'Do you support public spending cuts?' poll discussion

dizzybuff

pigswillfly wrote: »

Blue light services are important but there are simply too many of them. The police, particularly, although a vital service have become bloated and vastly overstaffed, they keep telling is how bad it will all be, nonsense crime is reducing year on year.

We should be developing social capital within communities, too many CCTV cameras its only there to keep us all scared, When we are scared we are easy to control.
The good news.....Everything is OK!

Pray tell where is this info from?

How are the police service overstaffed?? Id say overranked and in some areas too specialised. The Governement created the Regional Counter Terrorist Units 2 years ago . These worked. However there are alot of staff in them. Currently our force is centralising HR and Admin , this will again cause redundencies etc . Police staff are exactly 1/10 of the forces pay costs , the rest are coppers. Bear in mind a copper is on 30k if they have 20+ years service. Sergeants are unable to do theor job properly as they they are supervising paperwork.

Inspectors are mostly office bound . Then ranks above that certainly are. Efficency savings should not be made at lower ranks , ACPO ranks should be considered .

If the police are so overstaffed , how come they are unable to attend many grade 2's call outs. Its because they dont have the resources to get there. I know Im gonna be slated but I see coppers getting frustrated.

Coppers dont have the right to strike , overtime is unplanned , restdays and leave can be cancelled at 4 days notice. Its a job they do as a Queens servant not a civil servant.

The police are seen as a last service in other things too. helping the ambulance service , mental health sections , domestic disputes , social workers , home help etc.

They also have governement demands on them also . But hey , we are only a blue light service who are overstaffed. So when we are so Overstaffed that we cant attend your grannys house when she thinks she is being burgled , so be it.

Happychappy

The police in some areas are definitely overstaffed and huge savings can be made without affecting front line services, i.e officers usually with less than 18 years service, as after this time, most have got smart and specialised or have childcare issues or on restricted duties.

Finance, HR, Admin, stores, fleet, training, etc, why does each force need it own, why have one department for each force when many forces are only 2000 to 3000 strong, why not amalgamate back office functions for 5 forces or 12000 to 15000 employees under one central admin, why not have one department buying uniform, stationary, vehicles, equipment, doughnuts for five forces or more,rather then each force.

A top of the salary scale PC costs each force around £50k per year, (the PC is not paid that amount) that includes salary, uniform, housing allowance (old and new) employers contributions for pension, Ni and IR, competency payment, special priority payment etc, so huge savings to be made by ensuring the officers in post do what their paid to do, but look at each force and the numbers of officers on restricted duties who are doing jobs a £16k police staff member can do, how many females are in protected posts so they can pick Johhny up from school at 3.30pm each day, can't works late's and nights or see an angry man, this is where forces can be more efficient by clearing out the flotsum and insisting officers do what they signed up to take the Queens shilling for.

The cancelled and re-rostered rest days etc, is par for the course and rewarded with enhanced pay and shouldn't be a surprise as part of the job. Senior officers are another thing with expensive company cars, health and other benefits, these were once young coppers, so why the change to executives needing similar packages to private sector, they would be unemployable in the private sector if they did't have their title from their old job.

dizzybuff

Happychappy wrote: »

The police in some areas are definitely overstaffed and huge savings can be made without affecting front line services, i.e officers usually with less than 18 years service, as after this time, most have got smart and specialised or have childcare issues or on restricted duties.

Under DDA those on restricted duties are not nessesarily protected , most forces are now looking if they can not do the role they were originally emplyed to do can they be retired on medical grounds. Childcare issues may come into it , many parents if with another bobbie will look at getting flexible childcare etc or alternating shifts , like all employees we still have to take their rights to have flecible childcare and some have been refused due to buisness issues. Im with you in one area , some CID in forces are overstaffed and should utilise the one detected 4 investigative assistant approach , freeing the copper up.

Finance, HR, Admin, stores, fleet, training, etc, why does each force need it own, why have one department for each force when many forces are only 2000 to 3000 strong, why not amalgamate back office functions for 5 forces or 12000 to 15000 employees under one central admin, why not have one department buying uniform, stationary, vehicles, equipment, doughnuts for five forces or more,rather then each force.

