Where will the cuts fall

Generali

Tromking wrote: »

I would politely suggest that you have not scrutinised the select committees findings close enough. You can take it or leave it, our prisons are in crisis.

True, I read the executive summary.

Prisons always seem to be in crisis.

Tromking

Generali wrote: »

Prisons always seem to be in crisis.

I`ve never known a situation anywhere near as dire as this in my 28 years. Due to the obvious closed environment of most prisons most people have no clue (or maybe any real interest!) as to what is really going on. 2 years in, not one prison is deemed safe enough to go live with the new bench marking reforms as yet and consequently are running temporary restricted regimes.
I guess this is what happens to a public service when dogma meets reality.

Cyberman60

Thrugelmir wrote: »

And financial history is littered with such examples. More than people seem to realise.

Argentina, Iceland and Cyprus being three recent examples. :eek:

Tromking

Interesting steer from Danny Alexander on potential Tory thinking this morning.
I wonder how much of the £9 billion of unexplained welfare cuts slashing child benefit would account for.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32526461

antrobus

Tromking wrote: »

Interesting steer from Danny Alexander on potential Tory thinking this morning.
I wonder how much of the £9 billion of unexplained welfare cuts slashing child benefit would account for.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32526461

You mean this Danny Alexander?

http://www.electoralcalculus.co.uk/cgi-bin/seatdetails.pl?seat=Inverness%20Nairn%20Badenoch%20and%20Strathspey

cells

Increases in tax could play a part too

I would double business rates tax over the life of the parliament. That would bring in £25B extra a year by the end

Its an acceptable tax and it would encourage some new business to llcate outside London (or at least outsize zone 1 London towards z3-5)

Generali

Graham_Devon wrote: »

I may have taken your statement completely the wrong way though. If you are talking about cutting public sector pay at the top....those management types on 300k a year in the NHS, or massive MPs expense claims etc, I'd agree. But considering your other posts on "if you want the best you have to pay for them" I would guess you are not talking about cutting these types of peoples pay while protecting those on the ground".

I'm talking about senior managers being paid less as a whole, either by paying individuals less or having fewer individuals. MPs expenses are just a sideshow.

For the huge mass, and it's them that you have to address in the end, you simply give at inflation pay rises and slowly their take as a proportion of GDP falls. In the end, in almost all cases, lower tax economies are more successful than higher tax ones. For the UK to prosper the deficit needs to come under control and taxes, especially on poor people, need to fall.

Tromking

Generali wrote: »

For the huge mass, and it's them that you have to address in the end, you simply give at inflation pay rises and slowly their take as a proportion of GDP falls. In the end, in almost all cases, lower tax economies are more successful than higher tax ones. For the UK to prosper the deficit needs to come under control and taxes, especially on poor people, need to fall.

The only problem with that strategy is that the UK expects first world public services and if the rationalisation continues then that expectation goes out the window. Most of the real savings have been made and most jobs within public services than can be outsourced have been. The only conversation that needs to happen now is do we want first world public services and if we do are we willing to pay for them through taxes.

Thrugelmir

Tromking wrote: »

Most of the real savings have been made and most jobs within public services than can be outsourced have been.

Optimising the performance of the public sector has barely started.

Tromking

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Optimising the performance of the public sector has barely started.

It`s a good soundbite, but what does that actually mean?
The current preferred method of reducing the headcount saves money but it only gets you so far before the core function suffers and it starts effecting the performance you speak of.