Login | Register
SearchMy Stuff
My ProfileMy PreferencesMy Mates RSS Feed
1 2
4 5 6
Reply to Topic
Author Discussion

CDP

4,981 posts

134 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
AJS- said:
CDP said:
AJS- said:
maybe you won't be streaming HD videos in your cottage on Orkney.
Actually I reckon infrastructure is about the only area the government can get away with spending on providing it gives a proper return on investment. A new modern museum won't improve the economy but decent trains, roads and targeted education can.

There are certain things only the government can do, the rest should be left to industry and the people.
Maybe but blind open ended investment is not th ie answer, and broadband for the most stupidly remote place you can find on a map is exactly that.
True.

The Orkney example is a pretty good one too. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there's a cost effective way of doing it but it probably won't involve running fibre.

AJS-

Original Poster:

11,432 posts

116 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
CDP said:
True.

The Orkney example is a pretty good one too. Though I wouldn't be surprised if there's a cost effective way of doing it but it probably won't involve running fibre.
Probably true, but running fibre is exactly what the government will do because it's just their kind of gesture. We spent £5bn on l inking the most remote places in the UK to the world, aren't we a great government?

Actually no.

muffinmenace

758 posts

68 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
Twincam16 said:
yes and let's face it, the sort of people we end up at war with these days aren't specific countries that can be nuked these days, they're more organisations operating within countries usually surrounded by millions of innocent civilians. Nuclear weapons are a relic that barely made sense 30 years ago, let alone today. Leave them to the Yanks.
You can't know where the world we be in twenty years. The cost seems so insignificant over its lifetime that I'm happy for it to be there to ensure we have a bigger punch on the world stage.

AJS-

Original Poster:

11,432 posts

116 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
muffinmenace said:
You can't know where the world we be in twenty years. The cost seems so insignificant over its lifetime that I'm happy for it to be there to ensure we have a bigger punch on the world stage.
Why? When has being a nuclear power served us well over the last 60 years? Let alone the last 20

Pothole

19,826 posts

162 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
CDP said:
Pothole said:
CDP said:
Pothole said:
CDP said:
Pothole said:
V8mate said:
Gaspode said:
How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?
I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)
Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?
Where does the money come from to pay the tens of thousands? Some are useful, some aren't.

I'd suggest dumping the Department for Education on the fire too. We only need a standard set of exams (marked competitively of course) and leave the teaching to the schools.
Thing is, if we are making all these people redundant and spending the money on reducing the budget deficit, where does the money come from to finance the redundancy and benefits etc?
Where does the money come to pay them in the first place?
Check the bolded text and understand that you can't spend money twice!
You are assuming the civil servants will be as well paid on benefits as they are in work. This would be unusual to say the least. You're also assuming they will never get another job. Also the buildings they work in can be sold off (or leased out) and so on.

Somebody 50 who's worked in the department since 21 and earning 50K is entitled to £10,500 statuary redundancy pay. Which is pretty much what they'd get in the private sector...
Is statutory redundancy pay the only cost associated with this move? Are they ALL likely to get jobs, or even most of them? There simply aren't the jobs, I don't think.

Advertisement

V8mate

36,833 posts

69 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
Pothole said:
s statutory redundancy pay the only cost associated with this move? Are they ALL likely to get jobs, or even most of them? There simply aren't the jobs, I don't think.
A fair few jobs would be created in the private sector as roles moved out of government clutches. Plenty of things still need doing; just not by the public sector.

Pothole

19,826 posts

162 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
The Trident replacement should have been scrapped before it got to the point where it'd be too costly to do so, seeing as it's likely to cost £100bn+

CDP

4,981 posts

134 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
muffinmenace said:
Twincam16 said:
yes and let's face it, the sort of people we end up at war with these days aren't specific countries that can be nuked these days, they're more organisations operating within countries usually surrounded by millions of innocent civilians. Nuclear weapons are a relic that barely made sense 30 years ago, let alone today. Leave them to the Yanks.
You can't know where the world we be in twenty years. The cost seems so insignificant over its lifetime that I'm happy for it to be there to ensure we have a bigger punch on the world stage.
While France has nuclear weapons we must have them.

France will always have nuclear weapons to stop the Germans from having another go.


elster

17,095 posts

90 months

[news] 
Wednesday 10th October 2012 quote quote all
Twincam16 said:
CDP said:
What does the Scotland Office do that the Scots can't do for themselves?
I suspect the Scotland Office is based in Scotland.

Therefore the only way to get rid of it is to grant Scottish independence.
Nope it is based in Westminster, over the road from the MoD.

They are there to represent Scotland in Parliament... I am sure that is what all the Scottish MPs are doing anyway.

Also the Welsh Office can be added to the list. The Northern Ireland office as well.

Each of these now have devolved parliaments and as such no longer have a need.

As for scrapping the Energy & Climate change, then this is quite a serious department for the energy side. Not so much for the climate change side.


Colonial

10,771 posts

85 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
How about taxing any person who leaves the UK in order to work overseas?

That would bring in a huge amount of money.

Colonial

10,771 posts

85 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
V8mate said:
A fair few jobs would be created in the private sector as roles moved out of government clutches. Plenty of things still need doing; just not by the public sector.
Where would the money come from the provide public services that by definition do not turn a profit?

Roads being built? Well, yes, but with substantial tolls.

Healthcare on a user pays basis which would end up costing significantly more money.

No investment in art, culture, creativity, so a stifling of innovation.

We getting rid of the military as well, because unless they turn mercenary they are just a waste of cash.

