The cuts are in the post

We need to pay the interest on the loans from the banks that the public now own to insure that bonuses are again available. 25% is an unneeded percent but will allow the government to cut less and stand before the people as if they have compassion. It is a political ploy used many times. When the unemployment roles swell and the services are cut and the economy contiues to stall, someone may ask...why did we bailout the banks? The police will say..move on now..we don't want any trouble-makers.
The children of bankers are learning Chinese.

Ghostofsichuan,

Please remeber that if the last government had not been spending money like water, then baling out the banks would not have been such a big problem.

Blame the bankers as much as you like, but spending cuts were coming sooner or later, and in a big way.

I remember during the 80's when the organisation I was working for was taken over by a foreign company. They sent in four of their top people for two weeks who spent that time going round ALL the Head Office staff asking the basic questions ....What do you do/ who do you report to/who reads (follows up) what you do. There was a 35% cut in staff numbers at all levels within three months with no adverse affect on the business and a very positive effect on the bottom line. The moral is we need outside people to look at these Public Services in a hard headed fashion. Left to themselves they will achieve little.

Sage:

The banks were loaning the money to governments during the fake boom the banks created. The banks never told the governments that the tax revenues would not support the future spending and that it was all supported by an empty box. The banking scam was taking all the profits with upfront fees and bonuses. It was a scam and they knew it. They decided to all make sure the rating houses all provided the governments with good ratings so they could continue to borrow. I understand that the governments were warned well in advance that the entire scheme would fall apart and that they simply lacked the ethics to stand up and rein in the game. The banking lobbyist were also making sure that didn't happen. This was a collusion by the banks and the govenments and will be paid for by the taxpayers. The end isn't in sight and the pain has yet to come.

Some time last year, the Times published an article by an advisor to the Labour Government, whereby he basically stated that no matter what Ministers tried to do, if the Civil Service did not want it, it did not happen.

I thought it was a profound insight, born of experience, in fact, Tony Blair referenced it recently in a speech to the Institute of Government.

Consequently since then I have tended to visualise Government as an iceberg, with the somewhat hapless politicians as the high profile visible bit, taking all the flak, whilst the submerged part, being the body of the Civil Service, glides on in its self-serving way.

Which leads to the question, what or who is the 'enemy within' and/or those infamous 'forces of conservatism'?

To have a target of turning deficit into surplus within the lifetime of a parliament is madness. What annoys me more is the barely disguised relish the Tories are going about it.

This is the excuse they wanted...hide behind the deficit crisis and shrink the state.

Its also alarming that Osbourne seems to have no plan B should it all go (and it will) horribly wrong.

5.

The public sector depts are a bit like huge oil tankers...extremely difficult to turn around, especially at short notice.

"The deadline is tomorrow".

We have all seen the consequences when a Secretary of State rushes through annoucements.

I think we should forget deadlines and make sure that when the cuts do finally get announced they hold up to scrunity.

Deadlines may please political editors and tomorrows papers but these are far to serious matters to get wrong as MG will or should testify.

Notwithstanding any of the above, I think JC @ 5 has pinned it down.

If it will help you out a little, I hereby volunteer the Scotland Office to cut its budget by 100 per cent with immediate effect.

It is the approaching credibility crunch when 'tough' decisions are converted into tough and not very acceptable consequences and we discover that the public sector does some useful and some vital things and is not just a dispensable overhead.

What we are being entertained by is naivety on an epic scale by a government of characters who have only just began to shave (or wax their legs!)

My advice to the other departments of state is to defy the Treasury.

When they complain remind them that the bubble that preceded and was a cause of the crash happened on their watch and that the head of the Cabinet Office (past head of the Treasury) and the current head of the Treasury are still in post and that they were written to by many people to explain the problem that they were causing. They however refused to listen to advice and the rest is history.

In short why should we take a blind bit of notice of these men when they could not see an express train careering towards them even when they were pointed towards it. We still have the same permanent government. First fire them!

JohnConstable (#5) makes an excellent point which political journalists seem completely, sadly and seemingly unable to grasp. You listen to and fawn on the wrong people!

Ministers (and councillors, health trustees, planning board members etc etc) only know, and are allowed to rely on, what is put in front of them by their officials. I know. I worked in local government for many years. If it's not in the papers in front of you it's 'out of order'.

So if you want to influence, you pile pressure on the officials - through reports, surveys, forecasts, press releases, media spots, seminars, presentations. You convince them that THIS is what they should be recommending. That opposing views have no economic or social merit. So in the end, it is those with the best funded megaphones who have the best chance of getting their wishes onto the Minister's desk and ultimately the Cabinet table.

