Coalition - "Plan for 40% cut in departments' budgets"

[Darat]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10500081.stm

I am just flabbergasted - is this so that 25% won't seem to be as bad as it could have been!

 

[Giz]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/10500081.stm

I am just flabbergasted - is this so that 25% won't seem to be as bad as it could have been!

What part of 'Labour grew the public sector past the point of affordablity' don't you understand?

 

[Darat]

What part of 'Labour grew the public sector past the point of affordablity' don't you understand?

How it relates to reality for a start.

But that aside lets keep to the topic of this thread which is the Coalitions instructions for departments to plan for how they would cut their budgets by 40%.

Apparently a Minister has been quoited today saying that they don't "expect" any department to have to make such cuts so what is the purpose of requesting such plans - make work?

 

[Uzzy]

To get a full range of options regarding what cuts need to be made, perhaps?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

What part of 'Labour grew the public sector past the point of affordablity' don't you understand?

The Tories had no problem with any of the spending decisions until 2008.

 

[Giz]

The Tories had no problem with any of the spending decisions until 2008.

Really? Any proof? Were they Her Majesty's Loyal UnOpposition for a decade?

 

[Undesired Walrus]

Spending decisions aren't the only thing you can oppose.

They never said anything against the spending decisions until November 2008.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's not worth forgetting either that Thatcher had the state at 43,44,45% of GDP. If Osborne's justification to reduce it to 38% is that the size of the state was unsustainable, he is presumably including 'small-state' Maggie in that too.

 

[Peephole]

Can't wait for "Recession in the 21th Century: The Sequel."

 

[Beerina]

How it relates to reality for a start.

Ahh, yes. I recall the hundreds of thousands dying in the streets 20 years ago due to the relatively skimpy government work force.

England was the embarrassment of the nations.

But that aside lets keep to the topic of this thread which is the Coalitions instructions for departments to plan for how they would cut their budgets by 40%.

Apparently a Minister has been quoited today saying that they don't "expect" any department to have to make such cuts so what is the purpose of requesting such plans - make work?

Mebbe you request 40% just to get the 25% at the end of the day.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It's a deliberate leak so that 25% doesn't sound all that bad after 40%.

Ahh, yes. I recall the hundreds of thousands dying in the streets 20 years ago due to the relatively skimpy government work force.

England was the embarrassment of the nations.

Why must you measure failure only in terms of hundreds of thousands dying? Surely unemployment at 3 million and child poverty going from one in nine to one in three is enough.

 

[Darat]

Ahh, yes. I recall the hundreds of thousands dying in the streets 20 years ago due to the relatively skimpy government work force.

England was the embarrassment of the nations.

...snip...

Not talking about England - but don't let that fact worry you.

 

[Undesired Walrus]

It must be the most frequent geographical error still occuring in the US today. I'm not sure I like the idea of this mythical England which is seperate from that neglected creature the UK.

 

[Darat]

It must be the most frequent geographical error still occuring in the US today. I'm not sure I like the idea of this mythical England which is seperate from that neglected creature the UK.

Nah it's thinking there is some monolithic mythical country called "Europe"...

 

[uk_dave]

Ahh, yes. I recall the hundreds of thousands dying in the streets 20 years ago due to the relatively skimpy government work force.

Ahhhhhhh so long as people aren't dying in the streets it's okay to neglect schools, hospitals and other public services simply because you want to con the electorate into believing that the previous administration ballsed up the economy and you absolutely positively must cut the deficit within 5 years or we'll all turn into pumpkins. Gotcha.

Welcome to utopia.

 

[Beerina]

Ahh, yes. 20 years ago you were struggling with neglected schools and people were starving in poverty. More reason England France North was the embarrassment of nations back then, with their lower government funding.

 

[geni]

Mebbe you request 40% just to get the 25% at the end of the day.

Nah this is the british civil service. If you ask for 25% cuts you get 25% cuts. They may be focused on your constituency to a statisticaly improbable extent though.

 

[uk_dave]

Ahh, yes. 20 years ago you were struggling with neglected schools

Very true

and people were starving in poverty. More reason England France North was the embarrassment of nations back then, with their lower government funding.

Ahhh we still have to have people starving to death before public sector spending becomes a priority. Gotcha.

 

[Captain.Sassy]

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/elmr/07_10/downloads/ELMR_Jul10_Matthews.pdf

This shows a sudden 5% increase in 'public sector employment' during the recession, teh result of the public sector takeover of failing banks

How much of the current deficit is due to the assumption of these banks' debts" ?

 

[richardm]

How much of the current deficit is due to the assumption of these banks' debts" ?

I don't have any numbers to hand, but one question I have heard asked (but not answered) is along the lines of "Much of the deficit is due to the loans we paid to bail out the banks. Since they're loans they're going to be paid back, with interest. Why, then, do we need to wipe out the public sector in the meantime?"