Quote Originally Posted by IndieHibby View Post
This quote is hidden because you are ignoring this member. Show Quote
Which is an argument for efficiency-cuts in the public sector. People accuse this notion - public sector bloated and inefficeint - of being Daily Mail-induced hype.

Which is bollocks, of course. I have (just) enough experience to know this.

So, public sector middle and senior management know that a large saving can be made in spending. It's up to the politicians to give the public sector the freedom to do it.

If this turns out not to be a big enough saving, then job cuts must come. Just because Labour has spent the last x number of years adding thousands of useless occupations the the state payroll, when they should have been paying off debt or investing in major infrastructure projects, doesn't mean that those jobs shouldn't be cut now.

However, unless efficency begins at the centre of the state and works it's way out, we will end up with a super-priviledged elite at the top-end of the state, and reduction in key services at the bottom end. Which would make us even more like Greece than we currently are.

Which shower of *******s have made these kind of noises most recently?
Which 'useless' occupation are you talking about cutting? Every government makes noises about 'efficiency cuts' before every election (as if Government actually has some mythical 'red tape' that can be snipped at every opportunity, and every government fails to achieve it. Most Government spending happens because the implication of not spending in certain areas mean economic pain elsewhere (for example; stop investing in education and apprenticeships=lower trained workforce=lower pay=lower taxes=lower income to the Treasury).

If our current economic woes were caused by high Govt spending, as per the Swedish model, excessive cuts in spending to correct it might make some sense. But it wasnt, it was caused by bailing out the banking system.