Efficiently tackling inefficiency

Brown seems to be saying that there are lots of savings to be made by not spending money we don't need to spend.

Now if only he'd thought of that earlier.

As Mr Brown was ultimately responsible for appointing these people I would expect him to know who they are. Now after 12 years he admits that he has been inefficient with our taxes. What else has he been inefficeint with?

The truth: as you so rightly point out Nick, either when he said that savage cuts would follow more savings. Or now because both statements can not be true now can they?

I actually thought that government spending was the responsibility of the Chancellor, if not the he can be sacked.

All these "efficiency savings" that are being discovered. But they must be complicated procedures, not at all easy to implement, if it takes over 12 years to just find them. Caledonian Comment

Brown has effectively taken a revolver and shot himself in the both feet with all of his argument as Chancellor and subsequently PM. I seem to recall him saying there were no more efficiency savings available.
Also this NHS project has already cost us billions and it is being scaled back - what a wonderful joyful waste.
If it wasn't such a tragedy it would be comedy

Nick Robinson wrote
'Good to see that our politicians are taking seriously talk of a crack-down on inefficiency'

Peter Kay's tour is sold out, but I reckon he'd have you as a side act with comments like that.

And how much will these 'savings' cost to implement?

Probably about £1billion more than they save I suspect!!

The real problem is that the cuts have to be substantial and yet politically it is hard to get the message across that frontline services will not be affected if such cuts take place. At the other end of the scale there was today's efficiency cuts of 3 billion announced by Brown, which was parodied brilliantly and effortlessly by Guido Fawkes and branded as trivial.

The other large problem is that most people cannot conceptualise the amounts involved although more people are noticing that every time Brown brings out a number of some sort it is always a nicely rounded one - no decimaal points for Mr brown, no siree! Politicians will only know where to make cuts, if as ministers, they have rolled up their shirt sleeves aand got their hands dirty in finding out what heir ministerial departments actually do. The present generation of politicos do not do that apart from minor exceptions, and are wholly reliant on political cant or spin.

Typically we can expect the lowest paid to suffer more with P45s, whilst the highest paid who make the decisions keep their jobs. Or heaven forbid Whitehall will bring in external consultants at great expense to decide where the axe will fall. You can safely predict more out-sourcing of jobs probably to India and China.

I agree with Andy @1. Promising to cut back on inefficiency when you've been in power for 12 years is a bit of an embarrassment. The only thing worse would be not promising to cut back on inefficiency.

There is a tendency for Labour to fall back on the "Tory spending cuts will destroy our public services" message at election time because it's served them well in the past. And it probably does resonate with core Labour voters, who are instinctively suspicious (quite rightly, of course) of Tory spending priorities (like cutting inheritance tax). But because this election will be fought against such a different backdrop, Labour can't rely on the same old script. And there isn't much evidence - yet - that they've got a script-writer behind the scenes who is capable for providing a new one.

Mind you, jrp says that, psephologically-pseaking, getting your core vote out is what decides elections, so maybe Labour's tactic will just be to bang the same old drums and hope.

Newlabour make efficiency savings? Isn't this like asking a child to stop eating sweets?

Just like 'reform of public services'...'saving the world' ....'eliminating child poverty' ... 'curing cancer' .... none of it happened, none of it will ever happen and worse there is no manner or method to the delivery of anything newlabour have ever promised.

They are just a bunch of Clearly Thoughtless Profligates (CTPs)

Call an election

This country is being led by a disgraceful, incompetent government.
It really does beggar belief.
Twelve years and what do we have, billions wasted, two wars, millions unemployed, massive debt and an unelected prime minister.
Is there anyone left that can now still support Labour.

So Mr Brown has finally realised that he needs to tackle the public debt! No doubt this will cost us millions in quangos and any 'savings' will only be implimented after the next election!!!!!

Thus the prime minister today announced that every public sector salary above £150,000 would need ministerial approval.

Are these the same ministers who have been found to be unable to apply rules to their own finances ???? or are we getting a new lot for christmas.....

who is going to believe that Gordon can now be seen as Mr efficiency when he as all but admitted that for 12 years he has been inefficient.

Gordon Brown has never done "efficiency". The whole basis of his time as Chancellor was to fiddle and meddle to make life more complicated for taxpayers.

The only way to make the whole of the UK more efficient is to remove red tape from our lives and make everything simpler, that is something GoBro and New Labour can never do, it isn't in their DNA.
Targets and tick-boxing is a fundemental part of any GoBro government

What is the fundamental difference between Labour and Conservative? They both agree on Afghanisatan; climate change; higher taxes; departmental budget cuts; agressively tackling the debt; cut borrowing levels etc.....

Has it come to the stage where politics has turned into a beauty parade where we no longer vote for the party but for the leader? If so, Gordon Brown does not stand a chance against David Cameron not because DC was born to lead but because GB was born not to!!

Cameron is wary of making any real policy announcements because he knows Brown will steal them. Brown won't make any real policy announcements until he knows what Cameron is going to do!

This cat and mouse game is getting very boring as both of them are lacking in originality and are really short on charisma.

We need Boris to liven things up!

From Nick's blog: "Thus Labour is saving costs by stealing Tory measures,"

That's an interesting statement Nick. Gordon is constantly reminding us the the Tories don't have any policies. So what is there to steal?

Also, did Labour not pledge to spend more money? So they are saving with one hand to spend with the other!! And in the mean time the defcit will just get bigger so eventually the IMF will have to bail us out again.

Nick

I don't wish to be unkind but I have been pointing you towards the Public Accounts Committee website for several years! There are over a hundred major projects on there during the lifetime of this administration which show huge overbudget expenditure, often many years late if anything is delivered at all and often extremely poor quality of the final product. Did you ever bother to look?