Hell. Royal family can go to. What do they contribute? Just outsource crowd waving and sending telegrams to India. Huge benefit to the public purse.

We can all look forward to the Stonhenge interactive experience. Within a shopping centre.

AJS-

Original Poster:

11,432 posts

116 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
Colonial said:
How about taxing any person who leaves the UK in order to work overseas?

That would bring in a huge amount of money.
You mean on the US model?

As you might be able to tell, I'm against raising more taxes so that the government can keep wasting money.

Colonial said:
Where would the money come from the provide public services that by definition do not turn a profit?

Roads being built? Well, yes, but with substantial tolls.

Healthcare on a user pays basis which would end up costing significantly more money.

No investment in art, culture, creativity, so a stifling of innovation.

We getting rid of the military as well, because unless they turn mercenary they are just a waste of cash.

Hell. Royal family can go to. What do they contribute? Just outsource crowd waving and sending telegrams to India. Huge benefit to the public purse.

We can all look forward to the Stonhenge interactive experience. Within a shopping centre.
I feel that sort of debasing of culture and breakdown of basic services is more likely if the government carries on trying to do everything than if it trims back on the less essential stuff.

We don't have a tax on working outside of the UK but you do pay 70p a minute plus the cost of the call to speak to the passport office if you're overseas. That's sex line expensive. And apparently it's outsourced to some company full of temps who don't know anything about issuing passports anyway. That's a really basic service that I believe a government ought to provide for it's citizens - someone who can be contacted to answer simple queries. And yet it's provided at outrageously expense, while the government pisses away untold billions on Departments of this that and the other, that do nothing for the ordinary citizen.

Colonial

10,771 posts

85 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
AJS- said:
I feel that sort of debasing of culture and breakdown of basic services is more likely if the government carries on trying to do everything than if it trims back on the less essential stuff.

We don't have a tax on working outside of the UK but you do pay 70p a minute plus the cost of the call to speak to the passport office if you're overseas. That's sex line expensive. And apparently it's outsourced to some company full of temps who don't know anything about issuing passports anyway. That's a really basic service that I believe a government ought to provide for it's citizens - someone who can be contacted to answer simple queries. And yet it's provided at outrageously expense, while the government pisses away untold billions on Departments of this that and the other, that do nothing for the ordinary citizen.
So, cut services you don't personally use, but provide better quality services that you use is your basic argument then.

AJS-

Original Poster:

11,432 posts

116 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
Colonial said:
So, cut services you don't personally use, but provide better quality services that you use is your basic argument then.
It was one example I have some knowledge of.

The point is that by having an ever bigger remit for what the state does, it appears to perform it's core functions less well. I'm sure there are other examples. Police not attending burglaries springs to mind, while they all have to attend diversity training.

XJSJohn

13,782 posts

99 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
Colonial said:
How about taxing any person who leaves the UK in order to work overseas?

That would bring in a huge amount of money.
What a stupid idea boxedin

Colonial

10,771 posts

85 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
AJS- said:
It was one example I have some knowledge of.

The point is that by having an ever bigger remit for what the state does, it appears to perform it's core functions less well. I'm sure there are other examples. Police not attending burglaries springs to mind, while they all have to attend diversity training.
Got any concrete examples of that? Actual figures rather than just some blog posts that you happen to agree with?

Police response times in the UK seem pretty consistent with similar nations. Some are better. A lot are worse.

More funding would be good. More funding for a lot of things would be good.

But having a rather basic "police good I see police culture bad me no understand culture why have it?" approach is very limiting and does much to diminish the standing of a nation, and the future growth and innovation of a nation.

AJS-

Original Poster:

11,432 posts

116 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
Colonial said:
Got any concrete examples of that? Actual figures rather than just some blog posts that you happen to agree with?

Police response times in the UK seem pretty consistent with similar nations. Some are better. A lot are worse.

More funding would be good. More funding for a lot of things would be good.

But having a rather basic "police good I see police culture bad me no understand culture why have it?" approach is very limiting and does much to diminish the standing of a nation, and the future growth and innovation of a nation.
No concrete examples, as I don't have any personal experience of it, as I said. That's not the point anyway. The point is there is only a limited amount of money available and some things are of a higher priority than others where government spending is concerned.

I didn't actually suggest scrapping culture altogether did I? I suggested scrapping the department of government that spends £7bn a year (apparently) promoting and funding certain elements of culture, as a sacrifice worth making given the fact we are on course for debt default if we stick to our current spending plans.


It seems like some people on this thread think there was no culture before the government set up a department for it.

The Hypno-Toad

7,602 posts

85 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
Fittster said:
Trident. Scraping replacement saves £30ish billion.

Edited by Fittster on Wednesday 10th October 12:52
This. 100%.

Thirty years ago it should have been the last thing we scrapped. Now its just a gigantic waste of money that makes Dave or whoever else is PM feel like a real man at UN Security Council. The enemy we were building it for no longer exists and even if they 'came back' we no longer have the independent resources to go to war with them even on a non nuclear basis.


PRTVR

1,148 posts

101 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
elster said:
As for scrapping the Energy & Climate change, then this is quite a serious department for the energy side. Not so much for the climate change side.
Ah the Energy department, the same department that has let the state of this countries energy needs get to the point were they are discussing black and brown outs.

AJS-

Original Poster:

11,432 posts

116 months

[news] 
Thursday 11th October 2012 quote quote all
Colonial, or anyone else for that matter

Can you provide any examples of countries that have thrived economically, culturally or on any other measure for any sustained period as a result of huge and ever rising government spending?
1 2
4 5 6
Reply to Topic