Cuts – Union knee jerk response or last line of defence against the Torries?

Yes the UK's Labour Government caused the world economic slump obviously.

The problem as I see it is that a new Government has up to 5 years to do their job before they may be out of power. I feel this means that as with this Gov they just come in and make sweeping proclamations. I'd have thought you'd need 5 years to realistically study where money is being spent and where it could be efficiently saved, and study what effects the cuts would have (not just assume that they will fulfill your wishes).

It is never going to happen though and we will just keep banging from one extreme to another.

TJ, you continue to spout your chicken little "sky is falling" bullshite

The coming "spending cuts" are being described – even by the government itself – gives people the idea that public sector departments are suddenly going to have 25% less money to spend – since that's what it would mean to a person if they received a 25% pay cut.

But of course it means no such thing. In fact public sector budgets will increase every year for the next 5 years, it's just that this will have (after accounting for inflation) about 2-5 % less buying power each year. The point is not that there aren't real terms cuts, but that the language being used to describe them makes them sound far worse than they are.

Are you catching on? There'll be no "cuts". There never are! The government are talking it up to try to reassure the markets and shore up the pound, but they'll never have the guts to take on the massive and long term restructuring of the public sector that is needed.

"Cuts" are now being defined as any failure to adopt large budget increases. And it seems a proper English usage has disappeared – If your salary in 2006 were £20,000 p.a., and your salary in 2010 were £20,000 p.a., would you say that your salary had been "cut"? Of course not, or, rather, you might say that, but you would be talking more nonsense. IF there had been inflation over that period, your purchasing power would have been cut, but not your salary.

Cameron and Clegg have repeatedly said they are intending cuts of 25-40% in most government Depts. So they are lying are they?

I'd understood that plans had been asked for, working on both 25% and 40% cuts. This seems very sensible, even if you only end up cutting 5-10%, as the best/fairest way to cut is to stop doing the pointless stuff, rather than have an arbitory 10% across the board.

And lets be honest, most departments could cut 5% without really trying…

I'm with Binners, lets have a battle to see who is right! Singlespeed v gears, rigid v suspension, righties v lefties. Smash smash smash, stamp, twist aaaaaggggggghhhhhhhh!!!!

Whilst it is true to say that Germany is not cutting public expenditure as much it is only because they have a far lower budget deficit than us. What we and they are trying to achieve by the planned cuts is a reduction in the deficit to about 3%. As can be scene from this article, the Germans think Cameron is on the right track.

The idea we "don't make anything any more" is nonsense. We make lots, and are a world leader in so many areas (I mean, even the world's most tedious "sport", Formula 1, employs 30,000 people in the UK).

What we don't make any more are heavy industry items that require a large workforce, hence no mines and a small number of shipyards. Effectively, the nation has had to upskill to compete in the post-industrial era.

All this is fine, but put it against a backdrop of:

1. Global financial crisis (for which all Britain's governments since the Big Bang are partly responsible); and
2. A fundamental ideological difference between the (remnants of) the Labour Party and the (apparently newly electable) Conservative Party*.

We have been convinced that cuts must be made. Why? Simple: the only control any government has over the economy is (1) the amount of tax it takes and (2) the amount is spends on public services. It can do nothing else to influence it, other than pretending when fiddling about with inflation targets, etc. So, if the gov't can't raise tax as it is deemed electoral suicide post-Thatcher (though, ironically, her cutting of the higer rates of income tax to 40% actually increased the net take), they have one option: cut public services.

The rhetoric from all parties has been "cuts are necessary", and we've all bought that so far. A recent Mori-Ipsos poll has shown that 59% of people are in favour of cuts. The trouble is, 59% are also against the VAT rise. What this seems to suggest is that people approve of cuts in the abstract, but will not when it directly affects them.

There is a significant dowanwards shift in the general standard of living on its way. Very few people have grasped this, and so the sense of pain we will feel when cuts do affect us directly will be even greater. If the unions manage to prey on that feeling at the time, there will be trouble.

*I'm not going into that now – the whole sense of ideology is fascinating, but the subject of another essay another day.

