Government's Spending Challenge

[thefallenangel]

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?

 

 

Welsh water and network rail are 2 examples of how farming out to the private sector has failed and both have been pulled back in to save money. However there are council savings to still be made.

[David]

Another spending cut has been revelaed by the Government, with NHS Direct getting bumped;

 

The health secretary, Andrew Lansley, has let slip that the government is planning to scrap NHS Direct, the hugely popular medical telephone helpline.

 

While touring Basingstoke and North Hampshire hospital on Thursday, he revealed that the phone service

[David]

According to The Scotsman today, the adviser to Holyrood's finance committee has said ministers should consider charging hospital fees of up to

[David]

Did anyone see 'The street that cut everything' last night? It was quite interesting, if a little sensationalised for television.

 

Here's a review of the show for anyone wishing to know more about it;

 

How do you get people to watch 90 minutes of primetime television about the choices local councils face when cutting services and what David Cameron's big society might look like in practice? You turn it into a reality show. Government cuts as entertainment is both morally and factually iffy. Where do you draw the line? Three contestants competing to get one donor heart? And even if you're happy with the ethics, reality shows thrive on human narratives largely created in the editing suite; the viewer can never be sure just what has been left on the cutting-room floor or to what extent the participants are playing to the camera. But by the end of The Street That Cut Everything (BBC1) the means probably just about justified the ends.

 

The idea was simple. Initially, too simple. Withdraw all services from one street in Preston for six weeks, give the residents back their pro-rata council tax and let them get on with managing everything for themselves. So first Nick Robinson, taking time out from tormenting politicians to torment Preston, turned off the street lights before fly-tipping some fridges and sofas, painting graffiti on the walls and getting every dog in the neighbourhood to foul the footpaths. It was just all a bit too pat, too contrived. A child of 10 could have seen the flaw in the set-up; council services clearly operate on economies of scale and any clearup would cost a few houses disproportionately more in effort and money.

 

It became more interesting when the residents had to decide whether to pool their rebate and make choices about whether to fund housing benefit for Tracie along with the after-school club for her daughter and home care for Janette's disabled father who lived elsewhere in Preston. They did, though in some cases reluctantly, with Graham suggesting that Tracie might have been better off not having so many kids and dogs if she couldn't afford to look after them and with John saying that a lot of people probably agreed with Graham but were scared to say so in public.

 

In the end we didn't actually learn that much about what councils can and cannot afford or whether they offer good value for money; only that they manage it better than a bunch of 50 amateurs trying to do it on their own. But we did learn why the big society is probably a doomed project. However much people might talk up their community credentials, when given the financial choice most are only really happy to pay for the services they believe they benefit from directly and not for those they might one day need or are required by the more vulnerable. So a civilised society depends on a state which removes that choice, as otherwise everyone would be at each other's throat.

 

Whether the street got any benefit from participating in the programme is more questionable. Tracie was left sobbing that she didn't want to accept the housing benefit if her neighbours felt like that and said she wanted to move, while Janette and Maria could barely talk to one another. Other feuds simmered. As Tony observed: "The community is in tatters. It will be a long time, if ever, before it recovers."

[patiirc]

Did anyone see 'The street that cut everything' last night? It was quite interesting, if a little sensationalised for television.

 

Here's a review of the show for anyone wishing to know more about it;

 

How do you get people to watch 90 minutes of primetime television about the choices local councils face when cutting services and what David Cameron's big society might look like in practice? You turn it into a reality show. Government cuts as entertainment is both morally and factually iffy. Where do you draw the line? Three contestants competing to get one donor heart? And even if you're happy with the ethics, reality shows thrive on human narratives largely created in the editing suite; the viewer can never be sure just what has been left on the cutting-room floor or to what extent the participants are playing to the camera. But by the end of The Street That Cut Everything (BBC1) the means probably just about justified the ends.

 

The idea was simple. Initially, too simple. Withdraw all services from one street in Preston for six weeks, give the residents back their pro-rata council tax and let them get on with managing everything for themselves. So first Nick Robinson, taking time out from tormenting politicians to torment Preston, turned off the street lights before fly-tipping some fridges and sofas, painting graffiti on the walls and getting every dog in the neighbourhood to foul the footpaths. It was just all a bit too pat, too contrived. A child of 10 could have seen the flaw in the set-up; council services clearly operate on economies of scale and any clearup would cost a few houses disproportionately more in effort and money.

 

It became more interesting when the residents had to decide whether to pool their rebate and make choices about whether to fund housing benefit for Tracie along with the after-school club for her daughter and home care for Janette's disabled father who lived elsewhere in Preston. They did, though in some cases reluctantly, with Graham suggesting that Tracie might have been better off not having so many kids and dogs if she couldn't afford to look after them and with John saying that a lot of people probably agreed with Graham but were scared to say so in public.

 

In the end we didn't actually learn that much about what councils can and cannot afford or whether they offer good value for money; only that they manage it better than a bunch of 50 amateurs trying to do it on their own. But we did learn why the big society is probably a doomed project. However much people might talk up their community credentials, when given the financial choice most are only really happy to pay for the services they believe they benefit from directly and not for those they might one day need or are required by the more vulnerable. So a civilised society depends on a state which removes that choice, as otherwise everyone would be at each other's throat.

 

Whether the street got any benefit from participating in the programme is more questionable. Tracie was left sobbing that she didn't want to accept the housing benefit if her neighbours felt like that and said she wanted to move, while Janette and Maria could barely talk to one another. Other feuds simmered. As Tony observed: "The community is in tatters. It will be a long time, if ever, before it recovers."

 

 

See thats all well and good trying to justify XYZ and that this will end and that will end and people will only pay certain things. However this is Preston Epicentre of the Known Universe, or rather most people who live here seem to think so. The people couldnt organise a piss up in a brewery and those who wanted to affect change were unable to because of some complete idiotic behaviours. Including Health and Safety and PC gone mad and the complete inablilty to do anything because they were paralysed with fear of fucking up. This is Preston and always will be because despite all the progressive change and supposed forward thinking attitudes. Most people here are fucking morons and also Labour supporters ( its a dyed in the wool city and nationally has been a Labour seat for years,local there has been a lil flip flopping but now back to labour again.) irrespective of what happens. Ken Hudson was the villain of the peice because he was tory and thus is the enemy. He is no longer council leader having been kicked out last election afaik. The same things that fucked up the street collective are exactly those albeit on a larger scale which fuck up the council because basically they would rather have an easy ride and scaremonger people into doing nothing rather than make a decision and live by that choice.

[Ronnie]

Did anyone see 'The street that cut everything' last night? It was quite interesting, if a little sensationalised for television.

Yep, I caught it midway through the first part and then watched and recorded the second.

 

It really reinforced how wide a range of services are provided by our local authorities, and how much carnage would result if communities and voluntary organisations were left to find private solutions. Don't get me wrong; I work in local government (and have done so off and on for the last eight years) and have witnessed some of the frightening inefficiencies prevalent throughout, but even if the Council tax bill is higher than it might otherwise be, I still consider it to be good value if it spares me having to sort out my own refuse, lighting, and social-care assistance. I'd much rather do without that money and live in a nice area than have a rebate and be in the mess that those residents were.

 

They did, though in some cases reluctantly, with Graham suggesting that Tracie might have been better off not having so many kids and dogs if she couldn't afford to look after them and with John saying that a lot of people probably agreed with Graham but were scared to say so in public.

 

I agreed with his sentiment, actually. That woman constantly had her hand out, whilst seemingly doing nothing to contribute herself.