The ministers may hear other voices in the bushes, but if the officials' paperwork slants a particular way they are very, very brave to go against it. Which is probably how GB's political aides in the Treasury slanted its views and undermined every other department - thus in many ways creating the current crisis.

I cannot conceive of a minister, new to office, asked for decisions, who would not rely on his officials' recommendations.

Waht is badly needed is to cut those officials completely away from outside interests apart from through formal submissions - no lunches, no dinners, no hospitality - complete objectiveness is essential and the original principle of the Home Civil Service. Then ministers get unbiased advice.

Isn't it it odd that the first part of government spending to come under scrutiny today is the DCMS - the chattering classes want first dips yet again!

#6 craifmarpool wrote:
"To have a target of turning deficit into surplus within the lifetime of a parliament is madness"

Of course there are alternative debt reduction trajectories, but to call the one proposed 'madness' seems an intemperate response. As far as I can see the deficit reduction programme is in line with the recommendations of the OECD and the EU's stability pact. It is generally recognised that countris with the highest debt should accelerate their debt reduction programmes.

There are advantages and disadvantages of different debt trajectories. The advantage of the course proposed by the coalition is that it lessens, though not eliminates, the risk of a UK sovereign debt crisis, it lowers the interest rate payable on new and rolled-over national debt, and reduces the amount that the UK is paying in debt interest.

It's also worth remembering that the national debt is projected to rise from a little under 900 billion pounds today to a little under 1.4 trillion by 2014. So we're still borrowing 500 billion pounds; this would normally be considered the sign of a spendthrift government (of course it's a reflection of the scale of the problem bequeathed by Labour).

By 2014-2015 the structural deficit should be eliminated. An actual reduction in debt will be a task for the 2015-2020 Parliament, and beyond.

The sheer unspeakable injustice of all this is, of course, that the "bleeding stumps" really exist. Of course it's fashionable to talk of benefit scroungers and people fiddling the invalidity - and no doubt such people exist. But the fact is that the people who will bear the brunt of the savings demanded by the Government will be some of the poorest, sickest and most vulnerable people in our country. They will not be the people who landed us in this mess - the bankers and the "Masters Of The Universe" who still have their yachts and their Bollinger, still (for the most part) have their jobs and their bonuses and still have their pension pots.
And maybe that's why these savings aren't in. Were I in the position of working in the Civil Service and having to come up with these reductions I would hate myself if I did it, and fear for my family if I didn't.

It was my understanding that the proposals set out by Darling, to reduce the deficit by half, would have been an adequate statement of intent.

Of course the focus on this increases the real risk of the economy slipping back into recession,and all the latest economic indicators do not look good on this.

I'm sure you're aware of the arguments from either side. I happen to subscribe to the David Blanchflower view.

At 10:19pm on 15 Jul 2010, frankly francophone wrote:

If it will help you out a little, I hereby volunteer the Scotland Office to cut its budget by 100 per cent with immediate effect.

Why such vitriol?

8. At 10:07pm on 15 Jul 2010, mrnaughty2 wrote:

"The deadline is tomorrow".

We have all seen the consequences when a Secretary of State rushes through announcements.

I think we should forget deadlines and make sure that when the cuts do finally get announced they hold up to scrutiny.

Deadlines may please political editors and tomorrows papers but these are far to serious matters to get wrong as MG will or should testify.

Notwithstanding any of the above, I think JC @ 5 has pinned it down.

=========================================================================

Have to agree if cuts are to come then fine have a clear and rational thought process to go along with them whats happening here is hasty to say the least and sheer and utter madness at worst of course only time will tell who was right,hell of a gamble to be taking though in my eyes.

Ah, what tomorrow brings?

Lab win Bloxwich west from the conservatives.

Riversway council by-election lab gain from the lib/dems.

Hmmm!summer time and the feeling is? well not tory nor lib/dem.

Welcome to my world.

(Sums it up really)

It is beyond contemptible to cut money available to the disabled and the needy when at the same time rewarding those who have most, i grow more and more apathetic towards politics with each passing day...

Once 40% of all these geniuses in the civil service have been released from the shackles of glorified government welfare they will seamlessly flow into the private sector to realise their unlimited potential to create wealth for this nation.

This is not a disaster, this is an opportunity to better yourself as a human being.

In a stroke, with so many well educated zero productivity people being forcibly removed (albeit kicking and screaming) from the government teat, our great country will once more power forwards into the global marketplace and show the world what we are truly capable of.

(cue Rule Britannia)

ady... you were being ironic right?

