not want to listen then, but now they've got a disaster on their hands, and an election to prepare for, suddenly they are all "prudent" and "efficient".

Trouble is they truly believe the electorate will fall for this claptrap.

And the really sad thing is, some of the electorate will fall for it.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Fine - we inherited it from the Tories. "How much did the last Tory government cut in efficiency savings" etc

Accept it - efficiency savings are not cuts to front line services. That will be the main line of attack against Osborne.

You seem to completely fail to grasp the concept of who is going to pay for all these 'wanderful' public services. Current deficits are not sustainable and tax revenues will not be increasing anytime soon.

So while everyone wants these top notch services, the money just is not there to pay for them. The Tories recognise this, Crash still has his head in the sand.

And so do you.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Just re-read that for me...£15Bn, just in efficiency savings.

(For the sake of this post, I won't argue "bollox" - its the same as when banks cut back-room, they just make the front-line do back-room stuff as well as their front-line duties, etc etc (oh, I appear to have done just that))

I work for a major manufacturing company. We have reduced staff numbers in my department several times over the last 5 years - people go and are not replaced, jobs get amalgamated together and the headcount decreases costing us less. Does this mean that we're all run off our feet unable to do the original role? No - because our organisational structure and systems are more efficient. Why shouldn't government be doing the same to the civil service? Cutting back office staff does not mean cuts in customer-facing services in the private sector and it won't in the public sector. Interesting that you're trying to make the public sector a special case immune to the normal practices of business - isn't that usually something the left gets accused of doing?

Gershon report savings cut £23bn from the public sector budget over a three year period. Why is £15bn a number to make you laugh?

Wookster wrote:

You seem to completely fail to grasp the concept of who is going to pay for all these 'wanderful' public services. Current deficits are not sustainable and tax revenues will not be increasing anytime soon.

So while everyone wants these top notch services, the money just is not there to pay for them.

Cobblers. Public debt skyrockets and hits the level sustained by the Germans before they started their bank bailouts and stimuli. We can sustain it quite happily without collapsing into bankruptsy or whatever other fantasy you have. Lets assume that the economists are collectively right and the economy does start its upturn before the election. Give people a choice between services and cuts and they once again may opt for services. For some reason the public don't look to you for economic sage advice and instead believe what the experts say. Funny that.

Wookster

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Cobblers. Public debt skyrockets and hits the level sustained by the Germans before they started their bank bailouts and stimuli. We can sustain it quite happily without collapsing into bankruptsy or whatever other fantasy you have. Lets assume that the economists are collectively right and the economy does start its upturn before the election. Give people a choice between services and cuts and they once again may opt for services. For some reason the public don't look to you for economic sage advice and instead believe what the experts say. Funny that.

All I'll say is that this sort of attitude just goes to show why Labour is just fiscally incompetent. This sort of notion that "other government's owe more so we can run up the debt" just goes to show the irresponsibility with which the finances are managed by Labour.

Just forget it - NO CHANCE of an upturn (i.e. return to growth) before June 2010.

NO CHANCE.

Cannon_Fodder

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Gershon report savings cut £23bn from the public sector budget over a three year period. Why is £15bn a number to make you laugh?

I'm not saying public sector should not have efficiency drives. I'm saying they are 10 years overdue. Gershon has been criticised for inaccuracies, poor methodology, and a simple lack of understanding of what "front-line" means.

Is it a coincidence that through 2005-2007, when hospitals were struggling very badly, Gershon was hailed as being successful, most noticably in the NHS?

Gershon has also been criticised for "hiding" staff. Headcounts were reduced, just like in the private sector, only for contractors and consultants to be hired, at much greater costs than the original staff.

I have experienced that very thing in the private sector, where no-one would hire permanent staff, then around mid-year contractors had to be let go, as the budget was spent...quite a struggle the rest of that year...its like agency nurses.


£15bn is a lot, when there's already supposed to be the NAO to keep an eye on spending, and £20Bn+ has supposedly already been saved by Gershon.

The laughter is at the Govt, failing to recognise that they have created dozens of quangos, hundred of consultants and thousands of non-jobs, and cannot see the wood for the trees.

Generali

Cannon_Fodder wrote: »

Gershon has also been criticised for "hiding" staff. Headcounts were reduced, just like in the private sector, only for contractors and consultants to be hired, at much greater costs than the original staff.

FWIW, when I took my first job in banking I was being paid from the stationary budget.

amcluesent

Clown's added 600,000 numpties to the public-sector payroll. Why? That would be a good place to find £15B in savings.

The public-sector must be the only place where ££ billions is spent on IT AND they increase the number of staff.