A classic is the DOT shared services saving initiative ( report 57 2008) which was supposed to save the Nation £57 million more than it cost. In the end its cost exceeded the savings by £81.1 million. A adverse turnaround of 138 Million on one fairly small "administrative efficiency".

If that is this governments and our civil services' idea of cost saving then we are in even deeper trouble than anyone can possibly comprehend.

There is a skip outside in the road near me whos contents look more organised than this lot!

But what exactly is an efficiency saving and how much money will actually be saved?

I heard that there's an initiative to make sure that people keep their appointments at doctors surgeries by sending them a reminder text; apparently missed appointments costs 600million annually. The problem is though that making people keep their appointments won't actually save any money - the surgery, reception and nursing staff as well as the doctors will be employed regardless. You could argue that were everyone to keep their appointments it might actually cost more money!

Playing around with numbers is interesting but the real point in making savings is to reduce debt. To do this means cash savings; efficiency savings might not actually save any cash at all.

As for any debate on this between Cameron and Brown, I have to say that Brown would win hands down. The Conservatives simply do not have the ability to have a command over the facts on any economic subject. Their lack of passion and presentation skills can be quite embarrassing to watch. This usually means that Labour legend becomes fact.

Their command over economic matters on talk shows is so bad as to be ridiculous. Jacqui Smith ran rings round someone-or-other on Question Time one evening with some plain speaking that the Conservative was incapable of rebutting.

The problem is this. If the Conservative spokespeople cannot articulate their arguments clearly and with passion, will they be able to do so in Government?

The following is an advisory note issued by the United Peoples Front

We at the UPF have been requested by our members to comment on the issue of government cost savings, politics and politicians and detail our findings below:

Having carefully researched the nature of government expenditure, politics, and the business of elected politicians, it has come to our attention that such politicians are engaged upon their own agenda of personal wealth creation to the exclusion of almost everything else.

It is therefore recommended at the forthcoming election, when casting a vote mark your X adjacent to the entrance of your local waste disposal point. If you are unable to get to your local waste disposal point, contact your local authority and ask for a refuse wagon to visit you on polling day.

Tweedledum steals policy fom Tweedldee...

9 Robin

Could you please get somebody to video it when the Labour canvasser comes round to your house. Post it on youTube and give us the link. It will be a scream, for sure. Suggestion for finale: after the verbal volleys, jump into Range Rover and chase him or her down the drive.

PoliticalCentrist wrote:
"What is the fundamental difference between Labour and Conservative?"

There isn't any difference between them, as I've said before; they're just the two sides of the same coin and no matter how many times you flip that coin you always end up with the same coin.
It just appears to be different because of the picture on the surface.

Still, it allows people to come on here and scream and shout about how great their side is while also moaning about the other side...

It's about time.

But it's also about time for an election, so that someone can take a fresh look at New Labour's pet projects and decide if they are worth the money.

I'd say mostly no. I can't really think of anything much good this bunch of fools has achieved.

"Good to see that our politicians are taking seriously talk of a crack-down on inefficiency."

Noted already (several times), but it must take something to stay po-faced when some pols seem to have arrived at this point after... how long in power?

I realise by adding a question mark to this point that there may be a need for the blog to be shut down to ensure watertight oversight by the BBC, and that I may also be handed over to Gordon's Saboteur Star Chamber: 'Are you or have you ever had the temerity to crank an eyebrow at all that is golden being issued from Number 10? I'm saving the world here, one crippling hypocrisy at a time. Eds... wag a finger, and trot out another bit of data you have been given'.

Incompetence followed by bluster and then bullying. What a way to run a country.

I've read elsewhere that about £3bn can be saved by cutting inefficiecy. What on earth is Brown saying? That he's allowed £3bn of our money to be frittered p/a for, what, a dozen years?

In a commercial corporation, he'd have been fired long ago.

Does NO ONE keep any sort of control over this?

I once did some consultancy work for a large electronics company that took over a telecommunications manufacturer. In the latter, the head of each department was asked various questions. The chief R&D engineer was asked to prepare a list of staff he thought were inefficient.

He did.

He was fired for keeping inefficient people on.

So I can't understand how Brown has the gall to make such a damning confession. He should be kicked out right now. It's a disgrace.

I have no doubt that any attempt to efficiently tackle ineffiency will be inefficient... and probably incompetent too.

You have to ask good old Gordie what he's been doing over the last 12 years of New Labour government. It is quite remarkable that New Labour can suddenly come up with all these savings after such a long time in power.

My biggest fear now is not the cuts - they have to come, that is clear - but Labour/Gordon Brown somehow getting back into power at the next election. The thought of this lot having any kind of democratic backing for another five years is simply too awful to contemplate.

Now that the AGW scam has been exposed for all to see they should be able to make some 'efficiency' savings by NOT spending in this area. eg. the Climate Bill passed in the HOC last year (approved by virtually ALL mps) is estimated to be costing every household approx £720/year so that's a reasonable start!

pdavies...

stick to your g-whizz... it's so much more eco friendly.

Call an election

The trouble is that a large part of "efficiency savings" means making people unemployed. These people take time to become productive again in other jobs...

As anyone who has ever run a business will tell you cutting staff and overheads often costs money short term, to be made up by savings over the medium term. It also takes time to re-let surplus buildings, re-let contracts at lower rates etc. Reorganisations are moreover expensive and disruptive to productivity in the short term, as anyone who has worked for the NHS or a quango can testify.

However you have to make a start somewhere, I suppose. Pity it's taken 12 years for the government to realise this.

Of course the really big savings would come from:

1) Scrapping Trident / Trident 2.
2) cancelling the ID cards project.
3) Cutting back on vanity military spending - 2 carriers, expensive aircraft with no role. Accept we're not a world power any more, guys!
4) Cutting out almost all the management consultants and "advisers".

However both major parties want to replace Trident, we're probably too late to stop the carriers and the fighter aircraft contracts would be difficult if not impossible to cancel now.

