abharrisson Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Some of the obvious ones like trident, winter fuel allowance/child allowance/pensions for wealthier memebers of society, Quangos , ID cards, Public service final salary pensions , current public service three year pay deals, etc etc... are not specifically included and I think by breaking out the likely candidates you'd get a clearer picture of what acceptable cuts people might vote for... it amazes me how dumb the govt thinks we are claiming as they do that you cannot cut the budget without cutting services.... its palpable nonsense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selling up Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Speed cameras are on your list. However I think they are not a net government expenditure but a net source of income. If I'm right then they don't belong on the list. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Selling up Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 winter fuel allowance/child allowance/pensions for wealthier memebers of society There is a serious debate to be had here, but I disagree with the way you're heading. The counter-argument (which I think is stronger) is that wherever you make help only available to the badly-off, then it removes the incentive to behave prudently. EG If help with care costs is available to all, then people who have saved all their life will have a more comfortable old age, being able to spend their money on discretionary purchases. Therefore there will be an incentive to save. Whereas if help with care costs is only available to those without savings, it removes the incentive to save. Why save and live to see your savings used up in paying for your personal care, when you could blow the money on women and drugs, and live on knowing the state will pay for your personal care? For this reason I would favour more benefits being universal or contributions-based, and fewer being means-tested. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
worzel Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 Can I just throw in a straw man and an aunt sally to attack. Are you picking on me? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
futurepaul Posted July 18, 2009 Share Posted July 18, 2009 If the above list were implemented, it would probably save a big fat zero off the government' budget!The only items that will save money are: ending public sector pensions and scrapping our nuclear deterrent (so goodbye gibraltar then!) The items that will cost just as much if not more are: incentives for private health and private education. All the others are peanuts. eg if you tax more on alcohol/cigarettes, everyone will get them from France, so you'll lose money net. You're not even beginning to get to grips with the scale of the problem: 1/3rd of government spending has to go, just to balance the budget. That's before recovering any of the bail-out money. I am fully aware of the size of the problem, what are your thoughts? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
flatnose Posted July 18, 2009 Author Share Posted July 18, 2009 And the leader is: Equality & Diversity Legislation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elizabeth Posted July 19, 2009 Share Posted July 19, 2009 You left out my favourites. All none producing jobs Strategy and 'partnership' jobs. Anybody who doesn't take responsibility for actual delivery of things or help to individuals, then I would cut out the legislation and policy writers because they write crap policy and poliferate where they should consolidate so that you have 1001 policies, regulations, guidance to cover stuff that could be done with one, and individuals can't use it to ensure that what needs to get done gets done because any one who wants to thwart something just refers to a conflicting policy. I would then delete consultation because they never incorporate it in the plans anyway so why do they do it? They write lots of policies about it. I would then delete all 'team building' exercises from government since it doesn't seem to have much effect on building teams so much as building little empires and the fun stuff only ever goes to the executive level. I would then increase training for front line staff, but it wouldn't make much different because of that ever multiplying pile of conflicting documents they have to comply with, but front line staff get paid crap and they deserve better. All this would save millions with little effect on the actual delivery. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.