TandemJeremy – Member
zulu – you are an offensive clown with no grasp of reality.

Cameron and Clegg have repeatedly said they are intending cuts of 25-40% in most government Depts. So they are lying are they?

Project – you cannot have cuts on the scale intended without service reductions. its simply not possible. The numbers don't add up.

Posted 21 minutes ago # Report-Post

But we can and must cut the wastage, the blatant laziness, the empire building thyat has been allowed to go on for to many tears.

So what do myou expect, a single fireman to be sent out with a motorbike to a fire, already happening in Liverpool.

PCSO,s instead of real police officers,

Foreign imported staff to care for the elderley,some who cant sp
speak english,

Heads and directors of departments, with assistants and deputies,that have no contact with the public,

Mayors and their parlours, somebody having a laugh,along with chauffer driven cars,

Public buildings floodlite all night,

and theres more.

So what do myou expect, a single fireman to be sent out with a motorbike to a fire, already happening in Liverpool.

….or, for instance a single Paramedic being sent out in a car to road accidents etc. etc.

It's easy to take examples like that out of context when the reality is that both the above can get to situations very quickly and assess the need for additional services. Is it always really necessary for a whole fire or ambulance crew to attend a minor road bump when they could be more usefully deployed elsewhere?

Unforunately these are only 'low level' savings. The real savings are to be made in the obvious areas such as top heavy management, 'benefit scams', tax dodging, government waste, etc.

All this can be achieved without any reduction in services to the people who really need them. Unfortunately to implement them, and this is true for any government 'plan', a new raft of departments will be brought in to oversee the schemes, completely negating any saving or improvement in efficiency which could have been made.

Surely if we just killed all the elderly and infirm, then possibly the unemployed, we'd be out of this pickle in no time

Surely if we just killed all the elderly and infirm, then possibly the unemployed, we'd be out of this pickle in no time

I believe that's DC's next strategy, he's currently working with Lady T on a method for raising the dead. Genuine Social Darwinism will ensure that only the fit and well connected can survive the zombie hordes.

Are you catching on? There'll be no "cuts". There never are!

So you are saying that departments have been asked to find 25% savings, but they won't actually get implemented?

Good news if that were the case. And an interesting tactic.

Simple: the only control any government has over the economy is

Not really true. You can set things up over the longer term to encourage certain kinds of outside investment, and not just through tax breaks.

What this seems to suggest is that people approve of cuts in the abstract, but will not when it directly affects them

Not entirely unreasonable – the VAT rise will really hit very poor people, but the rich won't give a toss. You'd be forgiven for thinking that was unfair, surely?

For my two pennies I am welcoming cuts to civil service back office, far too many people on an easy ride. I know many people just 'hanging' around for their severance pay, which due to length of service and over the top beneficial terms (union negotiated) are likely to get 6 figure payouts (for middle/senior mgrs). It's bred a negative culture of people actually desperately trying to get voluntary every time it pops up as some form of lottery win…..sadly it;s cheaper to keep these skivers on moaning and drinking coffee than it is to actually get rid. So the Civil servants that'll go will be the younger, shorter service (not on the super ridiculous terms), the ones who actually do the work….

Apparently we've also got over a 100 contractors on site at an average of £800 a day due to the fact salaries are so low so they cannot recruit perm senior roles, but somehow a grand a day is ok for a contractor many who've been there for longer than I have (3 years)??? Different line on a spreadsheet I suppose.

There are so many places where money could be saved before they hit policing/fire etc….

/exit rant mode/

So you are saying that departments have been asked to find 25% savings, but they won't actually get implemented?

I think his point is that the cuts are in real terms – ie, adjusted for inflation. Simply not increasing budgets in line with expected inflation each year is in effect a cut.

As for the VAT increase, it's well known that it will hit C2D&E hardest. I'd be interested to see how an average individual ends up overall considering the changes to income tax thresholds, which should help C2D&E the most…

Apparently we've also got over a 100 contractors on site

It's WAY WAY cheaper than getting a consultancy company in though, and way the hell more productive. They are contractors because they just can't employ 100 permies and potentially have them hang around for 20 years or have to do massive redundancies in 5 years.

