Mumsnet Logo
My feed

to access all these features


To think how can Government departments lose an additional 40% of funding

46 replies

AsongforEurope · 21/07/2015 22:26

Osbourne announced today some Government departments will have to make 40% savings on top of cuts already announced. AIBU To think this is just ridiculous.

OP posts:

kellyandthecat · 21/07/2015 22:29

Well it depends really doesn't it. I imagine he thinks they waste enough money to be able to save 40% and keep doing their jobs and some will agree and many will obviously disagree but I do think most people don't really know what's going on at all with government spending and either fall into CUTS BAD or CUTS GOOD mindsets. So who knows but I think YABU if they waste money and YANBU if they don't!


wafflyversatile · 21/07/2015 22:31

It will be a softening up exercise. Say 40% now and we'll all supposedly be tripping over ourselves with gratitude when they only make cuts of a mere 20%. Yes it's ridiculous. YANBU.


wtfisgoingonhere · 21/07/2015 22:32

Working in local government I can't see where he thinks this will work. We had to cut 35% of staff 3 years ago and had to save €200m+ on top. I don't know about other areas but I honestly can't see where our division can make any further cuts


dangerrabbit · 21/07/2015 22:36

Here's hoping he takes that 40% off his salary.


kellyandthecat · 21/07/2015 22:40

It will be a softening up exercise.

This is a good point


longfingernails · 21/07/2015 22:47

It's a bit of a shame that Osborne is so timid with his cuts, but at least he is moving in the right direction. The government needs to lift the dead hand of the bureaucratic, over-unionised state away, and create the conditions in which private sector innovation and enterprise thrive.


IrenetheQuaint · 21/07/2015 22:51

The Tories' policies have often resulted in more work for civil servants rather than less - eg universal credit and the academies/free schools programme, both resource heavy.

I daresay there is still a bit of fat to be trimmed, but 40% is unachievable without destroying services.


SunnySomer · 21/07/2015 23:02

Longfingernails - surely they tried that with the creation of executive agencies in the 80s/early 90s. Which were kind of fine in principle to a degree - except at the same time absolutely weren't because they weren't able to make a profit and couldn't properly function as businesses. My memory of this was we had to pretend we were like the private sector while at the same time actually doing stuff to benefit society which didn't quite correlate


Shallishanti · 21/07/2015 23:08



DirtyDancing · 21/07/2015 23:08

Let's just say it's no surprise - civil servants knew weeks ago this was coming and have been assessing the impact of savings on policy areas. Some initiatives are coming to an end, some are efficiency savings and others.. Well they are going to hit front line services of course


Pantone363 · 21/07/2015 23:11

It seems like an ideological drive to strip back services to their bare bones. Literally ring fencing the NHS and defence and cutting everything else. But to what ends? To pay back/down the debt? But then what?

It reminds me of old people who live on the bare bones of their arse and die miserable but with a ton of money in the bank. What is the point? What happens after all but essential services are cut and we have money in the bank? Are they really going to get reinstated?


wafflyversatile · 21/07/2015 23:16

Exactly, Pantone, except it's not like their policies even make savings half the time. It's the opposite of a stitch in time saving nine.


longfingernails · 21/07/2015 23:20

SunnySoner That's not what I meant - I simply meant the state should do less.

However, it's also true that government and the civil service are terrible at delivery, with mediocrity oozing throughout the entire fabric of the organisation. That's why Free Schools are such a great idea - they take power away from local education authority bureaucrats and union bigwigs, and encourage new ideas and competition. They would be even better if they could make a profit too.


longfingernails · 21/07/2015 23:22

Labour are in a state of chaos, and it seems like they might seriously elect Jeremy Corbyn leader (it is very tempting to pay my £3 and do my part to encourage it!)

That means the Tories have the political space to be far more radical than they are being at the moment. I would aim for a state in which less than 30% of GDP was public spending in this Parliament.


wafflyversatile · 21/07/2015 23:23

The state should do more. Private enterprises are every bit as shit at service delivery, in fact they tend to be worse as they leech a profit out of it, and I've not met anyone who doesn't think think academies are fucking awful.

And you're on a wind up if you think schools should make a profit.


coffeeisnectar · 21/07/2015 23:26

You want schools to make a profit? How? I was under the impression schools we're there to educate, not be a business!

The vast majority of public sector services cannot make money. Things like education, provision for the old, disabled and vulnerable. Social services, day centres....all at a time when they are forced to accept a 1% pay increase while mps get 11%.

And mps claiming 9p for driving a few hundred yards. Ffs!!


longfingernails · 21/07/2015 23:27

Why shouldn't providers of public services make a profit?


silveroldie2 · 21/07/2015 23:28

It's a bit of a shame that Osborne is so timid with his cuts, but at least he is moving in the right direction. The government needs to lift the dead hand of the bureaucratic, over-unionised state away, and create the conditions in which private sector innovation and enterprise thrive.

^ Spot on.

I am also looking forward to watching labour fall into the wilderness, with or without Corbyn at the helm.


larant · 21/07/2015 23:28

They will cut services even more. Anything they don't have to provide, could go. Grants to local charities, libraries will be given to volunteers to run, youth clubs closed, parks poorly maintained, help for anyone vulnerable cut or drastically reduced.


longfingernails · 21/07/2015 23:31

Given that Kendall is a no-hoper at this stage, I actually think Corbyn is the best outcome for Labour. In a year, once it is obvious how badly he will fare, the Labour Parliamentary party might attempt a coup, with a minor split of far left MPs to the Greens or to a new 'Real Labour' party.


larant · 21/07/2015 23:36

longfingernails - Because if there is a profit to be made, that money should go back to taxpayers.

Some people don't understand that many people in the public sector traditionally worked hard because of the public sector ethos. That does not exist if it is about making a profit. Read about the disaster at the internationally renowned eye unit in Nottingham when it was taken over to be run for profit. The service almost collapsed and was in total chaos.

People who don't understand the public sector, will continue to wreck good services by making decisions like this.


longfingernails · 21/07/2015 23:40

larant I am all for ethos and non-monetary motivation. It doesn't change the fact that often private companies can provide public services in a more innovative, cheaper, more effective way than bloated civil service departments. If they save money overall, or deliver a far higher quality of service, I see no reason not to allow them to make a profit from it.


larant · 21/07/2015 23:43

They are cheaper because they cut staff wages. Lots of services have been contracted out already, and this is the way they make their money. And it is rare that they are more effective. I have seen services contracted out in a number of local authorities and the real impact, rather than what the pr says.

Now I am sure there are still bloated civil service departments in Central Government, but it will be Local Government that bears the brunt of the cuts.


Justanotherlurker · 21/07/2015 23:53

What he is expecting is that the fat within middle management will be trimmed, however what will happen is that the self serving will be in preservation mode and implement the 'shit roles downhill scenario' whilst blaming those higher up.

Front line takes the hit, everyone blames those nasty Tories while the middle management get to absolve any future crisis/underfunding on those higher up.

Was ever thus...


Justanotherlurker · 22/07/2015 00:02

They are cheaper because they cut staff wages. Lots of services have been contracted out already, and this is the way they make their money.

Careful, your creating a paradox here, for one thing you gave the 'I can make more money if I went private sector' an alternative anecdote and are showing that it could be run cheaper.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

Sign up to continue reading

Mumsnet's better when you're logged in. You can customise your experience and access way more features like messaging, watch and hide threads, voting and much more.

Already signed up?