£15bn public sector 'efficiency savings'

molerat

tomterm8 wrote: »

..... and it's not like I'm suggesting they do it with blunt knives or without anasthetic.

You have just spoilt it for me now.

MPD

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/Assets/Master%209%20March%20version_tcm6-6429.pdf - 500kb pdf
TBH I hear a lot about how quangos are wasting all this money (especially when I read my Mother's copy of the Daily Mail), but I've never heard a cogent reason as to why they need scrapping.

IMO ministers are amongst the worst placed people to provide much needed long term services to the public, most of them can't see past the next election and too many can't see anything because their snouts are too far in the trough (aaargh - must be reading the Mail too much).

In a modern democracy I believe many, maybe even most quangos are necessary.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Cheers. Found it earlier.

Merge Requested

English Heritage Staff 1,937 Expenditure £175.3M

Historic Royal Palaces Staff 654 Expenditure £46.0M

Royal Parks Agency Staff 101 Expenditure £29.0M

And why exactly does the big lottery fund need over £70m to fork out lottery money.

The British Wool people need to seriously cut down on spending...

I could go on forever...

LittleMissAspie

AMG2B wrote: »

5. Govt deparments shouldn't be allowed to spend money on Google Adwords - the NHS spends over £10,000 a year just advertising their anti-smoking services when they top the Google rankings anyway.

Maybe they should cut all the anti-smoking services entirely, seeing as smokers pay for the NHS and then some. Thank you to all the smokers out there and please carry on.

justme111

mewbie wrote: »

Er. I have gone into right wing mode big time over the last few months (gradually since joining here?), sick of wastage, high taxes, etc.

BUT.

There are some things in life which go beyond 'normal' expenditure, and granting a childless couple a hope of having a baby is towards the top of my particular 'worthwhile' things list.

IMO.

they do have hope to have a baby. nobody takes it away from them. they just would need to pay for it. Not being able to at all, never ever and not being able to get it for free are completely different incomparable situations.

mewbie_2

justme111 wrote: »

they do have hope to have a baby. nobody takes it away from them. they just would need to pay for it. Not being able to at all, never ever and not being able to get it for free are completely different incomparable situations.

I suppose you are right. The NHS is just there for prolonging pointless old knackered lives after all. No point in using a tiny tiny portion of it to give hope to a future life.