So are you saying that the Government are wrong to suggest they can narrow the deficit with efficiency savings?

The Tories really need to make more noise about their policy of publishing all government expenditure above £25,000. That is the policy that is going to root out wasteful government spending and allow these tax cuts.

Think how much money has been saved on MPs expenses since we saw the details. Now project that onto the £600bn+ of total government spending. Having thousands of eyes poring over the government books will help pick out vast amounts of money being spent that doesn’t need to be.

I just don’t get why the Tories are so quiet about what is easily their best deficit reduction policy.

The savings that can be made are so obvious it hurts. Get rid of ID cards and everything that goes with them. Get rid of e-borders. Get rid of PCSOs. Get rid of the UK Border Agency. Get rid of the ANPR system and stop paying for CCTV on every corner. Make teachers teach classes themselves, instead of having half a dozen “classroom assistants”. Stop fighting colonial wars for the Americans.

Close down anyone of vast numbers of pointless pseudo environmental quangos from Natural England down. Stop giving government money to charities.

It’s almost certainly fair to say that most of the money spent by government in the UK is wasted. The state doesn’t actually do the things that need doing, like mend the roads and empty the bins and yet it’s share of our economy is around half.

Poor George Osborne, he’s always been talked down when he’s trying his best! I think he deserves a break: http://tmponline.org/Or

Well, it does rather look as if Cameron and Osborne aren’t singing from the same hymn-sheet. The last two paragraph’s of DC’s that Sunder quotes are just plain common sense.

So the answer to [1] is “yes”. This is not to say that there are no efficiency savings to be made. Chris’s list is a useful start, with the exception of “stop giving government money to charities” – which I’ll come back to – and I would add “simplify health care delivery by moving it into local government” – councils are more efficient, on the whole, than Care Trusts (they have a culture of accountability to electors) and the distinction between health and social services is wholly artificial and wasteful.

As to charities, government funding is often described as grant aid (Chris’s “gifts”) but most of that is effectively a contract for the charity to provide certain services which the Government wishes to see provided and which the voluntary sector – because it is less rulebound than statutory agencies – can do so more effectively. Bodies like the Audit Commission and the King’s Fund look at this issue on a regular basis. Don’t confuse a few grants to controversial bodies which the newspapers make a meal of with the great generality of such funding.

[5] Just to expand on my last paragraph by giving a concrete example.

A day nursery provides care for children up to the age of 11. It is funded by a mix of grant aid from its local council (and possibly elsewhere) and by charging parents direct. It wishes to maintain this model so that children from different social backgrounds can mix with each other, particularly in the pre-school years. I don’t know how it fixes its fees to parents, but I wouldn’t be surprised if it was a price taker, which would almost certainly allow it to cross-subsidise and so require a lower council (and therefore government) grant than it would otherwise need.

I look forward to Chris’s return to explain why this an example of “waste” that should be put a stop to. (He may of course be opposed to Sure Start and all who sail in her, but that’s a whole different ball game.)

3. It’s almost certainly fair to say that most of the money spent by government in the UK is wasted. The state doesn’t actually do the things that need doing, like mend the roads and empty the bins and yet it’s share of our economy is around half.

You make decent points that the state doesn’t need to do all the things it currently does, and that some programs (such as ID cards, Trident, etc) could be cut. Reducing what the state does would save money, and is intellectually honest for any politician to propose. But making “efficiency savings” can be somethings entirely different, and often requires departments to do most of what they currently do but with less money. Savings are nebulous and uncertain, and may come at the expense of services. It’s best to bank them only once they’ve been made, nor rely on the beforehand to fund a tax cut.

Even where savings are obvious though, they’re not always welcome. It’s more efficient for some hospitals to be downgraded and certain services centralized elsewhere. But the closure of A&Es and maternity units isn’t popular, and nor is the proposal for polyclinics.

Mike,

I’ll bite on the day nursery, because there is a point that needs answering before your point is logically valid. The state part funds a day nursery: but is the provision of nursery care the responsibility of the state? If not, then it is indeed waste: however laudable or productive the aim, it is not what the state is for; it would be like you paying me to build you a house (hint – don’t do this) and me painting for you an abstract watercolour. Just because the state does something, does that mean the state has to do that thing? If it does not, it is waste.

[8] See the last sentence of my previous post, Watchman.