A top of the salary scale PC costs each force around £50k per year, (the PC is not paid that amount) that includes salary, uniform, housing allowance(doesnt apply anymore) (old and new) employers contributions for pension, Ni and IR, competency payment( Limited availability), special priority payment (Not applicable to everyone etc), so huge savings to be made by ensuring the officers in post do what their paid to do, but look at each force and the numbers of officers on restricted duties who are doing jobs a £16k police staff member can do ( I know this is definatly being looked atin our force and action taken) , how many females (and men) are in protected posts so they can pick Johhny up from school at 3.30pm each day, can't works late's and nights or see an angry man ( all parents are entitled to ask for flexible work in any role in any job ) this is where forces can be more efficient by clearing out the flotsum and insisting officers do what they signed up to take the Queens shilling for.

Some back office roles require a warrented officer to do the job , our force are reviewing the roles to ensure they do.

The cancelled and re-rostered rest days etc, is par for the course and rewarded with enhanced pay and shouldn't be a surprise as part of the job. Senior officers are another thing with expensive company cars, health and other benefits, these were once young coppers, so why the change to executives needing similar packages to private sector, they would be unemployable in the private sector if they did't have their title from their old job. ( regarding the company car Im not sure where u have this info from . Some forces will use pool cars as in the long run its cheaper to run insure a pool car than pay expenses for senior officers. They still have to use their own cars in other forces. Health and benefits , not sure what your talking about but if they want to join bupa they are perfectly entitiled to)

Hr and admin etc is shared by some forces , so is procurement etc. It is fesable in smaller forces but in larger forces is false economy . Some is outsourced as well but this can cause problems in security in the long run.


I have watched 2 governments come and go and watched reviews happen , things will change and be changed back .

But at the end of the day forces are still stretched to the limit , they are overstaffed because previous governments have set innitiatives etc. Just as an example PCSOs 16000 of them in the country. Where they worthwhile some think yes some think no. But do we make them all redundent and loose that vital community link ?

Forces are trying , but it all boils down to one thing, every public service that is not protected is suffering because of the Bankers greediness and foolish government. Should these services suffer or banks some of who are public sector owned now , be forces to make cuts as well.

PS Im enjoying this debate , but I think my brain may be melting

SapphireFlames

I support spending cuts but only if they are done in a fair way - eg not cutting frontline staff or frontline services, and not cutting benefits for people who are genuinely unemployed or disabled. The deficit is very bad so something has to be done.

LSEdwards - this is the 3rd time this week that I've seen someone on an internet discussion propose that people who are unemployed/don't pay taxes should have their right to vote withdrawn. I believe this is a very dangerous step towards fascism. In some areas, there is a shortage of jobs (I'm sure you must have heard the news of 100 people applying for 1 vacancy is some cases) so it may take a while to find a new job even if you are trying hard to look for one. Many thousands of people have been made redundant through no fault of their own. I think this country must always remain a democracy. All UK citizens over 18 should be allowed to vote, as it is now. I don't know of any other western country which says that unemployed people can't vote, so why should the UK introduce such a law? Call me cynical, but I think that this would just be a ploy for the Conservatives to try and stay in power forever (knowing that poorer people tend to vote for other parties). Is this your real motivation, LSEdwards? Throughout history, many people in this country have died for the cause of democracy - don't destroy it all now!

angiebhfx

SapphireFlames wrote: »

I support spending cuts but only if they are done in a fair way - eg not cutting frontline staff or frontline services, and not cutting benefits for people who are genuinely unemployed or disabled. The deficit is very bad so something has to be done.

LSEdwards - this is the 3rd time this week that I've seen someone on an internet discussion propose that people who are unemployed/don't pay taxes should have their right to vote withdrawn. I believe this is a very dangerous step towards fascism. In some areas, there is a shortage of jobs (I'm sure you must have heard the news of 100 people applying for 1 vacancy is some cases) so it may take a while to find a new job even if you are trying hard to look for one. Many thousands of people have been made redundant through no fault of their own. I think this country must always remain a democracy. All UK citizens over 18 should be allowed to vote, as it is now. I don't know of any other western country which says that unemployed people can't vote, so why should the UK introduce such a law? Call me cynical, but I think that this would just be a ploy for the Conservatives to try and stay in power forever (knowing that poorer people tend to vote for other parties). Is this your real motivation, LSEdwards? Throughout history, many people in this country have died for the cause of democracy - don't destroy it all now!