Where do you work? I only ask because I used to be in a very similar position and am now contracting for an SI on a govt project, so I'm interested in how this works. PM me if you want.

The problem with the public sector cuts is the useless gits that allow blatant waste of money in the first place (that the cuts are intended to target) are the same people that will decide what to cut so chances are the front-line stuff will get hit just as much as any back-room waste.

Are you catching on? There'll be no "cuts". There never are!
So you are saying that departments have been asked to find 25% savings, but they won't actually get implemented?

Sorry, I should have reworded my initial point as "There'll be no significant "cuts". There never are!" Just minor messing around the edges.

Another problem with 'cutting the useless gits' is that it's practically impossible. Public sector will never work the same way as private, and the aimless retirement watchers are an unavoidable side-effect I fear.

and way the hell more productive.

Some contractors are most definitely worth what they are paid, but not all, some are rubbish even to the point of taking the piss. And again the place is so 'pc' you can't get shot of them till renewal time.

The whole culture is awful, my only hope is the cuts make a difference, but I think as other people on this thread have said I severely doubt it. Tbh once the market picks up I'll be back to banking 🙂

I'll pm you later on molgrips.

Efficiency and progress is ours once more,
now that we have the Neutron bomb
It's nice and quick and clean and gets things done.
Away with excess enemy.
But no less value to property.
No sense in war but perfect sense at home–

The sun beams down on a brand new day
No more welfare tax t' pay
Unsightly slums gone up in flashing light.
Jobless millions whisked away.
At last we have more room to play.
All systems go to kill the poor tonight.

Gonna
Kill kill kill kill kill the poor. kill kill kill Kill kill the poor kill kill kill Kill kill the poor…Tonight

[*chorus]
Tonight… tonight!
Behold the sparkle of champagne
The crime rate's gone
Feel free again
O' life's a dream with you, Miss Lily White.
Jane Fonda on the screen today
Convinced the liberals it's okay
So let's get dressed and dance away the night

While they…
Kill kill kill kill the poor 3x
Tonight… tonight!

Zulu – have you lost your tenuous grip on reality completely?

Clegg and Cameron both repeatedly state the level of the cuts – 25 – 40 % in most depts – NHS / Education / Overseas development will simply have static budgets – the rest will have these massive cuts. That is what the politicians organising it state will happen.

Its not tinkering around the edges – its massive programme of cuts without precedent in the UK.

That is what Cameron and Clegg state

TJ, if they've repeatedly said that in public, there will be newspaper articles. I'm not calling you a liar, but this is going round in circles.

Could one of you please prove the other wrong?

Some contractors are most definitely worth what they are paid, but not all, some are rubbish even to the point of taking the piss.

Ever worked with a big consultancy? 🙂

Its not tinkering around the edges – its massive programme of cuts without precedent in the UK.

Good, I've worked for the public sector and my god they don't half p1$$ money up the wall. Not just a bit here and a bit there, but evertywhere and all the time. It's quite incredible how much money you see wasted.

If you're good at what you do and provide good value then go do it in the private sector.

Clegg and Cameron both repeatedly state the level of the cuts – 25 – 40 %

No, they have asked departments to present them with plans for "cuts" at those levels, options if you will – as I've already said to you, the MOD have plans for war with france, plans for nuclear war, and more than likley contingency plans for massive UFO attack – the mere existence of "plans" does not in any way indicate the likelihood of a particular thing occurring!

The Governments official budgetary plans detail a 10% increase in actual cash spend over the next five years. If inflation is less than 2% per annum, then like it or not that is not even a real terms cut in government spending.

Good, I've worked for the public sector and my god they don't half p1$$ money up the wall

So do the private sector mate!

Tron

All departments, excluding the NHS and international aid, have been asked to find four-year cuts of between 25% and 40%.

Mr Clegg told Radio 4's Today programme there were "difficult decisions" ahead but talk of billions being taken out of the economy immediately was misleading and only added to people's fears.