Mike,

I did, but since Chris is just repeating the normal lists with no consideration, I thought I might offer you a bit more of a challenge, in that spending should not be assumed to be right unless otherwise demonstrated. Whatever it is on, spending can be waste, in that it does not serve the purpose required.

I’m not personally convinced we should cut Surestart, although I have seen examples of its failure or misuse alongside successes, so I do not believe it has any magical properties. However, a case to justify government provision of nursery education needs to be made to justify spending. The position of requiring people to justify not spending money seems illogical and ridiculous.

I hold no brief for Osborne, but three points to bear in mind:

1) The NI “cut” is a cancellation of a proposed tax increase. The money won’t disappear, it will be spent by people rather than by the government.
2) £6 billion a year is a tiny fraction of state spending. When was the last time the government’s annual borrowing forecast was less than £6 billion out (on the wrong side)?
3) The government has stated that deficit will be halved in four years, but has yet to say how this will be achieved. The sums involved are much greater than £6 billion.

All three major parties have a lot more explaining to do, and this post just comes over as partisan propaganda.

[10] Indeed, the Treasury does just that exercise every few years – you would know better than I! It’s a lot easier to make these arguments when you don’t have to go back to the voters and justify expenditure cuts. When politicians talk of “efficiency savings” they tend not to mean deciding that government should no longer provide nurseries, libraries or whatever – they mean providing the existing service mix at less cost.

I think you’re just being mischievous…

Osborne has simply managed to underline what many of us have long since recognised – that he really doesn’t understand what he is doing.

A man from the local Conservatives called a week or so back to ask for my support at the election – the constituency is one of the marginals that the Conservatives need to win. I said not unless Osborne is sacked because he really doesn’t understand fiscal issues.

For good measure, I added that John Redwood plainly didn’t understand either when he said interest rates had been kept too high for too long: Britain’s huge consumer debt mountain and house-price bubble had evidently escaped his attention. I then suggested that Cameron was talking rubbish when he said, “There is such a thing as society, it’s just not the same thing as the state.” If so, I asked, how many societies do we have in Britain and how can we tell? Sadly, the gentleman caller couldn’t say.

More could have been said at the time. Like, how come the Conservatives were calling for more deregulation when one of the major problems on both sides of the Atlantic was of deficient regulation of banks and other financial intermediaries?

If only governments and monetary authorities had taken greater heed of this stark warning in 2003 about derivatives from Warren Buffett:

“The rapidly growing trade in derivatives poses a ‘mega-catastrophic risk’ for the economy and most shares are still ‘too expensive’, legendary investor Warren Buffett has warned.”
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/2817995.stm

Everyone seems to be forgetting that the “cut” in NI (which is really not a cut, but is reversing a raise) will effectively be funded by starting to cut spending (or the equivalent efficiency savings) a year earlier than Labour would cut public spending.

Love the way though, that Left wing types sit there attacking Osbourne over spending when the Labour party itself has given little or no indication on how it is to cut the deficit (to a still enormous 6% of GDP) over the next 5 years, whilst in essence defending a tax hike on lower paid workers and employers!

The hypocrisy is frankly astounding.

I don’t have any children so i fully support new labour’s policy of piling up the debt and living way beyond our means. It will of cause all come crashing down but that’s for your children to worry about and we will be part of the caliphate by then so why should I care. Bring on another debt fuelled boom !! Its 2007 all over again !! Vote Brown !!

The Conservatives Elephant Trap for Labour

Since before Xmas the Treasury, and soon after that the Conservatives Treasury team became aware of procedures to positively identify cost/waste reduction possibilities in any operation.or department.

I f such procedures were already in place the amount of waste/excess cost was already measured, and could be reported. If such procedures were NOT in place, the expereince of many years indicates the probability of a 12-15% cost/waste reduction potential once the procedures have identified it.

The Conservatives know this, they cannot quantify “savings” at present as there are few procedures in place in the Public Services to do this.BUT EQUALLY DUE TO THE LACK OF THOSE PROCEDURES – WHICH IS KNOWN – THEY CAN ESTIMATE THE LIKELY POTENTIAL, AND THEN “MARKET” A PROPORTION OF IT AS THEY ARE DOING.

If anyone wants to know what these procedures look like see
http://herehydro.weebly.com/data-files-downloads.html and download supvcostcont02.ppt – third item and look at the slide notes too.
G Brown does not like them as they are a “bottom up” not a “top down” procedure
A Stobart, Orleton, Leomiinster, Herefordshire 01 568 780837