Let's scrap more stuff

[CDP]

The Hypno-Toad said:

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.

Not so sure about not having any enemies. There are tensions in the subcontinent, middle east, east asia and don't forget the EU could collapse in a catastrophic way.

There's an awful lot we don't really need - Minstry of Culture and Sport looks a good candidate. I'm sure people won't stop being creative or running around with it's demise.

[XJSJohn]

AJS- said:

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?

Norway? Singapore?

[AJS-]

XJSJohn said:

AJS- said:

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?

Norway? Singapore?

Singapore spends 17% of GDP, about 1/3rd of the UK proportion.

I'll grant you Norway, but even they spend less than the UK currently at about 40%, however they are running a surplus. They also have massive oil wealth, but I wouldn't put all their prosperity down to that.

[elster]

PRTVR said:

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.

I never said the department is working well at the moment. Just the energy side is quite a significant area.

[bad company]

miniman said:

I voted for the last four, but the reality is that ALL of them need significant cutting back - perhaps a target of 50% would be a good start.

Agree 100%.

I wonder if the Scotish parliament will have an 'English Office'?

[PRTVR]

elster said:

PRTVR said:

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.

I never said the department is working well at the moment. Just the energy side is quite a significant area.

But with energy its not just at the moment, its failed over a long period of time, the state we are in now did not just happen overnight, demand can be forecast the need to shut down power stations also can be forecast, no doubt they will blame the politician, but if they cannot make decisions then do we need them in their present form, perhaps cut their budget in half.

[oyster]

AJS- said:

Right following on from yesterday's brilliant victory for me, where I saved the country £7bn by scrapping DCMS, these departments all seem pretty unessential to me. That's over £62 billion worth of savings right there. Half of our budget deficit. So what do you reckon? Put a tick next to each one you would be happy to scrap.

You do know that the Dept for Communities spends most of it's money on subsidies to local government, and that if they didn't spend that money then council tax would go up by a massive amount?

Just checking you've done your homework, because your claim on the DCMS is guff - £4bn of their spend isn't actually from taxpayers anyway (BBC and National Lottery).

[oyster]

AJS- said:

Anyway nevermind what everyone is bhing and moaning about, look at the numbers. No one really cares if we scrap your pet department, because the reality is we can't afford them. The state has taken on too much, and like it always does has fail to deliver, and failed expensively. The reality of the last 10 years has been closing pubs, rising fuel prices and st easily rising stealth taxes. The reality of the next 10 years is necessarily a massive reduction in the size and scope of what the government does. Maybe you'll have to pay for museums, maybe you won't be streaming HD videos in your cottage on Orkney. Either way the government spending party is over.

What has closing pubs got to do with this?

And AJS, it's you that isn't grasping reality. The reality is actually that there will be a small reduction in what the state does and s mall increase in taxation - notably on wealth. Any other approach simply won't be elected into power.

[AJS-]

Well the reality of these polls seems to be saying we don't need it.

I don't see how a small reduction is going to cover the deficit. Currently around 25% of government spending is borrowed money. Even if the economy starts growing again I don't see taxes being able to fund that level of spending long term.

[Colonial]

AJS- said:

Well the reality of these polls seems to be saying we don't need it.

I don't see how a small reduction is going to cover the deficit. Currently around 25% of government spending is borrowed money. Even if the economy starts growing again I don't see taxes being able to fund that level of spending long term.

I don't see how you can claim overwhelming support from the community based on the feedback of a narrow, quite conservative, section of the community.

It's official. 95% of the population are against gay marriage. As worked out from a survey done at Vatican City.

[AJS-]

Colonial said:

AJS- said:

Well the reality of these polls seems to be saying we don't need it.

I don't see how a small reduction is going to cover the deficit. Currently around 25% of government spending is borrowed money. Even if the economy starts growing again I don't see taxes being able to fund that level of spending long term.

I don't see how you can claim overwhelming support from the community based on the feedback of a narrow, quite conservative, section of the community.

It's official. 95% of the population are against gay marriage. As worked out from a survey done at Vatican City.

The same way you can form an opinion by guessing that everyone else out there will be against the idea, perhaps?


That would probably be the case for Vatican City. I don't think I raelly claimed with any seriousness that this is a majority view of the country as a whole, and anyway I have no ability to make it reality.

[Colonial]

Ironically nearly evry post I have made on this forum has been on hold to various public servants.

[AJS-]

Think how much phone time my scheme would have saved you then

[thinfourth2]

AJS- said:

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.

So Should broanband only be in central london and fk the rest of the country

How about electricity

Ah fk them they can live without that also

[Pints]

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.

But then we'd need an embassy or consulate.

[AJS-]

But as I said, my small rural village in Northumberland had broadband in the early 2000s sometime. A couple of years after more urban areas, but surely that's just a trade off you make? It got electricity in the late 90s too.

Is broadbant internet a human right so sacred it must be available to every single house in the country, no matter how remote? There has to be a balance somewhere, and I don't see why a free market isn't the best way to find that balance.

[Gaspode]

AJS- said:

I don't see why a free market isn't the best way to find that balance.

Because history has shown us time and time again that free markets aren't free, and that without regulation just end up becoming dominated by the least scrupulous organisations (ie Gangsters). That's why civilised societies have always ended up expecting the Government to perform market regulation activities.

Communication networks are as much a part of the infrastructure of a country as roads and railways, and need more than private organisations motivated by profit to make them work effectively.

[AJS-]

I'm not talking about disolving the entire state and giving a free hand to the mafia though am I? I'm talking about closing down a few departments who have large budgets for little tangible gain.

I agree communications infrastructure is important, but how far do you take the non market element? If I live in a lighthouse off Orkney can I really expect to get a similar level of service at a similar price to someone who lives in a suburban street?

There has to be a balance struck somewhere and somehow, and I don't see why a multi billion pound government department is better able to do that than the companies offering the service.

[rover 623gsi]

central and local government are pushing more and more of their services online – if they want to encourage (or force) the public to access information and services via the web (in order to achieve efficiencies for both customer and supplier) then it is only right that the customer (the public) is provided with an appropriate mechanism.

[Twincam16]

AJS- said:

I agree communications infrastructure is important, but how far do you take the non market element? If I live in a lighthouse off Orkney can I really expect to get a similar level of service at a similar price to someone who lives in a suburban street?

I live in a suburban street and according to a snippet on this morning's news I probably get worse broadband coverage than Orkney.

Besides, why shouldn't someone living somewhere remote be unable to contact others? It'd be a bit of a bugger in an emergency if the phone signal was poor-to-nonexistent (and think about it - if you're off Orkney somewhere there's actually quite a high chance you'll end up in an emergency - in fact co-ordinating emergency services is a very good reason to improve infrastructure in remote areas).