At least Tories and Lim Dems say they'd scrap ID cards - but I have my doubts if they really mean that.

I reckon it'll take at least a Parliament to manage public sector employment numbers down to a more sensible level, probably longer. So this is all just politics, not a strategy.

BTW, as I understand it the £150k public sector jobs approval gimmick only applies to new jobs, not existing posts so all the BBC and Local Authority troughers can continue on untroubled

19. At 4:14pm on 07 Dec 2009, TerryNo2 wrote:


....The problem is this. If the Conservative spokespeople cannot articulate their arguments clearly and with passion, will they be able to do so in Government?

**************************

Even if we accept that Labour can talk a good budget, they have proved themselves hopelessly incapable of running one.
I would therefore suggest that the old maxim 'Those who talk least, do most' might apply here.

Difficult one for labour reversing the massive inefficient spending they have thrown at the public services over the past 12+ years.

Gordon Brown thrived on telling us all how much he was spending it seemed to be an obsession as indeed it turned out to be. Value for money never entered his vocabulary.

Unfortunately he doesn't seem to be as good at saving money as he was at spending it hence his takeup of the tory ideas. Even more difficult when he has to go to the electorate in just a few months time.

Maybe he's just discovered that public services are not wealth creators and maybe he shouldn't have dismissed so lightly the private sector who
are.

It is easy to create jobs in the public sector but only when the private sector create enough wealth to do it. It will be a long haul to get back to a more balanced economy but that is what has to be done.

What a joke: as others have pointed out it is wonderful to know that over the last 12 years Lab have specialised in inefficient spending.

What neither party is willing to admit to is that (a) Vince Cable is rights we need to cut £112 bn off public spending over the next parliament which is equivalent to about 20% cut in public spending and (b) cuts of that size will inevitably result in govt cutting some activities completely - thus what is needed is a grown up debate (as if we will ever have that between the clowns currently at Westminster) about what the purpose of govt spending is and what govt should and crucially should not be involved in.

Got more chances of Turkeys voting for Xmas.

27. At 4:30pm on 07 Dec 2009, Poprishchin wrote:
I have no doubt that any attempt to efficiently tackle ineffiency will be inefficient... and probably incompetent too.

*****************

And very, very expensive no doubt!

Reviewing/freezing/cutting salaries for senior civil servants makes great headlines but won't amount ot more than a flea-bite in the context of the cost of Govt or public sector debt. Having an impact requires substantially reducing the cost of administering services, or reducing services themselves.

You can't expect Labour to do either of these because most of these are designed to create a dependent base of electoral support.

The area of cutting services is inevitably contentious and I suspect there won't be gain without pain. However, there is much more scope for cutting the cost of delivering services than is popularly supposed. Whereas there are usually ritual howls of pain at the prospect of 5% cuts, my own experience in working with/for public sector clients is that 25 - 30% cuts could be accommodated without a measurable impact on output.

Gordon can't win this one. Any "efficiency" improvements he announces are either meaningless talk or an indictment of 12 years of inefficient operation under the clunking fist.

Having worked with consultants in the past I'm going to make a prediction. There will be all sorts of schemes proposed by whoever is unlucky enough to win the next election. Best value, back office, shared services, Best Demonstrated Practice, Best in Class you name it, they'll try it.

All will claim fantastic savings, 10 million, 200 billion, 3000 trillion ... Consultants are experts at generating these numbers to justify their fees.

Fooled by their own publicity and believing progress is being made...

Meanwhile the debt increases.

Seddon for services czar!

36. Simon -

You mention that there could be a 25-30% reduction in the costs of running the public sector but without affecting output. How could such savings be made?

Whatever happened to

LABOUR INVESTMENT Vs TORY CUTS?

(Blatant lie to fool the Labour faithful. There were secret docs that said that the government would have to cut 10% when the words left his mouth)

Brown cannot be trusted on anything.

End to boom and bust?
Saved the world ?
(Paid out £100 Million for advice)

The 'do nothing party' yet they have to steel all of their ideas.

There is only the Labour handout victims that can be fooled anymore and after this they will be taking a second look.

If you have anything between your ears Don't Trust Brown the man can't lie straight in his bed.

36 Simon Turner wrote:
Having an impact requires substantially reducing the cost of administering services, or reducing services themselves. You can't expect Labour to do either of these because most of these are designed to create a dependent base of electoral support.

That second sentence is nonsense, of course, but it's something you often read on this blog so I can see where you got it from. Anyway, you then go on to say that "25-30% cuts could be achieved without a measurable impact on output". So it isn't clear why, by your logic, Labour could not achieve this since presumably it is the services themselves which create dependency (if you believe the nonsense) and not the cost of administering them.

It's been my experience that efficiency savings take a long time to accrue. Even scrapping projects that are subject to contract terms can be very expensive.

It's dead easy for a consultant, or a Prime Minister or Chancellor who patently knows nothing about efficiency, to write a highly optimistic report knowing they won't be around next year. They get their fees/salary and that's it...except the company/taxpaying public soon realise that practical savings might be a lot less.

Then there's the cost of making changes. It can often outweight a few years' savings.

If Brown is hoping to save through staff cuts, he probably hasn't yet sussed that some will go on the dole; others will get the early bath and pull their pensions, all of which have to be paid for. He really isn't very good at this stuff....or he would never have allowed such inefficiency to set in at all.

I'm still bemused about how he was allowed to get away with so much efficiency for so long. Is there no way he can be taken to task over this?

When he talks about taxing bankers for success, can't we, the public, tax him and his cronies for failure?

#7

Indeed the public cannot conceptualise the sheer scale of the numbers, perhaps this would serve on this current drop in the ocean from our esteemed leader.

It seems calculating amounts to relative salaries/benefits in the NHS is de-rigour on the boards.