I was asked today at my Work Focus Interview if i had thought about a job in the public sector! I kid you not, these people are comedians! PMSL

3. At 8:26pm on 15 Jul 2010, pdavvers wrote:

I remember during the 80's when the organisation I was working for was taken over by a foreign company. They sent in four of their top people for two weeks who spent that time going round ALL the Head Office staff asking the basic questions ....What do you do/ who do you report to/who reads (follows up) what you do. There was a 35% cut in staff numbers at all levels within three months with no adverse affect on the business and a very positive effect on the bottom line. The moral is we need outside people to look at these Public Services in a hard headed fashion. Left to themselves they will achieve little.




Yes, it's good when you aren't one of the 35% who were cut.

Yes, we may well live (in reduced circumstances) to regret the Coalition's weak refusal to 'stare down' the financial bandits. The speed with which they ran up the white flag and turned their guns on softer and less guilty targets argues a certain lack of moral fibre - or worse, an identity of common interest with those 'bandits'.
Could it be that the New Labour project did effect fundamental changes, now so deeply embedded that the Coalition must follow whether they will or no? A rather different interpretation of 'There is no alternative'.
There are early signs that this Government is as keen as their predecessors to tell us what we need and, regardless of any evidence to the contrary, to experiment without due care.

As they say Nick “Turkey’s don’t vote for Christmas”.

This is bad news because if those most able to plan cuts drag their feet, I fear that we will get a series of knee jerk reactions from Ministers instead.

We all know cuts need to happen, but badly planned cuts could actually end up costing us money rather than saving it.

Can't help thinking the best – or rather the worst – is yet to come.

....and still no credible response to the question -

Why are payments to foreign countries (aid handouts + EU) continuing unabated whilst education for our children, care for our elderly and policing in our own country are being slashed?

Here in Torquay the pubs are well stocked with people drinking all day whilst in receipt of Disability allowance and Incapacity Benefit and moaning they don't get enough to live on!
These same people drink all day, most smoke and would seem to eat well enough as most are obese (probably through drinking 7 or 8 pints a day).
I realise there are genuine cases who have worked all their lives and due to illness or injury cannot work any more, and they should be given sufficient help to enjoy what is left of their lives, but I am sure what happens here is repeated all over the country.
Perhaps Benefit Inspectors should be visiting pubs on a regular basis to establish just how unfit for work a lot of these people are.

The country is broke thanks to the millionaire labour ex front benchers mainly from our money and "property transactions". Never again.

7#

Slow it may be, but that's no excuse for not doing it when it needs to be done. That is how we got to this position in the first place.

19#

We shall see Derek, we shall see. You'd do well not to count your chickens mate.

15#

The usual left wing diatribe. The reason it may impact on the worst off is because the self serving layers of management who need to be trimmed, those who create the most waste are the ones who will be making those decisions to cut the front line services rather than being the turkey that voted for Christmas.

Those in the civil service will protect and consolidate their own empires. And that's before we get any input at all from the unions.

Problem is that Christmas still comes anyway.

You keep on watering that money tree though Andrew, you might see a few green shoots in about 40 years or so.

12#

"What is badly needed is to cut those officials completely away from outside interests apart from through formal submissions - no lunches, no dinners, no hospitality - complete objectiveness is essential and the original principle of the Home Civil Service. Then ministers get unbiased advice."

Hear Hear. Well said.

#28 jon112uk

The response to your question was answered yesterday in the House of Commons.

Our wonderful MP's voted overwhelmingly (Con/Lib/Lab)to pay for an EU foreign service with EU embassies worldwide costing £5 billion per year! You couldn't make it up. More jobs for their pals and families no doubt with huge salaries and pensions.

They really are taking the mickey out of all of us mere workers.

Jon112UK @ 28 wrote:
....and still no credible response to the question -

Why are payments to foreign countries (aid handouts + EU) continuing unabated whilst education for our children, care for our elderly and policing in our own country are being slashed?

>>

There have been plenty of responses to this question. Saying that they're not credible is simply restating your initial point: that you believe our overseas aid budget should be cut. The main reasons for not cutting it are:
1) it isn't a major expense, as a proportion of GDP
2) aid payments can be of life or death importance to recipients
3) it could have a catastrophic domino effect on other nations' attitude to aid payments
4) it would make the British nation appear small-minded, callous and insular
5) most people in the UK would not support cutting international aid

Of course, aid could often be better targeted, but that's a different issue and a pretty intractable problem.

F&T @29
While your observations may be true and your unpaid detective work in public houses in the public interest, your conclusion that some bring ilness and other problems on themselves must also be true of the population generally. Some people, in or out of work will always take advantage where they can. But how do we judge this fairly. If it is as easy as you seem to think, you'd think it would already have happened.
I take it from your final comment that you plan to never vote again. Politicians feathering their own beds is unlikely to go out of fashion anytime soon. Dave C, I presume, continues to claim expenses to the full for his rather plush 2nd home. When he leaves politics will it be sold and the profit returned to the public purse? Strange how some aspects of the last few years seem to have been.....'mislaid'.

