Cameron finally laying the boot in!

[SplatSpeed]

It is good to see David Cameron finally laying the boot in over the mountain of debt we are in due to this goverment.

we are in so much debt it would make Eddi Armein blush FFS

[anonymous-user]

who?

[Strangely Brown]

The Lost King of Scootland.

[Fittster]

But he hasn't said what he will do differently. Pointing out the government has run up to much debt is a good first step, the public need to understand this.

However he then needs to put forward an argument that the reason we have the debt is because the size of the state is to big and he would act to reduce it.

Neither of the main political parties is acting with any integrity. Labour need to come clean and state that if the public want the current levels of public service they must be prepared to take on a hire tax burden, while the Conservatives need to make the argument for lower taxes and a smaller state.

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

[Mclovin]

we are coming up to a major st storm....browns getting ready to sell of everything he can cheap in a fire sale....hopefully the bbc is well...he sold all the gold cheap at the start now hes selling everythingelse at the finish...but i dont think the suckers will realise how bad things are until these labours are voted in again then it will be hell on earth..

[Gunny Sergeant D]

Fittster said:

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

You need to wake up. I know alot of people who sell the the Public sector and its purely a licence to take the pi55.

The way that Livingstone squandered cash is not a unique phenomenon.

[AngryS3Owner]

Fittster said:

But he hasn't said what he will do differently. Pointing out the government has run up to much debt is a good first step, the public need to understand this.

However he then needs to put forward an argument that the reason we have the debt is because the size of the state is to big and he would act to reduce it.

Neither of the main political parties is acting with any integrity. Labour need to come clean and state that if the public want the current levels of public service they must be prepared to take on a hire tax burden, while the Conservatives need to make the argument for lower taxes and a smaller state.

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

I think there is a third way, public sector needs to be run like a PLC, clear accountability and reporting and cut all of the over complicated st out. Keep it simple and down to the key services but do them well. Also publish finances like any other company.

[Davi]

Fittster said:

if the public want the current levels of public service they must be prepared to take on a hire tax burden, while the Conservatives need to make the argument for lower taxes and a smaller state.

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

Ballworks. Creating red tape then creating non-jobs to administrate red tape is not value giving. You could probably cut 50% of the public sector work force without any impact on services whatsoever.

[Fittster]

AngryS3Owner said:

I think there is a third way, public sector needs to be run like a PLC, clear accountability and reporting and cut all of the over complicated st out. Keep it simple and down to the key services but do them well. Also publish finances like any other company.

The 'third way' was new labours approach. The public services are already accountable to the public via our elected representatives. You want more reporting but less bureaucracy which seems rather optimistic, who do you think would produce all the data for the reports? And what would happen to the financial reports you want the public sector to produce?

Can you name an efficient public service anywhere in the world? All politicians want that but centralised big government is not able to deliver.

If people want a service they should pay for it, either via increased taxation or from the private sector. The wrong approach is to pay for it via debt which must eventually be paid for with interest by future generations.

[Fittster]

Davi said:

Fittster said:

if the public want the current levels of public service they must be prepared to take on a hire tax burden, while the Conservatives need to make the argument for lower taxes and a smaller state.

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

Ballworks. Creating red tape then creating non-jobs to administrate red tape is not value giving. You could probably cut 50% of the public sector work force without any impact on services whatsoever.

So why has no politician from the left or right ever managed to achieve it?

[SplatSpeed]

Fittster said:

Davi said:

Fittster said:

if the public want the current levels of public service they must be prepared to take on a hire tax burden, while the Conservatives need to make the argument for lower taxes and a smaller state.

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

Ballworks. Creating red tape then creating non-jobs to administrate red tape is not value giving. You could probably cut 50% of the public sector work force without any impact on services whatsoever.

So why has no politician from the left or right ever managed to achieve it?

no balls!

[Davi]

Fittster said:

Davi said:

Fittster said:

if the public want the current levels of public service they must be prepared to take on a hire tax burden, while the Conservatives need to make the argument for lower taxes and a smaller state.

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

Ballworks. Creating red tape then creating non-jobs to administrate red tape is not value giving. You could probably cut 50% of the public sector work force without any impact on services whatsoever.

So why has no politician from the left or right ever managed to achieve it?

Ineptitude mostly? I'd suggest that the reasons vary slightly depending on which side of the political line the incumbent party stand, (labour, lets create non jobs for our core voters) but at the end of the day it's just too large and out of control for them to manage, and would mean short term widespread chaos to strip it down and sort it properly - which no politician wants to be responsible for.

ETA - or as splatspeed more succinctly puts it, no balls!

Edited by Davi on Monday 24th November 12:24

[JagLover]

Gunny Sergeant D said:

Fittster said:

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

You need to wake up. I know alot of people who sell the the Public sector and its purely a licence to take the pi55.

The way that Livingstone squandered cash is not a unique phenomenon.

Agreed

There is allot of waste in the public sector. Proper reform could deliver real efficiency savings.