So for scale you can go for:

This year the Government will borrow about 2 NHS's
Next year the Government plans to borrow about 2 and a bit NHSs
by 2014 the Government plans only to borrow 0.9 NHSs

Today Gordon found 0.03 NHSs worth of savings per year in total.

It is all rather limp and pathetic in the scale of the overall debt even assuming that economic recovery takes care of much of the rest of the £90bn which is what they are fervently hoping for.

#19

'The Conservatives simply do not have the ability to have a command over the facts on any economic subject.'

What facts are these...?

That the current government inherited a budget surplus in 1997 and 12 years later is printing money... ?

What has Labour been doing with our taxes for the last 12 years? There should not be any scope for cost reductions since I would have hoped the Government had been frugal with our money since coming into office. If there is spare money sloshing around, all taxpayers are owed an apology from the Government for not making the savings sooner.

I note there is no talk of cuts in the number of Ministers. That would cut public expenditure at a stroke since evey Minister wants to make speeches, announce policies, introduce legislation, etc etc. All of that needs civil servants - senior and not so senior.
I can't claim this is an original idea. I recall when a previous Chancellor asked for efficiency savings to cut Treasury running costs the then Perm Sec. said the best option was to lose a junior Minister.
Perhaps Nick Robinson could ask the current Treasury team for their thoughts on the option?

To get a saving you need to reduce the amount that you spend either on employing people or on buying stuff. Efficiency saving sound friendly enough but unless the numbers employed by the government go down or the government is buying fewer goods and services it doesn't make any real difference. Someone somewhere has to feel the pain or nothing is really happening.

"There will be a debate now over who is most credibly promising to reduce inefficiency but it won't a very efficient use of anyone's time."

It might help if you, your colleagues at the BBC, and your counterparts in all other MSM organisations would begin to insist that ministers/shadows do not obfuscate when it comes to the debt/deficit. Most are quite delighted to allow the impression that halving the deficit means halving the debt, when in fact it means allowing the debt to continue to increase at a slightly slower pace.

It would also be helpful if you pursued the politicians with a good deal more urgency to set out just exactly how they intend to finance the deficit next year when presumably, the B of E will end its QE initiative (which coincidentally just happened to be of the same scale as the PSBR).

It is hardly surprising that the politicians are less than forthcoming when they are so rarely put on the spot. I realise that they never give a straight answer, but I'd still like to see them squirm.

"The key to cutting the debt is cutting public spending overall, and the key to that is cuts to what the government actually does - not simply the cost of doing it."

That's the key point. Brown will not admit that there is any part of his "big state" that is unnecessary, or even that it's in the nice-to-have category and so could be dispensed with or at least put on hold for the duration of a financial crisis.

It would be more than sensible to at least acknowledge that some things have to be put on hold, but... stubbornness is his trademark after all. And will probably be his undoing.

#38

as some of the savings will come from not hiring so many consultants I look forward to seeing the tender for the consultation on how to spend less on consultants.

New Labour are the party of waste, inefficiency and ineffectivemess.

Under their tenure,from the Millenium Dome to the MPs expenses scandal millions have been wasted on duff projects and ill-thought out proposals.

Even now Brown is not talking about cuts. He is talking about making virtual savings on projects they intended to carry out which have now been shelved.

An example of savings would be more work being done for the same amount of pay;others would be more work being done by fewer people i.e. reundancies or more work being done for less pay.

These "efficiency savings" are really a freeze on expenditure.

To be really efficient, you could sack all the MPs and run the country with a cabinet of ministers comprising the PM, deputy PM and one MP for each of the regions of the country.

Ministerial work could be done at No 10 so Westminster could be sold off or rented out to raise money for the taxpayers.

A 3 star government hotel could be rented on an ongoing basis for the MPs requiring overnight accomodation.All expenditure could be recorded, monitored and published by the National Audit Office.

Instead of relatives being hired as staff, there would be a small executive personal assistant pool to provide administrative services to the MPs.

A similar technique could be employed on the EU Parliament where the Parliament building could be sold off and trade negotiations could be carried out by the Foreign Secretaries of each of the EU countries.

I'm sure that the contributors to this blog could come up with some real cuts that would save the nation. I'd be interested to hear them!!

Many posters here are saying - it can cost more to start effecting efficiency savings than the savings themselves. So are you suggesting that we continue as we are? Utter nonsense!

I think we have to look at what's behind all this. This is all speculation on my part, but I suspect that someone, perhaps from the IMF, has had a wee word in the clunking fist's ear.

Or, let's look at it as if the UK was a private company. It is essentially bankrupt, with debts that exceed its net assets, and trading at a loss, such that the debt can only increase. Time to go into some sort of administration - Chapter 11 as the Americans would call it. When this happens, companies get the chance to re-organise their finances - part of which inevitably involves mssive expenditure cuts, even if the short term effects are that the cuts cost more, and cause some short term damage. But only by making those, likely savage, cuts are financiers willing to keep the company afloat.

I suspect that the country has run out of funding sources, and is perilously close to needing IMF funding. Part of that deal starts with making massive expenditure cuts. These 'efficiency' savings are just the start....

I does seem extraordinary that Brown has only just noticed the fact that New Labour has allowed the pay (and numbers of) senior government officals to soar.

For goodness sake, didn't he watch countless cronies being great jobs in the QANGOs?
Or spot the number of civil servant managers increasing rapidly?
Or bother to check whether it was truly necessary?

The National Audit Office cast doubts on government claims about the "Gershon efficiency outcome"... and talks about a reduction in all government service productivity in recent years.

I'm not surprised. Brown always talked about how much he'd increased spending - never about the real delivery of services.

As far as I can see, the government doesn't even know how many QANGOs actually exist. So, if they tell us they've reduce costs, how will we know? Especially if the efficiency doesn't result in a direct drop in tax or borrowings...