Millions of us went through it during the carnage of the Thatcher years from 1980-84.
For myself I went from a professional on 25k to six months on the dole(zero jobs) to sixty quid a week humping suitcases then spent 10 years climbing back.

The legacy for me has been a life spent not relying on the system, government or corporate, because they can take it all away from you in a heartbeat.
The legacy for Thatcher in Scotland has been permanent banishment to the political wasteland of the squeaky-toy minority parties.

Since most of the civil service workfare jobs are in the South East, the Tory heartland, the 30% job cuts are most likely going to be in reality 15%, coupled with seriously heavy cuts to pension entitlements, thereby transferring most of the serious pain to later years.

The 100% job cuts we enjoyed in the 1980s, coupled with job severance entitlements of a pat on the head and a kick up the ass, are unlikely to be experienced by the wailing woosies who live in the south east of engerland.

35 Given the (relatively small) amounts concerned, I'm easier with the fact that some foreign aid is wasted than I am with the waste within the UK. I'd rather save a starving child's life than a "5-a-day" Health Co-Ordinator's job.

A cut we can afford.

"Consider reducing the top rate of PIT (personal income tax) which is substantially above the OECD average and likely to adversely affect work incentives and entrepreneurship, particularly of highly skilled workers. Consideration should be given to reducing the top PIT rate to close to 40%".

Source: OECD "Policies for a Sustainable Recovery" July 2010

Unfortunately, in refusing to implement this tax cut, the coalition is placing politics and the dogma of "fairness" above economics.

George Osborne "courageous"!

"The comprehensive budget announced by the government on 22 June was courageous and appropriate. It was an essential starting point. It signals the commitment to provide the necessary degree of fiscal consolidation over the coming years to bring public finances to a sustainable path, while still supporting the recovery".

Source: OECD

6. At 9:47pm on 15 Jul 2010, craigmarlpool wrote:
To have a target of turning deficit into surplus within the lifetime of a parliament is madness. What annoys me more is the barely disguised relish the Tories are going about it.

This is the excuse they wanted...hide behind the deficit crisis and shrink the state.

Its also alarming that Osbourne seems to have no plan B should it all go (and it will) horribly wrong.

If Niall Ferguson, an eminent economist, says we don't know whether it will work for sure, yet his instinct is it will, what makes you think you can be sure that it won't work?

Obviously the plan b, by the way, is to stop reducing the deficit if it isn't working

My instinct is that it will work, although I can't be certain, as you cannot be sure either

Cut welfare bills?

"Tackle high levels of disability benefit claimants. Ensure all claimants are covered by the announced Work Program scheme. Monitor health status earlier and more frequently in the workforce"

source: OECD

Raise VAT?

"Address the economic and environmental inefficiencies in the VAT system caused by exemptions and reduced rates".

Source: OECD

The coalition looks quite soft and cuddly, doesn't it?

35

Well said.

7. At 9:49pm on 15 Jul 2010, craigmarlpool wrote:
5.

The public sector depts are a bit like huge oil tankers...extremely difficult to turn around, especially at short notice.

Craig,
There is waste in any organisation. It's not a lot of fun stripping it out. And it requires thought about which bits should go first.
Once you start to focus on the fundamental reason for the organisation to exist at all, you can a least make a start on improving it.

You suggest that departments are like tankers and take time to change.
Well, the tankers have taken on board 500,000 plus employees over a decade.
But did they carry and deliver an equivalent output?

We've had massive growth in public sector employment. I didn't mind that from a political perspective. But I don't see any equivalent increase in the productivity.

And massive borrowing to pay current wages simply doesn't make sense.

Don't care which party holds power. But piling debts onto the shoulder of our children is ideological nonsense.

Especially when the children also have to pay for the pensions of those who created the debt in the first place.

Andy @ 38

Indeed. Before we cut the aid payments which could save children, let's cut spending on the arms which inadvertently kill them.

Alms not arms. My slogan for the day.

Labour's continuing silence on what they would have cut had they remained in office means that we don't have a comparative set of alternatives. I think that they are mis-judging the public mood.

AndyC555 @38
It really is a roller-coaster ride with you. First you go up in my estimation -opening sentence - only to plumb the depths with the second.
Surely you could have come up with a better example of wasteful non-jobs than one where the public health benefits are clear and which offers realistic opportunities to cut NHS spending. More haste, less speed.

6 - "This is the excuse they wanted...hide behind the deficit crisis and shrink the state."

If that's the case, Labout have given them something enormous to hide behind, haven't they.

46#

Inadvertently?