Added to which allot of government spending goes on benefits not services.

[JagLover]

Fittster said:

Can you name an efficient public service anywhere in the world? All politicians want that but centralised big government is not able to deliver.

Many countries have better healthcare than us. They usually do it via state insurance schemes rather than an institution as inefficient as the NHS.

[AngryS3Owner]

Fittster said:

AngryS3Owner said:

I think there is a third way, public sector needs to be run like a PLC, clear accountability and reporting and cut all of the over complicated st out. Keep it simple and down to the key services but do them well. Also publish finances like any other company.

The 'third way' was new labours approach. The public services are already accountable to the public via our elected representatives. You want more reporting but less bureaucracy which seems rather optimistic, who do you think would produce all the data for the reports? And what would happen to the financial reports you want the public sector to produce?

Can you name an efficient public service anywhere in the world? All politicians want that but centralised big government is not able to deliver.

If people want a service they should pay for it, either via increased taxation or from the private sector. The wrong approach is to pay for it via debt which must eventually be paid for with interest by future generations.

Bullst, labours way isn't to simplify anything and have over complicated processes and employed too many people in non jobs. Public sector is too big, full stop - it's just not sustainable.

Sorry just don't agree to almost any of that, there are very large organisations that do manage to run in a streamlined way with minimal waste. Fair point they might not be "public" but it IS possible.

When I say reporting I guess I mean freedom of information but in a clear way, again many public organisations need to report on their finances quarterly and I'd put money on it they have less admin / bullst jobs than there is in the public sector.

Saying it's not possible is a serious wimp out, there needs to be someone elected (not sure how) that's not frightened of real reform and it probably means 100,000s of people loosing jobs and may also mean tax rises to get everything right, but it should be possible. I for one wouldn't mind paying more tax IF I felt we were getting value for money or good service, we're curently getting none of the above.

[SplatSpeed]

we need a new one of theese

[Davi]

AngryS3Owner said:

Fittster said:

AngryS3Owner said:

I think there is a third way, public sector needs to be run like a PLC, clear accountability and reporting and cut all of the over complicated st out. Keep it simple and down to the key services but do them well. Also publish finances like any other company.

The 'third way' was new labours approach. The public services are already accountable to the public via our elected representatives. You want more reporting but less bureaucracy which seems rather optimistic, who do you think would produce all the data for the reports? And what would happen to the financial reports you want the public sector to produce?

Can you name an efficient public service anywhere in the world? All politicians want that but centralised big government is not able to deliver.

If people want a service they should pay for it, either via increased taxation or from the private sector. The wrong approach is to pay for it via debt which must eventually be paid for with interest by future generations.

Bullst, labours way isn't to simplify anything and have over complicated processes and employed too many people in non jobs. Public sector is too big, full stop - it's just not sustainable.

Sorry just don't agree to almost any of that, there are very large organisations that do manage to run in a streamlined way with minimal waste. Fair point they might not be "public" but it IS possible.

When I say reporting I guess I mean freedom of information but in a clear way, again many public organisations need to report on their finances quarterly and I'd put money on it they have less admin / bullst jobs than there is in the public sector.

Saying it's not possible is a serious wimp out, there needs to be someone elected (not sure how) that's not frightened of real reform and it probably means 100,000s of people loosing jobs and may also mean tax rises to get everything right, but it should be possible. I for one wouldn't mind paying more tax IF I felt we were getting value for money or good service, we're curently getting none of the above.

to all of that.

The problem with public sector jobs is utter lack of accountability. Why would they care if they waste money, it's not like they have to show a profit to stay in business. There is currently no incentive to perform, until that changes there is no real way forward.

[qube_TA]

You just know they'd all go on strike the instant their budget was cut.

Every time someone has tried to make them all a little more efficient they've failed.

[Davi]

qube_TA said:

You just know they'd all go on strike the instant their budget was cut.

The first thing anyone in power should do is make public the most inefficient areas before trying to resolve them. Ensure there is zero public sympathy for anyone that decides to strike.

[DWP]

Fittster said:

Davi said:

Fittster said:

if the public want the current levels of public service they must be prepared to take on a hire tax burden, while the Conservatives need to make the argument for lower taxes and a smaller state.

The idea that the public sector can somehow be reformed to provide the same services for less is a dangerous pipe dream

Ballworks. Creating red tape then creating non-jobs to administrate red tape is not value giving. You could probably cut 50% of the public sector work force without any impact on services whatsoever.

So why has no politician from the left or right ever managed to achieve it?

Because the whole public sector is run by civil servants, they are in jobs for life. Governments come and go, but still require civil servants to do their bidding. So don't upset Sir Humphrey or nothing will get done. Even the Tories under Thatcher couldn't sort them out, despite trying very hard to politicize Whitehall. Just read Alan Clark's diaries, to see how frustrated he got, in every sense of the word. The present government, like the opposition is full of people, who have never worked in the real world and the Whitehall mandarins will continue to control an ever expanding civil service. Jobs for the boy and girls, pip pip.