Comments on: Try debating public spending intelligently for a change

By: Breaker

Breaker — Wed, 17 Jun 2009 21:01:11 +0000

Apologies for the late reply.

That was as far as I got with it, too. There’s a reference in Hansard as well that claims a ridiculously low figure (guess the party affiliation of the speaker), but that’s it as far as UK law is concerned.

I wonder why no one is really doing any digging on this?

By: alan jutson

alan jutson — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 17:00:22 +0000

I agree with your comments, and have blogged similar before
“turkeys do not vote for Xmas”.
its Gordons plot to make over half of the population dependent upon the government, so that they will continue to vote for them as they cannot afford not to..

By: Mark M

Mark M — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 07:36:20 +0000

The only source I have is Dan Hannan (http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/04/15/eightyfive_per_cent_of_our_laws_come_from_brussels)

The statistic comes from Germany, where they did a comprehensive survey of all laws passed since 1998. He assumes that it will be roughly similar for Britain, but challenges ministers to produce their own figures if they disagree.

By: Adrian Peirson

Adrian Peirson — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 02:47:25 +0000

Quangos cost us £100 Billion per year.
The EU costs us £10 Billion per year
The Two illegal wars cost us arounf $5 Billion Per Year.

Coin and Print our own money FREE instead of Borrowing it, no Govt Debt (currently over £1Trillion, what’s the Interest on that I wonder )

All the complexity in taxation costs us Billions more, Eliminate Taxation on anything but Purchases, that way, only vendors need keep records, tax receipts and fill in Tax forms.

By: noizeboy

noizeboy — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:32:29 +0000

Let’s start with a 20% cut in MP’s wages and allowances, all special advisors paid by the party not the taxpayer, 15% cut in public sector pay (supervisors and above).

By: Breaker

Breaker — Tue, 21 Apr 2009 01:30:20 +0000

Mark,
Do you have a substantiated link to that quote of “15%” please?

I have argued with others over the origin of this; I would love to find a definitive source (Hansard / EU minutes etc) that actually goes through the facts rather than just repeating this “statistic”.

By: rik

rik — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 22:40:49 +0000

Could not agree more. The conservative party need to take this argument to the people by putting together solid examples of where the cuts can be made and how much money would be saved. As you say the labour lie has to be broken. And the only way to do this is using exactly the argument you have put forward!

By: ManicBeancounter

ManicBeancounter — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 20:21:04 +0000

Chris,
I can sympathise with you. Having started my beancounting career in the NHS I understand that there are many hardworking people inthe public sector on quite low rates of pay. One of the reasons that I left the public sector was being in a job that I could have done in two days a week, whilst colleagues were staying late to keep up. Further, many of the over-worked were doing roles that had little effect on the overall effectiveness of the organisation.
I know some teachers who are up late at night marking and filling out forms. The same goes for police officers and social workers. The spend much of their time on non-productive tasks. Teachers teaching, the police in upholding the law and the social workers in helping the vulnerable.
The problem with this government is that much of the extra expenditure has gone on reducing productivity. It is sole destroying for those who wish to make a difference. It encourages those who enjoy meetings, composing long reports and thinking up new ways to make life difficult for others. This are the highly paid jobs that should done away with.

By: ManicBeancounter

ManicBeancounter — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:59:24 +0000

Mr Redwood, You are right to say “Let’s apply some of the efficiency driving logic from the private sector to the public sector.” But this requires two things
- A change in language. From spending “whatever it takes”, to spending to best serve the interests of society. From constantly changing the rules, to changing from one static structure to another, to enabling diverse and dynamic structures.
- Changing the emphasis of government, from being an employer with monolithic structures, to a funder & enabler of diverse organizations, who exist to provide services to the public.
The private sector learnt in the 1980s that conglomerates generally destroyed value through becoming too bureaucratic, and having a lack of focus. The modern state has this issue, multiplied a hundred fold, along with conflicts of interest (self-regulation; political spin v. serving the best interests of the country; union pressure (& other interest groups) v. public interest; winning elections v. the long-term financial health of the nation etc.)

Therefore to change the culture
- Start with MPs expenses. The general principle is that MPs are elected representatives, there to serve the public. It is legitimate for the taxpayer to meet those costs to enable an MP to carry out these duties, but not to enrich that individual whilst in public office.
- With Education – create a voucher system and make all schools autonomous. Allow for diversified examinations and syllabuses.
- With Health Care. Introduce vouchers to encourage various types of healthcare provider. Etc.
- All activities (and regulations) to be assessed for costs as well as benefits.

By: roger

roger — Mon, 20 Apr 2009 19:52:59 +0000

RayD. You dont have to take people out of work, you have to produce a culture (just as in private industry) of retraining people into the ‘ core activities’. eg. reduce the non productive workers in the office at the back, and move them or employ more productive ones onto the front line (the police force is a good example). It’s not rocket science it is happening in succesful busines’s all the time now.