Nothing inadvertent about it pd. There is no such thing as an intelligent weapon, not yet. Like it or not, the inadvertence is on the part of the person firing the weapon. Theres nothing wrong with the weapon, its when and how it is used that causes the problem. Guns dont kill people, people do.

Spend less on these people, by all means, if you wish.

Just don't expect them to go and fight your illegal wars for you.

Government waiting until the day before the deadline to do their homework? I wish I could say I'm surprised, but i'm not.

This is in keeping with my previous experience of the public sector: doing the bare minimum just to get by.

50 - "Guns dont kill people, people do."

Reminds me of the time my girlfriend said 'did you know that hippopotamuses kill more people every year than guns?'. 'Yes,' I replied, 'but a gun is easier to hide in your pocket'

Fubar @ 50 wrote:
Guns dont kill people, people do.

>>

But people with guns kill more people than people without guns. So guns would appear to be the decisive factor.

53. At 11:07am on 16 Jul 2010, pdavies65 wrote:
Fubar @ 50 wrote:
Guns dont kill people, people do.

>>

But people with guns kill more people than people without guns. So guns would appear to be the decisive factor.

A lot of the killings in various African countries recently, with Rwanda being the most widely known, yet sadly far from being alone, were with Machetes and knives and just beatings

Guns are a method, not a causal factor

You can bet your bottom pound that that the cuts will hit the poorest, the most vulnerable and those who cannot fight back......this always is the case.
No government will attack the rich, and therefore the powerful, as they know that is not possible.
Those that cannot fight back, be they government departments or individuals, are the scapegoats which are needed in our society to 'prove' that without these we will all see a great upward surge in our finances.
I am afraid that capitalism does not work on fairness or how hard you work because profit is the mantra.
I worked for 50 years, made redundant three times, had an endowment mortgage which ended up as useless, only came across 2 bosses that were competent in what they were doing and watched the private sector evade tax whilst blaming their incompetence on 'unions' and lazy workers.
I am now a pensioner and expect my pension to be 'raided' by some government or company in the not too distant future.
Take it from me.....you don't count!
I am glad that my working days are over as you who are now working will be promised better things to come...and then betrayed and tossed to one side at some future time.

37. ady wrote:
'Millions of us went through it during the carnage of the Thatcher years from 1980-84.
For myself I went from a professional on 25k to six months on the dole(zero jobs) to sixty quid a week humping suitcases then spent 10 years climbing back.
The 100% job cuts we enjoyed in the 1980s, coupled with job severance entitlements of a pat on the head and a kick up the ass, are unlikely to be experienced by the wailing woosies who live in the south east of engerland.'

Seems the Seventies have been airbrushed from history by some on here and economic hardships only begin in the Eighties.
Let's not forget the tough times under the Heath and Callahan governments and the 'Winter of Discontent' etc, etc.
We may be returning to them rather than to the Eighties and Thatcher.

Strange how Britain can ALWAYS find Money to fight a War or to give away in Foreign Aid and support already Rich Bankers etc:, whereas whenever there is any kind of Cutting measures introduced it is always those whom did not cause this Crisis that have to suffer the most, ie: The Tax - Payers earning [ if they are lucky to be so ], Low Incomes and Pensions.

53 - In the US, where guns are readily avaialble, around 65% to 70% (year on year) murders are commited using firearms. In the UK where guns are not, the comparitive figure is between 5% and 11%.

For those who like stats, in 2004 there were 16,137 murders in the US (5.4 per 100,000 people). In 2004 there were 765 murders in the UK (1.1 per 100,000).

It does rather suggest that the ready availability of guns leads to a higher murder rate.

53/54#

Indeed Djones.

Substitute the word "guns" for "cars" and the same could be argued.

...So lets all go back to using horses for the school run every morning, shall we?

53. pdavies65 wrote:

Fubar @ 50 wrote:
Guns dont kill people, people do.
>>
But people with guns kill more people than people without guns. So guns would appear to be the decisive factor.


And now we have IEDs, which can be produced from commercially available products and are becoming more effective than 'guns'.

53. pdavies65

Fubar @ 50 wrote:
Guns dont kill people, people do.

>>

But people with guns kill more people than people without guns. So guns would appear to be the decisive factor.
==============================================================

Alternatively, people with guns kill more people than guns on their own with no one to operate them. So the people would appear to the decisive factor, which is what I suspect that Fubar was getting at.

