Government's Spending Challenge

[David]

The age at which people in England get a free bus pass could go up from 60 to 65 sooner than previously planned, if new cost-cutting plans are agreed.

 

But government sources told the BBC they thought it was unlikely to happen.

 

Labour wanted to push the age of eligibility up to 65 by 2020, but the Department for Transport has suggested bringing this forward as part of the coalition government's budget cuts.

 

Currently, the department spends

[patiirc]

The age at which people in England get a free bus pass could go up from 60 to 65 sooner than previously planned, Labour wanted to push the age of eligibility up to 65 by 2020, but the Department for Transport has suggested bringing this forward as part of the coalition government's budget cuts.Currently, the department spends

[David]

Re edited the report cutting out the spurious nonsense including legal challenges and other doom mongering (where is the report from dude?)

The BBC site.Personally, I don't give a fuck who it was that proposed the idea first.The bus pass should always be available to those over the age of 60. That's how it is, and how it should remain. The elderly get shafted enough in this country as it is.

[JNLister]

A source for the over 60s (namely my mum) says axing the bus pass completely, which must have crossed government minds, would be the one cut which would genuinely be electoral suicide.Also, because the bus companies get paid everytime someone uses the pass, there are quite a few routes, particularly in rural areas, which wouldn't be commercially viable if all the wrinklies had to pay for their travel and cut back the number of journeys they make.

[JNLister]

Here's a classic lie for you. Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt says the licence fee needs to be cut as part of the deficit reduction.The BBC is fully funded by the licence fee. The money it spends is identical to the tax raised for it. Cutting the licence fee and reducing BBC spending will make absolutely no difference to the public deficit.

[Steveo2007]

Here's a classic lie for you. Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt says the licence fee needs to be cut as part of the deficit reduction.

 

The BBC is fully funded by the licence fee. The money it spends is identical to the tax raised for it. Cutting the licence fee and reducing BBC spending will make absolutely no difference to the public deficit.

I think it's more a way of applying the "we're all in it together" rule rather than deficit reduction. I agree with the prospect of reducing the licence fee as way of encouraging a more austere atmosphere within the corporation as there's no denying there's excessive spending within. In the news they said the BBC controller was paid something like

[JNLister]

The entire salaries of every presenter on every show on every station (TV and radio) plus every journalist across the entire corporation works out at

[David]

I've always got a bit of a laugh out of the fact that we will see cuts on virtually all fronts in this country to save money, including taking money from schooling, except the likes of the following;

 

UK spending on Afghanistan aid projects is set to rise by 40% in efforts to hasten the withdrawal of troops from the country.

 

International Development Secretary Andrew Mitchell is to say securing progress there is his top priority.

 

The government has already committed

[d-d-d-dAz]

They're re-routing funds from the International Aid budget to fund the withdrawal, apparently.

[David]

They're re-routing funds from the International Aid budget to fund the withdrawal, apparently.

Yeah, so they say.

 

[bobbins]

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg said: "We're not going to scrap free bus passes but clearly we're going to review how it operates.

 

"But it's far, far too early to suggest we are going to do one thing or another, because this is all the kind of thing we're going to have to look at in the round as we try to balance the books over the autumn in the comprehensive spending round."

I love that bit. Oh we'll rip the heart out of the NHS and effectively tear down schools without a moment's thought, but making non-retired 60 year-olds pay for bus travel, that requires some serious consideration and debate.

 

They're re-routing funds from the International Aid budget to fund the withdrawal, apparently.

So the ringfencing of the International Aid budget is basically bullshit. Money intended for the world's poor will probably be used to prop up the corrupt regime in Afghanistan.

[David]

So the ringfencing of the International Aid budget is basically bullshit. Money intended for the world's poor will probably be used to prop up the corrupt regime in Afghanistan.

Indeed.

 

Although, it means we'll have "the troops" home by 2015 or whatever date they are tossing around now, so that makes up for it, eh?

[David]

Further to the earlier discussion regarding the NHS, and the new Government proposals to "bring the power back to the grass roots", I found this interesting article;

 

This cabinet of millionaires plans to sound the death knell for the NHS. Tory health secretary Andrew Lansley said his proposals would bring 'power to the people' with control of most NHS spending in England transferring to "family doctors." This is nonsense. Power is being transferred to private companies in the NHS's largest ever rash of privatisation.

 

Just look at Lansley's plans for GP and hospital services. He wants 80% of the NHS budget to be businesses run by groups of GPs. But most GP practices are busy places, dealing with their priorities - treating patients' illnesses.

 

Even if they form 'consortia', as government ministers suggest, how many of Britain's 35,000 GPs have the time or the knowhow to operate budgets totalling millions of pounds?

 

But adverts will soon be winging their way to every doctors' surgery from private health care 'experts' who claim they do know how. These private health and insurance multinationals, like United Health, Bupa and Humana, who already have a foothold in the health service, will charge GPs and the NHS for their knowledge. And they will invite in their private sector mates for a share of the profits.

 

The Financial Times says the market for administering the NHS budget "could grow at least tenfold from its current

[David]

The UK's councils could do the same amount of work with 500,000 fewer staff if they matched the productivity of private firms, a report has claimed.

 

Junior staff in local authorities were, on average, productive only 32% of the time during working hours, said management consultancy Knox D'Arcy.

 

It said this compared with an average of 44% in the private sector.

 

Public sector union Unison said the study was "misleading, unrepresentative and unhelpful".

 

Knox D'Arcy, which carried out 1,855 workers' surveys, said firms had better systems to ensure targets were met.

 

"Put simply, by matching average private sector staff utilisation levels, local government could increase its productivity by roughly a third," said Paul Weekes, the report's author and principal consultant at Knox D'Arcy.

 

"This sort of dramatic increase would help significantly offset the cuts that are on the agenda as part of the Government's austerity package."

 

Dave Prentis, Unison general secretary, said the Knox D'Arcy report "flies in the face of evidence on public sector productivity", which he said had been rising since 2006.

 

"It is a red herring to compare private and public sector productivity," he added.

 

"How can you measure the productivity of a care worker and compare it with a car worker on a production line?"

Source: The BBC

 

Hey, there's an idea! Why not just farm out the work to private sector companies then? We could then save a pittance in the grand scheme of things and get rid of 500,000 of the lazy fuckers!

 

I mean, surely we should be expecting junior workers to be up to speed and meeting productivity levels right away? Training? Learning to do the job correctly? Fuck that, youngster! Get stuck in!

 

That Dave Prentis fellow is a fool. Why should care workers be treated any differently than any other staff member? Sure, their job content will be changing dramatically day to day depending on the clients they have to deal with, but surely they can learn to cut corners in order to meet the targets?

[Steveo2007]

Hey, there's an idea! Why not just farm out the work to private sector companies then? We could then save a pittance in the grand scheme of things and get rid of 500,000 of the lazy fuckers!

 

I mean, surely we should be expecting junior workers to be up to speed and meeting productivity levels right away? Training? Learning to do the job correctly? Fuck that, youngster! Get stuck in!

 

That Dave Prentis fellow is a fool. Why should care workers be treated any differently than any other staff member? Sure, their job content will be changing dramatically day to day depending on the clients they have to deal with, but surely they can learn to cut corners in order to meet the targets?

When the private sector can offer better productivity, then yes. But this is just another example of those bastard Tories giving the poor a battering right?