Cameron's vision for Britain ...

[Old Greg]

Yes, but, also
Investigation shows that more than 38,000 government workers earn over £100,000 | The Bureau of Investigative Journalism

Maybe I'm just la-la-la not listening but it seems to me that local government is still capable of paying huge salaries and wasting huge sums of money while all the time crying about how government has forced them to cut services.

If 400,000+ people have an income* of >£100k in the UK, why would we be surprised (or think it improper) if approx. 10% of them work in the public sector (not just local government, mind), when 25% of UK workers are employed in the public sector.

http://www.ons.gov.uk/ons/rel/pse/pu...se-2013q1.html

Income in the United Kingdom - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[SueEllen]

I don't think public services are particularly overpriced or poorly delivered when you consider the spend relative to other countries

Why do councils, government agencies and the NHS use temps and contractors?

[Old Greg]

But you still haven't said why you think they shouldn't cut the budget, if we can't afford it as a country.
Or do you think we should have perfect public services no matter what?
And you have no evidence that Cameron is a pare-it-to-the-bone ideologue. I rather suspect that his instincts are one-nation Tory except he's come to power at a bad time.

A fair question. First we must accept that public finances are in a mess, due to a combination of world economic conditions and (I suggest as someone with Keynesian instincts) Labour deficit spending in growth. So we have to do something about it. I don not believe it necessarily follows that because cutting libraries is something, we should do it. That is the result of a government policy of sticking cuts on local government.

There are two things we need to achieve. One is to cut the deficit, and the other is to cut the debt and they are of course linked.

My view is that the solution lies in both cuts in expenditure and increases in taxation. The difficulty of course in tax increases is the risk that productive activities are discouraged (through taxes on profits and labour). The answer, I think, lies in taxing assets - a land tax is an example, and the IMF has some ideas about a one off asset tax, which is interesting if it can be achieved, although there are drawback around risk of capital flight. I expect another inevitable solution will be to inflate the debt away and erode savings and pensions. Not ideal, but nothing is.

Then there will still be a need to cut spending. There are several options which are worth pursuing:

- Defence: we do not need to be the world's assistant constable and we should stop such post-imperial pretensions.
- Public sector salaries (yes I know in last post we said we shouldn't be surprised): there is a good case for lopping a % off higher salaries in this job market, because the need to compete for workers is less when there are fewer opportunities elsewhere.
- Off book PFI contracts should be forcibly renegotiated with legislation to back it up (effectively a partial default, but not on bonds).

There may be a need to shut some libraries etc., but it should be done as part of an evenly spread package, with taxation taking some of the slack, rather than the brunt being taken by local government provided services.

[SueEllen]

There may be a need to shut some libraries etc., but it should be done as part of an evenly spread package, with taxation taking some of the slack, rather than the brunt being taken by local government provided services.

The reason why people don't want libraries closed is because they are a means of encouraging children into getting educated.

One of the main issues is how do we deal with the rising cost of the aging population on the NHS and social care so they aren't neglected?

[Old Greg]

Why do councils, government agencies and the NHS use temps and contractors?

Why does the private sector?

[Old Greg]

The reason why people don't want libraries closed is because they are a means of encouraging children into getting educated.

One of the main issues is how do we deal with the rising cost of the aging population on the NHS and social care so they aren't neglected?

Libraries are interesting. I forgot about them until I had kids and now I really see the value in them. I wonder how many e-book readers don't realise you can borrow e-books from the library.

[SueEllen]

Libraries are interesting. I forgot about them until I had kids and now I really see the value in them. I wonder how many e-book readers don't realise you can borrow e-books from the library.

I have two public libraries within walking distance.

I noticed one of them is basically a kids library - it's completely kitted out for the babies and kids under 11 to use it. Adults wouldn't use it because my area is not poor and a high proportion of people in the area have degrees according to population statistics.

The other library is the main library it's mostly used by teenagers and the elderly. I'm not sure if the teenagers come from the large estates that is about half a mile away but I wouldn't be surprised.

[SueEllen]

Why does the private sector?

Getting rid of staff in the private sector is easier than in the public sector, and the pension and sickness benefits tend not to be as generous.

[original PM]

in this day and age where every chav and his dog have an i phone and therefore you have the a huge virtual libraary at your fingertips - why is it such a shame libraries are being closed down?

is it not that simple the physical written word is no longer an optimal way to deliver information?

oh also

I think Cameron looks over the Atlantic and sees a vision of a state where public services can be run into the ground and the poor left to subsist on food stamps and charity.

and that is a problem why?

[Mich the Tester]

My view is that the solution lies in both cuts in expenditure and increases in taxation.

No, the problem with tax cuts is that they are not a credible way of increasing revenue because the net payers of tax (that's probably a minority, but a majority feel that they are net payers) feel that they already pay a lot, and see that however much they pay, government always spends too much, so it's madness to give government more money. History teaches us the following; give them 100 pounds, they spend 105 and give you a debt of 5. Give them 200, they spend 210 and give you a debt of 10. So anyone who wants to give government billions more quite frankly needs his head examining.

I am wondering whether we need to seperate the functions of raising revenues and spending revenues altogether, whereby a bank account will be filled with as much money as the taxpayer wanted and managed to raise for the government, and there's no overdraft facility; when the money's up, that's it; government has to wait until next year. The US system sort of has a facility for shutting down government spending, but it's been abused and it has a big problem; when congress refuses to agree the funds, bits of government start closing down and the first people to not recieve their paycheques are low level workers, pensioners and the likes; the shutdown of money should start at the top. First government ministers get no salary, then MPs, then senior civil servants, and then down the hierarchy.

I know this is a radical idea and maybe a bit crazy, but I'd like to hear better ideas for getting government spending under control once and for all.