For a start sack half the Mp`s,

close down most of the so caled quangos,

not pay the royal family,more than other families get when not working(income support)

sell Royal Mail,for whatever they can get for it,and whoever takes it over pays the pensions,

cancel all early retirement for council and govermment,just retrain them to clean the streets,not much stress in that,

Means test child benefit get the long term sick off benefit bring back hanging to empty the prisons. Put up vat and leave the Eu

close down most of the so caled quangos,

Aha, just keep the real ones. cunning.

Problem with leaving the EU, none of the unemployed and sickness lot would be able to claim free food and accomodation off the airlines due to volcanic ash,then have another holiday latter on in the month.

Replace all of the MOD project "management" with proper hard-ass professionals. How the projects keep going billions over budget is criminal.

Be rid of the tiers and tiers of NHS management. Rationalise.

Get the dole claimants working 3 days/week for the council or benefits cease (means tested of course).

"For a start sack half the Mp`s,"

Cost saving figures please ?

"sell Royal Mail"

Royal Mail made £321 million profit last year, how does handing over that profit to private companies help the government's finances ?

sell Royal Mail

Hmmmm, can't see it improving – well it might get more profitable (benefiting someone else) but will the service improve?

Ernie, its the pension fund theyre not paying into,thats going to cost a lot of our cash to subsidise.

The Royal Mail said it paid £867 million into its pension schemes in 2010, adding that the deficit in its main scheme was expected to be "significantly higher" than the current valuation of £3.4 billion.

Are you suggesting that private companies would be interested in buying a business which was not viable ?

TNT for one have been gearing up on mail capacity for at least 15 years. I'm sure either they or other major courier companies would be very interested in 'assimilating' their main competitor in the UK.

im pretty sure the royal mail is a gonner
could cause a lot of problems with the unions
but expect ill be paying 2 quid to post a letter this time next year

its the creeping privatisation of the nhs that worries me more, all under the guise of cost saving
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/election-2010/7565529/General-Election-2010-David-Camerons-advisers-company-will-profit-from-his-efficiency-proposals.html

Post a letter, who needs to do that? Sometimes I send important documents by post but no one has really needed to post a letter for the last 15 years

cancel all early retirement for council and govermment,just retrain them to clean the streets

At the same pay rate as they're already on? Or do you suggest breaking the terms of their contract to pay them less?

Believe it or not, early retirement actually tends to be in the employer's interest when job losses are happening – tends to cost them less than redundancy.

Are you suggesting that private companies would be interested in buying a business which was not viable ?

If they could make it viable, or make money by breaking it up, conveniently splitting off the bit costing them lots of money and letting that bit go bust, why ever not?

If they could make it viable

In that case so could the government. Private companies don't possess "magic wands". But even if they did, then all it would require, is for the government to pop down the "magic wand shop".

Private companies don't possess "magic wands"

Compared to the government they do. Do you think the government could get away with "refinancing" the debt of a company because it was "insolvent"?

Do you think the government could get away with……

Ah I see ……….. you've let the cat out of the bag.

So it's purely for "politically motivated" purposes that the Tories want to privatise – nothing to do with economics after all.

Listen matey …… if what a private company proposes to do is both legally and morally acceptable, then there is no reason at all why the government shouldn't do it.

if what a private company proposes to do is both legally and morally acceptable

The whole point is that private companies and individuals can do things which are legal but not moral – eg allowing a subsidary company to go bust and then buying back the shell without its debt. Governments tend to be more constrained by morals – quite rightly.

Of course government owned organisations also tend to be constrained by other things, which is why privatisation sometimes makes sense (if only political parties of all persuasions looked at privatisations on their individual merits rather than doing it on an ideological basis).

Governments tend to be more constrained by morals – quite rightly.

So you fully support Royal Mail being handed over to immoral private companies then.

I have to say aracer, your honesty is hugely refreshing – if only more Tories were as honest as you, it would make my job so much easier. Instead, I have to struggle constantly battling against their ceaseless lying.

I am also somewhat surprise by your confidence in the moral superiority of governments – it's not something which I would have expected from you.

Nevertheless, your argument in favour of Royal Mail privatisation is still deeply flawed.

To take kimbers rather extreme suggestion that private companies will charge £2 to deliver a letter, you still haven't explain why a nationalised Royal Mail couldn't do the same – and the massive profit be used to reduce the government's deficit, instead of handing it over to private operators.

Or are you suggesting that it would be so immoral to charge £2 to deliver a letter that it should be left to private companies to do ?

And you also haven't explained how quote : "conveniently splitting off the bit costing them lots of money and letting that bit go bust" might help the government in dealing with it's deficit.

Obviously it might well be very good for a company out to achieve the maximum possible profit, but how exactly would the loss of thousands of jobs, with all the increase in benefit payments, and all the decrease in income tax paid, it would involve, help the government reduce it's deficit ?

The only reason the Tories might want to privatise, is purely for "ideological" reasons – the very reason which you purport to strongly oppose. And of course ultimately, to serve the interests of those who stand to gain most – from the juicy available profits.

So you fully support Royal Mail being handed over to immoral private companies then.

Er, no.

Nevertheless, your argument in favour of Royal Mail privatisation is still deeply flawed.

