Osbourne's July budget

CLAPTON

chiefie wrote: »

The big society was about the concept of devolving decision making to the most local level. Regionalisation of local government, albeit to save money, will be the opposite of that.

bizarre

I'm not sure that the big society was anything to do with localism.

But one would have thought that regional decisions on pay levels is a lot more 'local' than decisions make in Westminster

chiefie

Regionalisation will cost a fortune in the short term but the government will allow authorities to capitalise redundancy costs so it doesn't appear so. And of course firms like pwc will earn a fortune for their advice.

TELLIT01

michaels wrote: »

Hmm - there was a campaign promise not to further reduce child benefit so it would take quite a lot of front to do so: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-32562390

It all comes down to terminology. If he says that in future Child Benefit will be restricted to the first 2 children, but won't affect existing claims, he won't actually be reducing Child Benefit. The effect will be to prevent future CB claims hitting the level received by existing claimants.

princeofpounds

Are we talking departmental spending as a share of GDP (ie excluding the ever increasing bill for old people and housing)?

Absolutely. I'm always annoyed when people look merely at the departmental budgets, when it actually has less and less to do with total government spending.


Annually Managed Expenditure is the whopping elephant in the room that people barely talk about. It's basically things like pensions, various benefits, and debt interest (although the lower interest rates have helped with the latter a great deal).


The chart below is a bit old but it illustrates the point well enough.


This stark fact is exceptionally useful as a BS detector. If anyone rants about the oppressive Tory government taking us back to the 1930s then they clearly don't understand government finances at all. The government is peddling as hard as it can simply to afford the entitlements (which go primarily to the elderly and disadvantaged) that grow year on year on year.


At some point, someone is going to have the bite the bullet and start rolling back these entitlements. It's ugly, and it will come.

gazter

Tromking wrote: »

I`m struggling to see where they`ll find the wholesale cuts needed in Prisons/Probation/Courts to be honest.
Just got this sneaky feeling that property/asset sell offs and the possible relocation of Government departments out of London might be their way forward.

You cannot sell off assets to reduce the deficit. The deficit is the day to day spending.

CLAPTON

gazter wrote: »

You cannot sell off assets to reduce the deficit. The deficit is the day to day spending.

the deficit is the difference between government spending and the tax take

Herzlos

Thrugelmir wrote: »

Efficiency savings will be found in every department. Amazing what can be found once a little squeeze is applied.

It'd be a lot easier if they weren't encouraged to waste money via the whole "If you don't use up your budget this year you'll get less next year" nonsense that plagues all government departments (and big businesses).

I've witnessed first hand schools buying half a dozen playstations they didn't need, so that the money would be available to them next year just in case. Because if your budget reduces any, you'll never get it back.

cells

sell of Hyde park and Kensington gardens for £1 billion an acre with planning permission for anything whatsoever

£600 billion will cover the deficit for many years

stator

More taxing of the poor, more giving away to the rich. Usually Tory stuff.

Thrugelmir

Herzlos wrote: »

It'd be a lot easier if they weren't encouraged to waste money via the whole "If you don't use up your budget this year you'll get less next year" nonsense that plagues all government departments (and big businesses).

I've witnessed first hand schools buying half a dozen playstations they didn't need, so that the money would be available to them next year just in case. Because if your budget reduces any, you'll never get it back.

To change culture requires a complete change of management style. There's a long uphill road ahead.