#44 I hear what you say. But this is a global financial crisis that originated in the USA; all Governments in the world have been affected, not just in the UK. The reason why it's worse in the UK is because we rely so heavily on the financial services industry. The Government has introduced measures to shore up the economy and protect savings and enterprise through quantitative easing and investment in the banking system. A collapse in the banking system and the suffocation of credit would have caused a crash worse than the 1930s. If Labour had followed the Conservatives plans of cutting spending it would have been dire: mass unemployment and all the rest of it.

That's the argument. It's simple to explain; repeated often enough, it becomes accepted fact.

In one TV debate, the Conservative spokesperson had no answer to it. If they have the answer they need to make sure that everyone understands it.

#19 "The Conservatives simply do not have the ability to have a command over the facts on any economic subject."

In case you haven't noticed, the Tories have been in government a lot longer than Labour and we have done fine. They even got voted out with a budget surplus (and were repaying the national debt!) and now look where we are.

If you want experience, that IS the Tories. Labour have always made such a hash of government in the past that they get voted out after one term. Only this time around did they manage to hide their malfeasance so well as to get THREE terms. And just look where we are when the chickens came home to roost - they found the coop was mortgaged to the hilt and still spending.

The big problem with Labour is that they always find a way to tax people who have fought to advance and do well in life in order to hand out to others - often those who do nothing. This last time they learned to get into bed with the really big fat cats and just attack the middle classes who have no real voice and no real power either individually or collectively. And that's why they got away with it for so long.

Bottom line is I don't think there is any party with the perfect set of policies by any means. There is much I disagree with about what the Tories say they will do - much of it I think is pandering to win votes rather than based on heartfelt belief, but... I do believe that they are the only party that has a hope of getting us out of this mess.

What the hell has this guy been doing the past 12 years? He suddenly waves his magic wand and save's money.

All a big election con... Labour inherited a healthy economy complete with pension funds he has frittered and spent thanks to the Conservatives, folks ought to remember it was Conservatives what saved them last time and looks like they are going have to do it all over again - and you can bet with Labour in opposition they will moan left right and centre and there's tax increases and spending cuts.

Obviously, Labour hasn't learned the lesson from last time they got booted out of Downing Street.... spend, spend and spend with nothing in the kitty.

Sorry Gordon I ain't gonna trust or believe a word you say overnight you've had 12 years so you wasn't prudent after all - what a gimmick that was!

If Alister Darling is that clever how come you wanted him booted out and wanted one of your 'Yes Sir, how high do you want me jump' clowns in!

Trouble is every minister is pushed from department to department like playing musical chairs... and not a one knows a darn thing so bring in the adviser's.

£3 billion is peanuts, so how is this Prudent guy gonna make the 'shortfall' up? My guess he won't tell us... neither will anyone else, we'll just have to vote for them to find out - another fine mess they gotten us into - can't blame the Unions nor the Tories can we?

19. TerryNo2 wrote:

"Jacqui Smith ran rings round someone-or-other on Question Time one evening..."


Are you related to John Terry?

#52

Yes, it's true that "efficiency savings" often involve short-term costs. Just think about it and it logically must be so. If you buy a new, more fuel-efficient car, it costs you money up front but you save on using less petrol etc. and lower maintenance costs in the first years.

Efficiency savings also bugger up your cashflow - you pay out immediately for the redundancy lump sums, pension pot contributions, contract penalties etc. in return for reduced costs and cashflow in the medium term (say 3-6 months onwards). You have to do a hard-nosed calculation of whether the future savings (on a Discounted Cash Flow or similar basis) add up to more than the initial costs.

Of course, if you don't have any cash in hand, this can be a problem. Businesses live or die on cash, not profits. You can trade at a loss for years provided you pay the bills, but if you have no cash you'll go bust in a month or two even if you are theoretically profitable.

Governments can of course just print more money (currently euphemistically called "quantitative easing") but all this does is push the day of reckoning into the future - say after an election. And it may affect your credit rating in the world financial system...

Cynical? Que? Moi?

By the way, I wonder if Brown is at last taking a look at the cost of public services, because the guff about taxing bankers who receive bonuses will be just unworkable...
I doubt anybody can even define what a "qualifying banker" would be under HMRC terms.

If they want to ake a poke at banks, they should go for a straight win dfall tax on the corporation. That would make the banks re-thing how much they could afford to pay individuals.

And, did you notice that RBS, which seemingly lans to pay a fortune to its commercial "stars", has massively changed the way in which it accounts for "loss" or "profit".
Losses seem to be shuffled off into something they consider "non-core", while profits appear to remain within the arena that attracts bonuses.

Anybody wonder whether this government has a clue about what's eally going on?

(As an aside. I don't like the man, but I think Brown tries to do stuff in the public service area. I think he's failed abysmally, but that's by the by. But I guess it sickens him to watch Blair swanning around collecting big cash sums to promote foreign manufacturing plants.
Two or three days, expenses paid, make a short speech, collect £90,000.
Makes a Sir Humphrey seem almost cheap at the price...)

'name and shame' those who take too high a salary in the public sector...the individuals don't set the salaries themselves...they are set by government...who is going to name and shame them?

54. At 5:37pm on 07 Dec 2009, TerryNo2 wrote:
...... If Labour had followed the Conservatives plans of cutting spending it would have been dire: mass unemployment and all the rest of it....

***********************

That is going to happen anyway, whoever forms the next Government.

The problem is that neither party can be honest about it as it will cost votes.
What is right for the Country - however unpalatable that may be - is not as important as hanging on to or gaining power.
Manifesto promises and pledges are going to be completely meaningless as no party will have the guts to tell it like it is.

I find myself unexcited about "efficiency savings". No serious Debt'n'Deficit Reduction ever got where it is today by doing efficiency savings. You either cut public spending or you don't. The more you cut it, the smaller can be the necessary tax rises. The less you cut it, the smaller the impact on public services and public sector workers. It's the fabled Tough Decision, isn't it? Bit silly to try and dress it up some other way. (PD @ 22 ... A video nasty!)