The cuts would begin in April 2011, he said, and would be "spread evenly" over the next four years – equivalent to an annual 6% budget reduction over four years.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11241648

The article doesn't support your claim that Clegg or Cameron have said there will be 25-40% cuts, but that they've asked for cuts of that level to be worked out.

Find a quote – them actually saying it, not what the press office or a civil servant has said.

To be fair to Z-11 his figures are correct, you can see them on page 52 of the Red book, here.

"After the spending round, we are still going to be spending £700bn of public money – more than we are now."

Nick Clegg, in TJ's above link.

Tron – what more do you want – thats a reputable source saying that clegg has said this.

Its all there in the media if you want to see it. If you don't want to see it you wont.

TJ, the article does not state that Clegg said cuts of 25-40% are on their way. It says a 6% annual reduction in budget over 4 years.

However, he did say "Some of the hyperbole I have heard is just preposterous …" 😆

Tron – do the maths. 6% a year for 4 years?

If you don't want to see this you won't but it is there and clearly stated

all depts bar NHS, Education and international development will have budget cuts of 25-40% over the years 2011-2015. these budgets will be frozen) This is the stated policy of the coalition.

molgrips – Member
Good, I've worked for the public sector and my god they don't half p1$$ money up the wall
So do the private sector mate!

We're not paying for the private sector unless we choose to, though…..

😉

To promote transparency and understanding of the broad magnitude
of spending changes, Table 2.3 presents indicative figures for the overall level
of current and capital DEL spending in the years to 2015-16. These are based
on the OBR’s Budget forecast for AME, as set out in Annex C, which takes
account of specific AME measures announced so far. Based on these implied
DEL figures, and once the Government’s commitments on protecting health
and overseas aid are taken into account, other departments could see average
real cuts to their budgets of around 25 per cent over the four years. This
compares with the average real cuts of around 20 per cent for unprotected
departments implied by the March Budget. The final split between AME and
DEL will be decided at the Spending Review, and any further AME savings will
reduce the size of cuts to departmental budgets.

Para 1.40 of the Red Book, so 5% cuts over and above Labour's plans to unprotected departments.

So – you agree – 25% cuts to most government depts budgets.

The response was as inevitable as Tories cutting services. Whilst you cite the economy there are still choices – Obama has not done this for example. Any historian care to name the last Tory govt NOT to cut services immediately after election? It is pre 1970.

Is that Obama, president of the most capitalist economy ever, which operates around the basis of minimum tax and minimum services and benefit and gets away with it because even the truely destitute poor who really do NEED help appear to be brainwashed to believe that it's their right as Americans to be free and live or die by their own means? A country where many of those that needed free healthcare voted against it! You can't cut public services when you don't have any…

I certainly agree that 25% cuts are planned. I don't think Nick Clegg or David Cameron have actually said that out loud in public though. 😀

A country where many of those that needed free healthcare voted against it! You can't cut public services when you don't have any…

It's what happens when the wealthy get a total grip on the media and the politicians, many of which are wealthy themselves. The wealthy have been selling their dream to the poor (and they class the middle class as poor) "you too can be like us if you work hard etc", while they were pulling up the ladder behind them and by using words like "freedom".

This is where this country is going, we've been sold the same dream and as evidenced here there are many who have bought it.

pulling up the ladder

You mean like the typical Labour MP, who has kids in private school, or a house in a good catchment area funded for by the taxpayer, but vehemently defends the rights of everyone else's to go to shite comps?

Well that was fun. Really not impressed by the union leaders after listening to the soundbites on the radio this evening. Apart from the airline pilots union rep, breath of fresh air there, had the conference chairman showing his true colours when the stirrings of a real debate nearly got going. His response when he said they'd like to speak against the motion, you'd better be joking or something to that effect.

I'm not sure I like these unelected lobby groups championing civil disobediance, surely their whole purpose is to look after their members, not try and start riots.

We'll at least it'll force the government into another round of curbing the unions power, last time the right to secondary picketing etc. went, be interresting to see wht happens this time, especially as union membership is significantly down on previous levels.