I agree and there is definitely a whiff of Tory about LSEdwards

LSEdwards

I have worked full-time since I was 18, over 20 years. I have been unemployed since Jan this year, I have had interviews for jobs that I am qualified to do, more than qualified to do and not been successful in getting the job. I know this isn't because of how I perform in interviews because over the past 10 years I was offered every single job that I went for. I have decided to go to University to train in a different field now. I have volunteered in the time that I have been unemployed and will continue to do so while I am at university.

My point is there aren't enough jobs, I applied for a bar job yesterday, along with 50 other people, so what's the answer? As for benefit, if you look at my previous post £65.45 pw for JSA or ESA contribution or income based isn't very much to live on when you have to pay all your utilities and food out of this. Incidentally, you only get contribution based for 6 months.

I'm not sure how this is an argument against withdrawing benefits and the vote from people, unlike yourself, who haven't contributed to society?

LSEdwards

angiebhfx wrote: »

I agree and there is definitely a whiff of Tory about LSEdwards

As a matter of fact I'm a Liberal, although I do happen to support what the Coalition is trying to do. Not that my political affiliation really affects the strength of the argument in any way.

Perhaps you could try making a valid point rather than resorting to class war?

LSEdwards

SapphireFlames wrote: »

I support spending cuts but only if they are done in a fair way - eg not cutting frontline staff or frontline services, and not cutting benefits for people who are genuinely unemployed or disabled. The deficit is very bad so something has to be done.

LSEdwards - this is the 3rd time this week that I've seen someone on an internet discussion propose that people who are unemployed/don't pay taxes should have their right to vote withdrawn. I believe this is a very dangerous step towards fascism. In some areas, there is a shortage of jobs (I'm sure you must have heard the news of 100 people applying for 1 vacancy is some cases) so it may take a while to find a new job even if you are trying hard to look for one. Many thousands of people have been made redundant through no fault of their own. I think this country must always remain a democracy. All UK citizens over 18 should be allowed to vote, as it is now. I don't know of any other western country which says that unemployed people can't vote, so why should the UK introduce such a law? Call me cynical, but I think that this would just be a ploy for the Conservatives to try and stay in power forever (knowing that poorer people tend to vote for other parties). Is this your real motivation, LSEdwards? Throughout history, many people in this country have died for the cause of democracy - don't destroy it all now!

It seems that we agree that efficiencies need to be made in a thoughtful and fair way, which should be eminently possible given there is not going to be any reduction in public spending in cash terms.

As to not cutting frontline staff, this is nonsense. If a service can be provided more efficiently with fewer staff then the number of staff should be reduced, preferably by natural wastage over a planned period. Just cutting "back office" staff is not the route to greater efficiency, quite the contrary.

I am aware that withdrawing the vote from those that don't deserve it is a radical step. Just because none of our Western neighbours have adopted the policy doesn't make it wrong. I also don't think it necessarily equates to fascism - why do you equate fairness to fascism?

Many organisations only give democratic rights to full members of the organisation, who pay their subscriptions or have earned 'life membership' through past service. It's the fair way to run a democracy.

LSEdwards

dizzybuff wrote: »

The RH (If you can call her that) Threasa May has stated that we (police service) will have to cut our spending by 25% over the next 4 years.

Can you please link to a newspaper report where Theresa May said this because I can't find one.

You may have a long search because she didn't say anything of the sort.

pigswillfly

Look at the irony. Does this sound familiar India has frittered over Rs 35,000 crore on the 14-day razzmatazz CWG, lost over Rs 60,000 in the 2G spectrum scam, spent $2.1 billion on Delhi's new airport terminal, written-off over $107 billion of the super-rich and boasts of over 50 billionaires in the Forbes list. Yet, has no funds for the sick, diseased and hungry.

Where is Mick Jagger?
Where is the Big Picture never mind the Big Society?