We catch the breeze and breezily say we are bringing in new 'efficiency savings'. What a corker!

We reiterate all the previous 'efficiency savings' and put a slightly different slant on some, so that, shhh! no-one will know!

So much puff. So little respect. No. Gordon. We're not stupid.

(Could do better and do study with Mr Memory so that you don't contradict yourself too often.)

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Nick
Mr Brown and his Chancellor have discovered a fiscal hair shirt, it would seem. Long overdue. Please ask them why these sums were being spent in the first place if they are not necessary or could have been achieved at cheaper cost from the beginning. Mr Cameron has long practised a line in which he says that the Prime Minister "takes us for fools". Every voter and tax payer in this land deserves this description if we fall for the comments now coming from Numbers 10 and 11 Downing Street. The extremity of the cuts necessary have arisen directly from the incontinent spending plans of the last ten years. Surely no-one will trust the same team to unpick the Gordon Knot they have created.

#55

But if you earn more, why shouldn't you contribute more? you'll always have more disposable income, won't you? There are people who are deserving of the social cushion that national assistance was conceived to provide. If the Government doesn't help them, then what? Child poverty still exists, along with winter deaths of elderly people. The NHS requires more money each year as new drugs are developed. In providing the economic environment for people to succeed the payback is an increase in their contribution to national welfare.

The Conservatives left a surplus, but they also left a financial infrastructure that meant that the current financial crisis was unavoidable.

The Government cannot be credibly blamed for the current crisis, which has visited itself on all major economies. There is nothing they have done that exacerbated it. The Conservatives have no answer for this.

That's the easy argument.

Personally, I blame the road-building Romans for the current level of deaths on the road. That's my argument and I'm sticking to it.

A few years ago I worked for the LA in commissioning. We had to find 4 million savings out of a 31 million budget by cutting frontline support services provided by both the LA and the voulentry sector.

Having previously worked in the private sector, I was appauled that within my department no staff (all paid as managers) understood budgets, all my staff had been promoted throughout their whole working lives within the LA. Previously they had managed services within the LA, non had ever managed or ever been responsible for their own budget. I spent ages going through our service providers scheme budgets with staff because they hadn't a clue!

When we needed to look at the LA's internal services to find savings I asked for their individual scheme budgets..... they smugly stated that couldn't provide them stating that they did not bother with cost based budgets. The same department overspent year on year by about 60 million. This is the problem with the LA.....No accoutability.

Unfortunately it will be the more accountable voulentry sector organisations that get the brunt of the cuts. The very same organisations that work in the heart of the communities in which they serve who are managed by that community and accountable to the community. The very same organisations who's services will be in even more demand over the next miserable years.

BTW....I left the LA, I couldn't stand the self serving power politics that went on within senior management teams. They forget that they are civil servants....servants of the people.

Of course all this "efficiency" crap and "climate gate" detracts us from asking...what is happening with these Mps expenses scandal. Brown is hoping it will die a death if it is not mentioned.Fat chance.

#57. Great answer.

But I think the fact that I could make such a comment with ease proves the point I was making.

As a matter of interest , just how much does war in Iraq and Afghanistan cost?
What is the " carbon footprint" of these wars ?

And before anyone accuses me of not backing our young men and women in the field , I do - I just don't back the reasons for being there nor the people who sent them there.

# 54

You say Labour 'introduced measures to shore up the economy and protect savings and enterprise through quantitative easing and investment in the banking system . . . If Labour had followed the Conservatives plans of cutting spending it would have been dire: mass unemployment and all the rest of it.'

The Tories support in principle a fiscal stimulus during recessions. The point they make is that because of Labour's over-borrowing during the boom, there was nothing left in the kitty to fund a stimulus without getting into dangerous levels of debt.

The facts prove the Tories right: despite Labour's great claims re fiscal stimulus, in reality the UK has provided less fiscal stimulus than the US, France, even Germany. Why? Not because Labour don't want to. But because we can't. Look at the facts before you swallow Labour spin.

You say cutting spending earlier would have been dire; well the consequences of too much debt are also dire: worst case, IMF enforced cutbacks, massive cuts in public spending, incld to front line services, sky high interest rates making it impossible for individuals and businesses to borrow, massive resulting unemployment, etc. Basically, back to the late 1970's. Out of the frying pan then into the fire.

Also, one respected international economic think tank recently produced a report showing that cuts in public spending during a recession actually improved the recovery, as unproductive state capacity was freed up for more profitable private sector growth. So there is no actual consensus around Labour's view of the benefits of providing a stimulus during a recession, even if they had actually been able to provide a meaningful rather than a meaningless one.

#66, TerryNo2 wrote:

"...The Conservatives left a surplus, but they also left a financial infrastructure that meant that the current financial crisis was unavoidable."

Not sure what that means.

I don't recall any major banking collapses under the Tories last effort. It was Brown who took away the regulatory control from the Bank of England and spread it about.
(Something that the majority of nations don't do to emasculate their Central Banks.)

I would accept that, despite the capabilities and engineering competence in the UK, far too little investment (whether state or private) was pumped into "making things".

It still irks me that I can't buy a car made by a UK-owned company. Because there are people out there who could produce economical and viable vehicles. Although it's going to get harder as manufacturers - unlike governments - really do have to deal in efficiency...

Sorry to say, I see this New Labour period as a governmental equivalent of the old British Leyland. Throw in the money. Don't bother the workers. Don't support real management. And most of the New Labour output has been like a Friday shift car...
May look OK in the brochure, but does it/did it deliver?

28. At 4:35pm on 07 Dec 2009, the_brazilian wrote:
You have to ask good old Gordie what he's been doing over the last 12 years of New Labour government. It is quite remarkable that New Labour can suddenly come up with all these savings after such a long time in power.