I take it the current government (and the civil service) has been catching up on Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister. For the banking scandal see Sir Malcom Glazebrook, for the resistance of the civil service see Sir Humphrey Appelby (whole series).
The true fact of the matter being that NuLabour were intoxicated by power, created quango after quango (Yes Minister) and spent the money in the boom years before it had been earned.
Also, the fact that the UK has a greater deficit than Greece has to be adressed, maybe the current government is trying to clean up that particular mess too soon, but it has to be cleared up and before too much more debt is added to what already has to be paid back.
If the cuts are too swingeing (as they unfortunately promise to be), public confidence will be severly weakened (including possible strikes/protests) and the economy could be heading back into recession.
I can't say I fancy the task myself, but there has to be balance, not just the sound of the executioner's axe.
Particularly projects like the introduction of basic broadband connection across the country should be achieved by making the companies that make plenty of money thanks to the internet, telecoms companies and internet auction houses to put their hands in their pockets, that way the country doesn't fall behind and the economy doesn't collapse.

54 - "A lot of the killings in various African countries recently,...

were with Machetes and knives and just beatings

Guns are a method, not a causal factor"

I disagree to an extent.

Did those Africans decide to leave their guns at home and use only knives or did they just not have guns? If they were using guns would more or less have died?

There have been 'killing sprees' with knives but the number of victims tends to be far fewer than if guns are used.

When will Gordon Brown be tried for crimes against the UK economy.

64#

When hell freezes over again.

For those who like stats, in 2004 there were 16,137 murders in the US (5.4 per 100,000 people). In 2004 there were 765 murders in the UK (1.1 per 100,000).

It does rather suggest that the ready availability of guns leads to a higher murder rate.

Rates of homicide, suicide and household gun ownership in 14 countries.

                                    Rate per 100,000
                    _______________________________________
                          Homicide              Suicide            % of
                           with a                with a         households
    Country      Overall    Gun       Overall     Gun            with guns
    _______________________________________________________________________
    Australia       1.95    .66        11.58        3.42            1.96
    Belgium         1.85    .87        23.15        2.45            1.66
    Canada          2.60    .84        13.94        4.44            2.91
    England/
    Wales            .67    .08         8.61         .38             .47
    Finland         2.96    .74        25.35        5.43            2.32
    France          1.25    .55        22.30        4.93            2.26
    Holland         1.18    .27        11.72         .28             .19
    N. Ireland      4.66   3.55         8.27        1.18             .84
    Norway          1.21    .36        14.27        3.87            3.20
    Scotland        1.63    .11        10.51         .69             .47
    Spain           1.37    .38         6.45         .45            1.31
    Switzerland     1.17    .46        24.45        5.74            2.72
    USA             7.59   4.46        12.40        7.28            4.80
    West Germany    1.21    .20        20.37        1.38             .89

Nope, not seeing a huge correlation there.

2nd highest gun ownership is Norway, but their murder rate is only 1.21 / 100,000.

2nd highest muder rate is NI, but their gunownership is only 0.84%, favouring the bomb perhaps?

And just think how different things could have been if those responsible for helping to destroy our country had made better decisions........

Unfortunately, things are as they are and that's the state of things. There's no point in denying the financial problems this country has to face so let's make sure we get the problem sorted even though no person in the country will like what has to be done but we need the people in the right places who will face the tough times and make the tough decisions even though most people will not like it.

In all our lives, there are probably things we don't like, things we wish we could more of and wanting to do things better for ourselves and those we care for. Unfortunately, most people aren't in that position and many don't like the choices they have to face on a daily basis but sometimes you just have to come to terms with the way things are and move forward.

To Quote a line from a certain song "Things can only get better" and I certainly hope things do, considering the starting point we're currently at.

63. At 12:18pm on 16 Jul 2010, AndyC555 wrote:
54 - "A lot of the killings in various African countries recently,...

were with Machetes and knives and just beatings

Guns are a method, not a causal factor"

I disagree to an extent.

Did those Africans decide to leave their guns at home and use only knives or did they just not have guns? If they were using guns would more or less have died?

There have been 'killing sprees' with knives but the number of victims tends to be far fewer than if guns are used.


With the greatest respect, I suggest you look into Rwanda and the Congo, and even Kenya

Would I be correct in thinking that you don't spend too much time on those countries, and your comment is a passing comment, not a comment based on particular knowledge of these massacres and killings?

Pickled @ 61 wrote:
Alternatively, people with guns kill more people than guns on their own with no one to operate them. So the people would appear to the decisive factor, which is what I suspect that Fubar was getting at.

>>

Well yes, it depends on your perspective. If you're looking at it from a gun's perspective, people are the decisive factor. I chose to look at it from a person's perspective - making guns the decisive factor.

As djones points out @ 54, there are other ways to kill people if guns are not available. Guns are a method rather than a causal factor. But this is of course true of any weapon, and most people accept that you need to draw the line somewhere. I wouldn't want to see weapons enthusiasts being allowed to own rocket-launchers and guided missiles, would you?