Um, please point out to me where I support RM privatisation. I thought we were simply having a discussion about why a private company might want to buy it despite the liabilities. I mean my whole argument has simply been a response to "Are you suggesting that private companies would be interested in buying a business which was not viable ?" – pointing out that the government could get rid of something which is costing them money if they wanted to. If anything I thought I might have given the impression I didn't particularly approve of companies doing the sort of things I was suggesting.

If you could stop assuming my perspective on this based on what you think my politics are, you might realise I actually largely agree with you about this.

"you might realise I actually largely agree with you"

Yeah, I missed that bit.

.

"point out to me where I support RM privatisation"

The proposition on this thread, was the privatisation of RM. Thanks for eventually informing me that you were arguing about something else.

Nevertheless, all the arguments suggesting why privatising viable companies does not make economic sense for governments, apart from the very obvious short-termism of "selling the family silver", applies in every instance.

No one is interested in buying a non-viable company, unless there is some sort of economic advantage such as asset stripping – which would equally apply to a government, so that option does not exist.

Would a buy out fall under TUPE?
If so, the new owners can change the terms of contracts. It happens all the time.

Selling Royal Mail to its competitors would be stupid. There are big network externalities in running a postal service, so in theory it's a natural monopoly.

The proposition on this thread, was the privatisation of RM.

So since you're also posting on this thread does that mean you support it as well?

Well, hopefully we'll be seeing no more of this type of nonsense

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7005417.ece

Post a letter, who needs to do that? Sometimes I send important documents by post but no one has really needed to post a letter for the last 15 years

what about shipping all that crap people buy in ebay and from wiggle, crc et al?

binners – Member

Well, hopefully we'll be seeing no more of this type of nonsense

No, instead as Nick Clegg would say, we can expect a new kind of nonsense.

We can of course expect a whole new range of quangos from the Tories. From the new "Supermarket Ombudsman" who will protect farmers from those nasty supermarkets, to the new "Office of Tax Simplification" who will be given the fascinating task of studying existing tax codes. From the new "Budget Responsibility Committee", to a new "independent NHS board".

All in all, we can expect somewhere in the region of 17 new quangos from this Tory government. Here is a list of new quangos proposed by the Tories :

1. Office of Tax Simplification
2. Office of Budget Responsibility
3. Free national financial advice service
4. ‘Sports Commission’ (Australian model)
5. Office for Civil Society
6. Social Investment Bank
7. Skills advisory service for service personnel
8. Service for families of departing armed forces personnel
9. Military inquest family advisory service
10. International Aid Watchdog
11. Innovative Projects Agency
12. National Foundation for STEM
13. HealthWatch
14. Defence Export Services Organisation
15. All Age Careers Service
16. Voluntary Action Lottery Fund
17. A ‘development agency for libraries’

BTW, the average number of civil servants in the last 13 years has not been significantly higher than it was when the Tories were last in power – in fact on average, it has been lower.

(Australian model)

hopefully, Miranda Kerr

So it's purely for "politically motivated" purposes

and that's why governments are intrinsically bad at managing anything. They are by definition politcal and that's what always comes first. Actual service provision, value for money or profit is always way down the list. There's no ultimate buck stops here for a government badly managing a service. Ultimately if a private firm is rubbish they will go bust or be bought out.

As for early retirement for public sector workers, why is it morally right that they get to retire early (on pensions paid for by tax payers) when the wealth generating part of society have to work to 65 and beyond. Change their contracts immediately (with the appropriate legal notice period of course), it's morally wrong for them to profiteer from the tax payers. If a private company wanted to enhance it's staff benefits, fine, if they are too expensive (IMO) I don't have to do business with them, I have no control over the service or the cost of government services.

Post a letter, who needs to do that? Sometimes I send important documents by post but no one has really needed to post a letter for the last 15 years

b0llocks! Try going through a probate case. Its about the only method of communication any bank will accept while dealing with probate. While many aspects of business / life can be dealt with using email etc, many things (mainly legal) still need to be posted.

There's no ultimate buck stops here for a government badly managing a service

Yeah right.

That'll explain why the NHS is a 'badly managed service' …… whilst private companies always provide impeccable services.

It will also explain why politicians never lose elections.

As for early retirement for public sector workers, why is it morally right that they get to retire early (on pensions paid for by tax payers)

Partly paid for by tax payers. I pay a pension contribution too, y'know. And it has long been considered that a reliable and attractive pension is just a slight mitigation against how litle we get paid compared to other similarly educated and/or experienced folk with similar levels of responsibilities in the private sector.

But if you would like your income tax to pay me a little bit more now instead of subsidising my pension in 32 years' time then that's fine: it will in my case at least all end up in my pension fund one way or another. 🙂

As for early retirement for public sector workers, why is it morally right that they get to retire early (on pensions paid for by tax payers) when the wealth generating part of society have to work to 65 and beyond.

It's a free labour market – you have the choice to become a public sector worker too if you like.

Change their contracts immediately (with the appropriate legal notice period of course)

No such thing as a "legal notice period" – a contract is a contract, not something one side can tear up because they don't like it any more.

it's morally wrong for them to profiteer from the tax payers.

Just as it's morally wrong for the bankers to get bonuses this year. Unlike bankers, public sector workers aren't generally rolling in money (of course there are the headline grabbing execs' salaries, but an awful lot of people not that well paid).