Showing posts with label cuts. Show all posts
Showing posts with label cuts. Show all posts

Friday, 1 July 2011

DEFENCE

With Fox threatening all unsundry with lapels over at the MoD, I was reminded of a post I did last October...


DEFENCE
One of the cuts is of course defence. Leaks, Liam being angry etc etc.

But...

Has anyone actually looked at defence in terms of national expenditure?


With Liam threatening all unsundry at the MoD. I was reminded of this blog I wrote a year ago…



In terms of National Expenditure it doesn't even warrent it's own segment!

The breakdown:
Total Spending by Function
Values in £ billion

2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Spending 576 631 661 681
Pensions 100 110 117 123
Health Care 204 221 239 244
Education 76 80 86 84
Defence 38 42 44 46
Welfare 88 94 105 109

For all the debate, Defence is nothing on the national budget in comparison to social expenditure.

I honestly am in shock that a government - even a coalition government that has to appease yogurt weavers- would consider such a miniscule section of national cost to be worthy of a 10% minimum cut when health can continue spending its merry way.

Note: if they get rid of the desk pilots and civil servants rather than making sure troops are under-equipped and die unnecessarily then the cut will be fine - unfortunately as I have posted in the past, the last people to be cut are those that aren't on the front line!

Friday, 8 October 2010

TOYS OUT OF A PRAM



So the unions are threatening 'French style strikes' over the prospect of their pensions being altered.

I have said over and over again that we cannot afford the public sector (PS) pensions bill. WE couldn't ten years ago and we certainly can't now.

The reason why PS got good pensions was that traditionally PS was poorly paid, jobs for life.

But...

Since Labour got in, PS outstripped the private sector in terms of pay and conditions.

So what is the excuse for brilliant pensions?

Apparently some PS workers are still poorly paid.

Well, y'know what, so are some private sector workers. But they are not going to get the taxpayer to fund their retirement.

So why should PS expect the taxpayer to do so?

You are not some special breed that needs credit and protection. You, in essence, are people who do not generate wealth for this country, you spend the wealth of the nation.

So what makes you so special?

Oh and to the unions, 'French-style strikes'? Fair enough, but on one condition, we should be allowed to have Gendarmerie-styled response to these threats.

Remember, if you throw all your toys out of a pram, you will end up with no toys.

Saturday, 2 October 2010

DEFENCE

One of the cuts is of course defence. Leaks, Liam being angry etc etc.

But...

Has anyone actually looked at defence in terms of national expenditure?



In terms of National Expenditure it doesn't even warrent it's own segment!

The breakdown:
Total Spending by Function
Values in £ billion

2008 2009 2010 2011
Total Spending 576 631 661 681
Pensions 100 110 117 123
Health Care 204 221 239 244
Education 76 80 86 84
Defence 38 42 44 46
Welfare 88 94 105 109

For all the debate, Defence is nothing on the national budget in comparison to social expenditure.

I honestly am in shock that a government - even a coalition government that has to appease yogurt weavers- would consider such a miniscule section of national cost to be worthy of a 10% minimum cut when health can continue spending its merry way.

Note: if they get rid of the desk pilots and civil servants rather than making sure troops are under-equipped and die unnecessarily then the cut will be fine - unfortunately as I have posted in the past, the last people to be cut are those that aren't on the front line!

Sunday, 18 July 2010

CALING AUNTIE



Jeremy Hunt has put the BBC on notice about cuts when its Charter comes up for renewal.

Now there is a couple of things that makes me nervous about this and is actually symptomatic of the Civil Service culture anyway.

1) Do you think the cuts will be in the huge infratructure that the BBC employs? All those middle-tiered managers, training officers, diversity and health n safety officers etc?

Nope, it will be the programmes themselves that will face the cuts. Doctor Who is already on a 5% cut in budget, rumours abound that Top Gear is also facing stringent cuts as well - this is despite them being vast money earners for BBC Worldwide.

2) What do you think the response of the BBC will be? It will be that this is a threat to programmes that will be scrapped, cut etc, like the NHS. Not the management system. The programmes themselves, programmes that are already being cut to pay for the infrastructure of the BBC.

This is what gets me. Cuts can be made, jobs can be axed, without a massive threat to services. Why all these managers etc? What do they all do? This is what the BBC and all of the public sector should be looking at. For the BBC, the non-creatives; the NHS, the non-medical/front-line. Get rid of all these people who seem to be there to propogate their own jobs.


Also, I do think the BBC has lost its way as it's grown to its behemoth-size.

It is meant to educate and entertain and also supply programmes/services that aren't available elswhere.

I know it's a bit of a damned if we do, damned if we don't position vis a vis rating but:

1) Scrap/sell off Radio One. There's no need for it to be paid for by the licence fee.
2) Scrap News 24 - waste of resource. If something major is happening then report it on the main channels.
3) Scrap BBC3 - or reform it. There is some gems on the channels, otherwise it's full of dross that can be replicated on Channel 4.
4) Boost BBC 2. Get it back to its former glories instead of the home/cookery channel is seems to have been morphed into.
5) Ditto for BBC 4. There has been some crackers on this under-acheiving channel. The thing is, I only know because I look at what's on - most people need a bit of a push.
6) BBC Worldwide. We know from its accounts that it is profitable. We know that it's top earners are facing cuts - why? Surely each programme should have "ownership" of some of its own branding. I think that a percentage of each individual profits should be plowed back into that programme whilst it is on the air and then the rest should be diverted to programming.
7) Increase the freelance output. Make the BBC more of a publishing house for, say 60% of output. This gives jobs to the industry and would probably be cheaper.
8) Seperate BBC Films from the licence fee - make it stand on its own succes/failure.

I'm sure there are many more but to begin with, this is a start!