64. telecasterdave wrot
When will Gordon Brown be tried for crimes against the UK economy.
===================================

An interesting question.

I've always hoped that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown would one day be held accountable for the actions of their governments which has changed and damaged the county so much. I would liken it to navy ship captain being charged with failing to defend their ship if their actions led to it being sunk. Blair and Brown would be charged with failing to defend the national identity and interests - not just the economy.

I know it won't happen. But I think that in years to come, historians will look at what happened in the country during this period, and wonder how it was ever allowed to happen.

66#

First time I've ever seen a chart embedded in one of these boards, could come in very useful in future cases.

There may be lots of beans to be spilled on the how to do it front... :-)

WunnyBabbit @66

I suspect you are falling into the common trap of interpreting statistics at face value instead of first considering there source and therefore true meaning.

For example, I suspect the % home ownership in N Ireland is not an accurate reflection of the ready availability of guns in that particular country.

Ironically, since the more stringent gun laws came in following Dunblane, there have been many times more murders using guns in the UK than ever before

"I chose to look at it from a person's perspective - making guns the decisive factor."

Well, we banned the ownership of handguns after Dunblane... and that was a raging success, wasnt it? Turned our inner cities (particularly Brixton, Peckham and Moss Side into peaceful vistas of calm and tranquility, it did...

47. At 10:25am on 16 Jul 2010, ARHReading wrote:
Labour's continuing silence on what they would have cut had they remained in office means that we don't have a comparative set of alternatives. I think that they are mis-judging the public mood.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Firstly Labour would have done broadly the same as the Coalition. Slightly lower figures and taking a tad longer, although this may have changed as actual events developed. They are equally deluded,wishing as they do to return us to the very situation that caused the 'problem' several times already.
You may hope that Labour are misjudging the public mood. The present evidence is inconclusive. With, not exactly U-turns, but some backtracking on Schools, policing, crime and the NHS it looks like the Coalition are not as confident of matching the public mood as they would wish.
People seem less and less convinced by the cut deep and fast mantra and with the notion that we are all in this together. This is why.
Goldman Sachs shares rise following their 'agreement' with US authorities. Market sources say this is because they are perceived to have got off lightly. This 'convenient' settlement means RBS will get one tenth of what they lost. Pity, a billion or so would have come in handy in these straightened times.

What cuts are the Treasury and the civil service going to make in their own department; they are guilty of letting Gordon Brown overspend and fiddle the forcasts for so many years even ahead of the financial crisis.

"There have been 'killing sprees' with knives but the number of victims tends to be far fewer than if guns are used."


"With the greatest respect, I suggest you look into Rwanda and the Congo, and even Kenya"

I was referring to the 'lone person' type spree.

Besides which it still remains the case that a crowd with guns is likely to kill more than a crown armed with knives.

I'm not belittling a mob armed with machettes going on the rampage but a mob armed with guns would be worse.

66 - the percentage of households with guns is 4.8% in the US???

Then how come in a gallop poll (link below) 4 in 10 Americans said they had a gun in their homes. That's 4 in 10, not 1 in 20.

https://www.gallup.com/poll/20098/gun-ownership-use-america.aspx

I also wonder if everyone asked in NI was entirely honest. perhaps the next poll could be "are you a member of a banned terrorist organisation". I suspect the answer would be 0%. Would that proove that there were no terrorists in NI?

Finally, do you think the murder rate in the US would be as high if the only guns were in the hands of the authorities? Do you think it would be higher? Lower? About the same?

66 - But let's look further at that table.

That West Germany is on there rather suggests a table a little out of date as West germany hasn't existed since 1990. This may put the table right in the middle of the 'troubles' in NI so I'd suggest that we leave NI out of things. I suspect the murder rate with guns was quite high in Northern France in the 1940's but I wouldn't use those stats to try and prove anything.

So ignoring war-torn NI, which are the countries with the four lowest murder rates with guns? Holland, Eng/Wales, Scotland, W Germany. And which are the four countries with the lowest home ownership of guns? Holland, Eng/Wales, Scotland, W Germany. And you can't see a correlation? Maybe it's Norway that's the anonomly?

Even if the presence of guns doesn't mean high murder rates by guns (although Canada and the US DO have both), it seems the absence of them leads to low murder rates by guns. That is what I would call a correlation. Wouldn't you?