My biggest fear now is not the cuts - they have to come, that is clear - but Labour/Gordon Brown somehow getting back into power at the next election. The thought of this lot having any kind of democratic backing for another five years is simply too awful to contemplate.

---------
Don't worry, be happy. Even if Labour won every seat in the next parliament, within months they would be out, as then they would have to cut, and how, if not we would go bust. Even their best mates will get very annoyed when the cuts start rolling in. All that is saving them at the moment is the belief by all the poor suckers who've lent us money, that the Tories will get in and they will eventually be paid back.

Some questions for you all.

How long has this Government been in power now?

Is the PBR going to be an example of tired Labour Investment v Tory Cuts?

Has the last few days been an example of tired Labour taking Tory policy and then implementing it?

Are the tired Labour Government now resorting to adopting the Tory policies that tired Labour say the Tory Party do not have?

Why has the tired Labour Government been called "New Labour"? On the ballot sheet I can never find "New Labour"!

Is "New Labour" dead?

Who wants an election now?

Discuss......

#66

Sorry but you're at it again: 'The Conservatives left a surplus, but they also left a financial infrastructure that meant that the current financial crisis was unavoidable.'

What utter tosh. Gordon Brown reconfigured the financial infrastructure: removed oversight responsibility from the Bank of England, created the FSA, created the tri-partite regulatory system where nobody had a clue what to do, or who had what powers, when things began to go wrong.

Labour have trumpeted and supported the City's growth even more than the Tories for the past 12 years. Remember 'light touch' regulation and all that?

Now Nick you know why the Tories do not spell out too much of the detail of their policies. So next time you accuse Cameron of being light on detail think back to todays repackaged and regurgitated announcements.

Nice to see that our supreme leader mentioned his long forgotten girlfriend - the one and only Prudence.

Gordy has just lifted huge chunks of the Tory Party conference and rebadged it as his own.

"High treason is criminal disloyalty to one's country."

From reading the various blog comments it seems to me that Gordon Brown (and probably Tony Blair) should both be arrested and charged with High Treason against the British People on numerous counts.

It would be great to see all the lies, the spin, the false statistics exposed in a judicial process for what they are: Gordon Brown's attempt to stay in power at any cost!

Is Brown serious? Anyone earning more than 150k will need ministerial approval, why ? It's the minister responsible who makes these appointmants isn't it? This looks like more rhetoric without intention,designed to make the punters think he actually means what he says and knows how to solve the country's problems, most of which he is responsible for. Interesting article in the Express today ; apparently two thirds of the seriously wounded troops in Selly Oak pulled the curtains around their beds on the occasion of Brown's visit in September.

#75. What makes you say that the policies Gordon is following are Conservative ones? I've seen a couple of TV programs today and nothing has appeared to suggest that this is the case.

If it's true, shouldn't the Conservatives be hammering this point harder? On the other hand, it might not be true, so they can't.

#76. As it happens, I'm fine with light touch regulation as long as enforcement is, well, enforced. But anyway, what I heard was that the predecessors to the FSA were not cutting the mustard. Centralising regulatory powers into a single body made sense. Isn't that the way that all Governments have gone?

Let's also remember that Government spending is investment. In schools, housing, hospitals and so on. All I've heard from the Conservatives is cuts; cut this, cut that. All this means higher unemployment. The Government hasn't been talking about creating unemployment as a price worth paying for the global financial crisis. In fact, the Government expects GDP to grow and this will, in time, bring things back to balance. It might take a bit longer that's all. But why suffer massive pain now by making deep and painful cuts?

Has George O got the answer to this?

AAh clearly I dont get it ? if this was a great government then there would be no savings to make as all departments would be efficient , just like big ( and small ) business ?

May I suggest a small filler for the xmas stocking.

Yes Minister Series 1 THE ECONOMY DRIVE

Jim plans to slim down the Civil Service. His own economy drive will set a personal example - won`t it?

If you ask a Government politician in private what is the biggest buzz they get - it is usually signing something into law that will directly affect the lives of millions of people.

However, running a very close second is 'spending other people's money' - that is, our taxpayers money.

In my opinion, the only way you are ever going to get politicians to spend our money responsibly is to link their salaries and expenses to the money spent in such a way that if a proportion is subsequently shown to have been 'wasted' then their salaries are reduced accordingly.

To be fair, the opposite should also apply, that is, if the money they spend is subsequently shown to have produced great value, then they should have bonus payments.

But it is highly unlikely that such a scheme as proposed here would ever actually be implemented - it is just too risky for the politicians, who would much rather carry on as they are - however bad that is for us, the English people.

Brown's supposed savings are all just spin to buy a bit of time.
If you wat to save money you have to scrap schemes, projects, departments, agencies etc lock stock and barrel.

Once again we get a Blog from Nick Robinson which is so Bias and lacking in imaprtiality. It is full of so many barbed comments which are clearly Pro Tory...

"Cutting consultancy costs, scaling back the NHS IT system and publishing more data online were all also measures which were first called for by the Tories."
"Thus Labour is saving costs by stealing Tory measures,"
"Meantime, the Conservatives are parading the scalps of Sir Peter Gershon, Dr Martin Read and Bernard Gray. All are one-time advisers to Labour"

you forget how wrong the Tories have been on almost all aspects of this recesion and how to deal with it. May I also state I'm not pro Labour, just Pro BBC impartiality.

So under prudence then for the last 12 years there has been profigate
waste of taxpayers monies then.

If he had even recongised this 2 years ago and started then we might have been a bit better placed , at least going in the right direction.

The statement begs so many questions that NR should be asking. Who's eye has been of the ball for the last 12 years then. (is this the real reason Blair went he could see it coming then )

if growth does not get much above 1% if at all for the next 5 years
what effect will that have as well. To sort this out is going to take
3-4 parliaments.

To save money right now axe the family courts

#82.

