Comments on: Investment in Infrastructure

By: StevenL

StevenL — Tue, 29 Sep 2009 01:02:22 +0000

As one of those “legions of officials whose responsibilities have been generated by the cascade of bad law from Whitehall and Brussels” I couldn’t agree with you more. Rules and policies cost money. We’re spending 50% of GDP on public services now and we can’t deal with the rules and policies we’ve got already. I’d love a government that just spent a few years getting rid of rules and policies instead of making more of them. You’ll never get the EU to work like that though and I’ll eat my hat if a tory government does.

I particularly liked:

“… all happily filling their days in meetings and PowerPoint presentations, job accreting to job in a vast snowball of public-sector employment”

Yep, that’s about the measure of it, except when you cut a town hall budget, it’s these middle manager networkers that decide what to cut on the front line. Next they’ll start bleating about how you’re cutting meals on wheels and want residents to pay to have their bin emptied. They won’t cut their own jobs.

So make sure you get the accountants in, but unless you’re prepared to force through the 15 – 25% workforce reductions they will inevitably recommend (and most empire building council directors will most certainly not be) then it’s just another complete waste of time and more money. Seen it done before, accountants said we were 25% overstaffed so they hired more people to implement the other recommendations of the report.

I guess the only answer is just a headline reduction in the revenue support grant for every town hall and quango at Cabinet level, then let the bureaucrats fight over what’s left in the pot, if you’re brave enough that is.

“…We should be looking at new ways to provide incentives to pension funds, and foreign investment funds – notably from the Middle East – to take a stake in projects that offer steady, long-term yields.”

I was just saying to someone the other day that the best way to create more affordable rental accommodation would be to encourage the big pensions pots to become landlords. They could go for the gap in the market where you’re not rich enough to buy, renting a decent pad at market rates is a squeeze and don’t want to breed your way into social housing. The tax breaks they would get as pension pots would mean they could wipe the floor with the competition and provide young people with good housing whilst diversifying their risk away from just equities. A solution to the public sector pensions crisis?

“You are forced to have a difficult conversation with someone you may even think of as a friend.”

That’s the real crux of it in the town halls, most of them have been working together for 20 years or more. Some of them just take it for granted that their job is worthwhile, others realised it’s a load of bollocks, some sorry fools think the world would implode into some kind of apocolipse if they didn’t write those reports and PowerPoint presentations. It doesn’t matter though, no one is going to push to sack their friend of 20 years regardless how much it would improve efficiency to do so.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Peter

Peter — Sun, 27 Sep 2009 11:41:58 +0000

Boris was saying on – probably Fox News – whilst in NY that we shouldn’t regulate bankers, and as the Tories are apparently keen to drop the FSA perhaps this sort of bureaucracy and red-tape would be a good place to start.

After all, what could possibly go wrong with giving bankers free reign to do as they will.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Endangered cyclist

Endangered cyclist — Sat, 26 Sep 2009 13:07:18 +0000

I agree with the sentiment of this article but where’s the delivery on the ground? I cycle across fiveways junction on the a23 every day and have to use the footways to survive. The other day I was fined by one of the Mayor’s PCSO’s for this -why spend money on this and not on providing facilities for cyclists instead?

Rate This: 0 0

By: Bill Sticker

Bill Sticker — Thu, 24 Sep 2009 15:50:24 +0000

What cuts? Anyone in city hall whose non-job is to do with ‘global warming or climate change’. Them you can do without.

Even more so as the source data (Base temperature readings underpinning the whole anthropogenic climate change boondoggle appear to have gone missing. Is the whole thing a fake of Piltdown man proportions?

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=ZTBiMTRlMDQxNzEyMmRhZjU3ZmYzODI5MGY4ZWI5OWM=

Rate This: 0 0

By: Philipa

Philipa — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 15:39:38 +0000

I’m definitely a convert, Mel – peace and love rules, ok!

Rate This: 0 0

By: Mel

Mel — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 14:15:59 +0000

Philipa

>And spookily I find myself agreeing with Vicus too

whatever got into your water today?! that is unheard of – perhaps there is some sense behind his aura of ‘peace and love rules ok’ after all

Rate This: 0 0

By: Tiresias

Tiresias — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 12:56:32 +0000

The expansion of public administration has been continuing for centuries, if not millennia. Up to now, it has had space to expand into, being small to start with and supported by growth in the productive economy. Now, however, like a baby cuckoo, it is reaching the point where it overfills the nest and its poor surrogate parents struggle to feed it. This problem has never previously had to be addressed. Unless we can find a method for containing public administration our economy will collapse and it will become impossible actually to do anything.

Rate This: 0 0

By: Philipa

Philipa — Tue, 22 Sep 2009 11:29:18 +0000

Splendid article by Boris. And spookily I find myself agreeing with Vicus too.

I would fine-tune my agreement a litle though:

HR and IT depts are essential due to basic need; all the legislation from Brussels and the fact that everyone now has a PC and someone has to install, upgrade, maintain, patrol and fix them. Can’t get rid of those, Boris. And behind every succesful man is a superb secretary.

What I think we should get rid of are ‘diversity officers’, State sponsored interpreters (if you want to live here speak english or sod off) and all the real non-jobs that don’t do anything useful. Recruitment and IT is useful.

But there is one point Boris missed – NuLab gave back the cap. Wouldn’t that be a good place to start saving, by reinstating it?

Rate This: 0 0

By: helen addison

helen addison — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 20:29:08 +0000

it is interesting that it appears so few have responded to this article of boris’.
it may be because many would be beneficiaries of ‘one less railway’ – with resources continuing to be passed in their direction.
so, obviously, many don’t want to pipe up and so shoot themselves in the foot. “let’s lie low”

there are conflicting numbers re size and cost of govt payroll as well as of ‘value added’ by such numbers. but, in a democracy numbers count when voting for ‘your own heave ho’ or for ‘no railway that will threaten industrial action’.

it will be watched with interest and some trepidation.

Rate This: 0 0

By: IonaLF

IonaLF — Mon, 21 Sep 2009 17:59:35 +0000

Good point Charlie!

Rate This: 0 0