77

On the sole person scenario, there have been awful cases in China recently, six in the last 12 months, where a man armed with a knife has injured and killed more than Dunblane, or Hungerford or Cumbria

No idea why there have been so many

I am not trying to oppose your post for the sake of it, it is just that knives have been used as destructively as guns of late, and if you didn't know that, you do now

In Africa, the mobs killed everyone with their knives, so killing everyone with guns would have been just the same

As a matter of fact, a gun is clearly capable of being used to kill more people more quickly than a knife, especially if it an automatic weapon

I am just posting what has happened, not giving my opinion on any of it

"73. At 1:36pm on 16 Jul 2010, Djones wrote:
Ironically, since the more stringent gun laws came in following Dunblane, there have been many times more murders using guns in the UK than ever before"

You should tell the home office about this. In Table 2b on page 43 of their report on Homicides they seem to think that whilst there were 50 gun homicides in 1998/99, there were only 39 in 2008/09. Clearly if you're right and there have been 'many times more' murders, they may be missing several hundred such cases.

[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]

I'm not surprised that Treasury has yet to receive a single submission from any gov't department about cuts. Would the department rather assume the blame, or would they rather pass it along to The Coalition Government.
25%, then 40% are heavy cuts.
It's one thing to look at the austerity measures in Spain and Italy; one thing to watch people struggle, the strikes - which by the way are starting to decline. But it's another thing entirely to experience austerity in the UK, to feel the reality: the pain.
I'd be careful with those stumps bleeding radioactive material.
Looks like the PEX Committee won't have much work to do if no cuts get submitted. All they'll need is a standard letter: "Did you forget about the 25% cuts that PEX required by today's date?"

75. Idont Believeit

Governing 'by the public mood'?
Isn't that what helped get us into this debt in the first place?

Then how come in a gallop poll (link below) 4 in 10 Americans said they had a gun in their homes. That's 4 in 10, not 1 in 20.

Say that there are 4 people in a "household", 2 of which have a gun. If you asked everyone in the household if they had a gun (and they told the truth) you'd get 50% owning a gun - but it's still one household.

Some households simply have a lot guns, there is no discrepency.

Finally, do you think the murder rate in the US would be as high if the only guns were in the hands of the authorities? Do you think it would be higher? Lower? About the same?

I think the murder rate is more to do with the culture and history of Americans than with guns per se.

80 I agree with you that numbers is a somewhat moot point but your statement that in any of the cases a man amred with a knife in China has killed more than Dunblane, Hungerford or Cumbria is just plain wrong.

At the risk of making it sound like a football score:

Hungerford 16, Dunblane 17, Cumbria 12 and the worst of the recent Chinese atrocities was Fujian Province where 8 died.

As I say, moot points so I'm going to stop posting on the subject.

79 - That is what I would call a correlation. Wouldn't you?

Yes you're right, there is a correlation ... provided you arbitrarily excise any "inconvenient" data.

At least we know that over the next few days we've got plenty of depressing stories to look forward to about why we shouldn't cut any funding for various departments and projects that only benefit one old spinster in Truro.

When will people realise that there needs to be cuts and reductions across the whole board? The fact that large parts of the population seem oblivious to this is astounding.

In 1993 a Swiss professor, Martin Killias, published a study of 18 countries concerning gun ownership, homicide and suicide. He in part concluded there was a weak correlation between total homicide and gun ownership.

For a partial criticism of his study see Dunblane Misled where using the countries studied by Killias, these researchers found a much stronger correlation between firearm homicides and car ownership. More seriously, when the United States was included in the Killias study, a stronger correlation between total homicide and gun ownership was found. When two countries were excluded, the U.S. (high gun ownership, high murder rate) and Northern Ireland (low gun ownership, high murder rate) the correlation was marginally significant.

Gary Kleck writes, "Contrary to his claim that 'the overall correlation is not contingent upon a few countries with extreme scores on the dependent and independent variable', reanalysis of the data reveals that if one excludes only the United States from the sample there is no significant association between gun ownership and the total homicide rate." (Kleck, Targeting Guns: Firearms and Their Control, p 253. Walter de Gruyter, Inc. New York, 1997.)

Kleck concludes that "the homicide-guns study was not international at all, but merely reflected the unique status of the United States as a high-gun ownership/high-violence nation...Since the positive association Killias observed was entirely dependent on the U.S. case, where self-defense is a common reason for gun ownership, this supports the conclusion that the association was attributable to the impact of the homicide rates on gun levels."

This blog is about Departmental cuts, why all the posts about firearms etc.?

41.

I thought Osbourne was set on his "iron path"...no alternative. Doesn't sound like a man with a plan B.

Of course his plan depends on the OBR growth forecasts being about spot on, and these have been questioned by the recent IMF announcement. Plus the OECD (much quoted above)have also said the public sector job losses will impede growth.

So if the structural deficit(SD) is to be balanced by 2015, and growth is lower than predicted, Osbourne will have to reduce spending further because the lower growth means the SD goes up as a % of output. And further cuts slow the economy more,growth gets squeezed further, the SD rises as % of output, further cuts.............

The death spiral.