Yes, but Brian, Jim Hacker became famous for saving the British sausage.

The only thing I recall from the Conservatives is an increase in inheritance tax allowance.

As I say, the Tories need to up their game in a major way.

80. At 6:55pm on 07 Dec 2009, TerryNo2 wrote:

#75. What makes you say that the policies Gordon is following are Conservative ones? I've seen a couple of TV programs today and nothing has appeared to suggest that this is the case.

Let's also remember that Government spending is investment. In schools, housing, hospitals and so on.......

*******************************************

TerryNo2. Read Nick's blog! 2nd paragraph. If Nick says it there is some truth in it.

Your other point about Labour investment. Most of the funding for these projects is under PFI, the costs of which are currently unknown and likely to be in the multi-billion pound area. So far these costs are not included in any balance sheet this Government has produced.

#75. uncivil-civilservant:

Q:How long has this Government been in power now?

A: Too Long

Q: Is the PBR going to be an example of tired Labour Investment v Tory Cuts?

A: Probably but more likley to be Labour cuts v Tory cuts

Q: Has the last few days been an example of tired Labour taking Tory policy and then implementing it?

A: To be fair it was not a policy, they wouldn't tell us what theirs was in case Labour nicked them but Labour have nicked the few good ideas the Tories bothered to broadcast and left out some of the rubbish ones. So perhaps a good call.

Q: Are the tired Labour Government now resorting to adopting the Tory policies that tired Labour say the Tory Party do not have?

A: see previous answer plus that's how they got elected in the first place - take the good ideas of others and add some of their own that are popular with people like spending money we don't have.

Q: Why has the tired Labour Government been called "New Labour"? On the ballot sheet I can never find "New Labour"!

A: New Labour has always been on the ballot papers, you can normally find it under C for Conservatives but for a few years there was a misunderstanding at the printers.

Q: Is "New Labour" dead?

A: Not yet but the signs are not encouraging.

As it is becoming increasingly clear that Gordon Brown's ideas are always someone else's, it is clear he doesn't have any ideas of his own, so it won't be him, will it?

Perhaps if everyone agreed that he was the only person to come up with ideas we'd see how many he could actually come up with?

Humour him. Shake his hand. Tell him how wonderful he is. But don't give him any ideas.

Stall him. Obfuscate. Prevaricate. Find a need to see a doctor. Increase the number of NED positions you hold. But don't give him any ideas.

All that sort of thing.

Make him come up with ideas himself.

Then we'll either smoke him out or he'll actually show what he can do.

Mr Brown you've been in power for over 12 years with a massive parliamentary majority which means you could pass whatever legislation you chose to put things right ......... So could you explain to the electorate why the UK economy, it's public finances and social cohesion are in such a poor state or repair?

Well, I think this is a very brave and courageous move by Brown, taking the tough decisions that have to be made, because it is the right thing to do for hard-working families, and I wish him all the best with them.













(*)

Re my #92

I didn't mean it, it just seemed that support for Labour was a bit thin on the ground here, so I was trying to balance things up a bit!


One efficiency saving to be made would be to sack the numpties at the Treasury who, according to a recent National Audit Office report, contains a devastating example of Treasury ineptitude.

It reveals that just a week before the collapse of the Royal Bank of Scotland in October last year 'internal papers prepared by the Treasury suggested that RBS's capital position was reasonably strong'.


Read more: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1233368/PETER-OBORNE-A-rudderless-economy-great-treasury-thats-fit-purpose.html

I like the idea of sending me a text message to remind me of my doctor's appointment.

I don't have a mobile phone. Don't need one. Can't afford one.
But in order that Gordon's great idea works, he will now need to supply me with one, at tax-payers expense, including all costs associated with having that phone. Nice one Gordon.
That should save a few bob once all non mobile phone persons have been provided with free phones.

BTW. I've only seen my doctor three times in seven years and kept the appointment on all three occasions.

telecaster dave @10 in the charts says..

"This country is being led by a disgraceful, incompetent government.
It really does beggar belief.
Twelve years and what do we have, billions wasted, two wars, millions unemployed, massive debt"

Heard some one say that in the eightys about a certain tory leader.

94. At 7:50pm on 07 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote..,,


I like the idea of sending me a text message to remind me of my doctor's appointment.

I don't have a mobile phone. Don't need one. Can't afford one.
But in order that Gordon's great idea works, he will now need to supply me with one, at tax-payers expense, including all costs associated with having that phone. Nice one Gordon.
That should save a few bob once all non mobile phone persons have been provided with free phone.

cancel your broadband then you will have pleny of cash.

"non mobile persons" eh?

Ah Nick 'seems' to go for balance and an appearance of impartiality -
''Thus Labour is saving costs by stealing Tory measures, while the Tories are doing the same by stealing Labour men.''

There is no equation here. Good ideas are gold , men are infinitely replaceable. First law in commerce (and politics - never be bashfull in adopting anothers ideas. Particularly sweet in politics as it denudes the opposition. So advantage Brown. Mere partial compensation for the numerous advance policy leaks finding their way into Tory portfolios !

Futhermore - ''Meantime, the Conservatives are parading the scalps ''
- is this a comment on the current medical condition of the post scalpees ?

96. At 8:05pm on 07 Dec 2009, scarlerow20 wrote:
94. At 7:50pm on 07 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote..,,


I like the idea of sending me a text message to remind me of my doctor's appointment.

I don't have a mobile phone. Don't need one. Can't afford one.

--------

cancel your broadband then you will have pleny of cash.

*******************

Don't have broadband either. Use the library or local community centre during the day and via my daughter's wi-fi (she lives three doors away) during the evening. 8-)

98. At 8:18pm on 07 Dec 2009, Zydeco wrote:

very funny Zydeco

93 Yellow

Thanks. I like to check the Mail regularly to find out what's really going on in the world.





(*)