25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

On Tue, 21 Jul 2015 23:46:09 +0100, Mizter T wrote:

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

They should axe HS2.

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

Mizter T wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

The Express headline grossly overstates the cuts. There will be cuts, but
the 25% and 40% figures aren't those cuts; they're the menu of all possible
cuts each department is expected to come up with. Many will be politically
impossible, but the idea is to give the Treasury a long list of options
from which to k select. This happens after every election, and is a form of
zero-based budgeting (ie, start with 100% cuts, and departments have to
justify everything that is added back).

"Letters will be sent to the head of every department that does not have
ringfenced funding, asking them to model two scenarios of 25% and 40% of
real-terms savings by 2019-20, the same levels of reduction requested
before the 2010 spending review."

From
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-clear-deficit

The idea is to force departments seriously to look at radical options, such
as of doing business in a completely different way, or simply not doing
some things at all, rather than adopting the easy "10% cuts all round"
solution. One likely consequence is that some Departments may be abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot could
be saved by abolishing hem, and moving a subset of their activities into
other departments.

The other pressure is on the public sector to release underused land, both
to realise its value and to make it available for housing. Network Rail
will certainly be expected to come up with some.

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

On 22/07/2015 09:42, Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

The Express headline grossly overstates the cuts. There will be cuts, but
the 25% and 40% figures aren't those cuts; they're the menu of all possible
cuts each department is expected to come up with. Many will be politically
impossible, but the idea is to give the Treasury a long list of options
from which to k select. This happens after every election, and is a form of
zero-based budgeting (ie, start with 100% cuts, and departments have to
justify everything that is added back).

"Letters will be sent to the head of every department that does not have
ringfenced funding, asking them to model two scenarios of 25% and 40% of
real-terms savings by 2019-20, the same levels of reduction requested
before the 2010 spending review."

From
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-clear-deficit

The idea is to force departments seriously to look at radical options, such
as of doing business in a completely different way, or simply not doing
some things at all, rather than adopting the easy "10% cuts all round"
solution. One likely consequence is that some Departments may be abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot could
be saved by abolishing hem, and moving a subset of their activities into
other departments.

The other pressure is on the public sector to release underused land, both
to realise its value and to make it available for housing. Network Rail
will certainly be expected to come up with some.


And pre-election statements about annual rail fare increases not
exceeding the inflation rate may turn out to be another empty promise......

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

BevanPrice wrote:
On 22/07/2015 09:42, Recliner wrote:
Mizter T wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

The Express headline grossly overstates the cuts. There will be cuts, but
the 25% and 40% figures aren't those cuts; they're the menu of all possible
cuts each department is expected to come up with. Many will be politically
impossible, but the idea is to give the Treasury a long list of options
from which to k select. This happens after every election, and is a form of
zero-based budgeting (ie, start with 100% cuts, and departments have to
justify everything that is added back).

"Letters will be sent to the head of every department that does not have
ringfenced funding, asking them to model two scenarios of 25% and 40% of
real-terms savings by 2019-20, the same levels of reduction requested
before the 2010 spending review."

From
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-clear-deficit

The idea is to force departments seriously to look at radical options, such
as of doing business in a completely different way, or simply not doing
some things at all, rather than adopting the easy "10% cuts all round"
solution. One likely consequence is that some Departments may be abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot could
be saved by abolishing hem, and moving a subset of their activities into
other departments.

The other pressure is on the public sector to release underused land, both
to realise its value and to make it available for housing. Network Rail
will certainly be expected to come up with some.


And pre-election statements about annual rail fare increases not
exceeding the inflation rate may turn out to be another empty promise......

I suspect it's a promise they regret, but it was one that was probably too
explicit to ignore. Instead, you get tax hikes in other areas where there
was no promise, such as the huge increase of over 50% in the tax on
insurance premiums.

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

The Express headline grossly overstates the cuts. There will be cuts, but
the 25% and 40% figures aren't those cuts; they're the menu of all
possible
cuts each department is expected to come up with. Many will be politically
impossible, but the idea is to give the Treasury a long list of options
from which to k select. This happens after every election, and is a form
of
zero-based budgeting (ie, start with 100% cuts, and departments have to
justify everything that is added back).

"Letters will be sent to the head of every department that does not have
ringfenced funding, asking them to model two scenarios of 25% and 40% of
real-terms savings by 2019-20, the same levels of reduction requested
before the 2010 spending review."

From
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-clear-deficit

The idea is to force departments seriously to look at radical options,
such
as of doing business in a completely different way, or simply not doing
some things at all, rather than adopting the easy "10% cuts all round"
solution. One likely consequence is that some Departments may be abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot
could
be saved by abolishing hem,

Really?

Does abolishing a ministry, but still performing all of its functionally,
save a lot?

If you still need all of the "customer facing" people you still need all of
the buildings that they work in, and you still need most of the management
chain to manage them.

All you save is the single guy at the top (and the office that (s)he sits
in)

Oh and you save a little bit in your stationary budget by not having to keep
backup stocks of headed-notepaper (measured against the extra cost of
throwing away the old stock that you now can't use).

If you're saving in other areas (such as IT support/car pool) then your IT
support/car pool was being sourced wrongly in the first place.

tim

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

The Express headline grossly overstates the cuts. There will be cuts, but
the 25% and 40% figures aren't those cuts; they're the menu of all possible
cuts each department is expected to come up with. Many will be politically
impossible, but the idea is to give the Treasury a long list of options
from which to k select. This happens after every election, and is a form of
zero-based budgeting (ie, start with 100% cuts, and departments have to
justify everything that is added back).

"Letters will be sent to the head of every department that does not have
ringfenced funding, asking them to model two scenarios of 25% and 40% of
real-terms savings by 2019-20, the same levels of reduction requested
before the 2010 spending review."

From
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-clear-deficit

The idea is to force departments seriously to look at radical options, such
as of doing business in a completely different way, or simply not doing
some things at all, rather than adopting the easy "10% cuts all round"
solution. One likely consequence is that some Departments may be abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot could
be saved by abolishing them,

Really?

Does abolishing a ministry, but still performing all of its functionally, save a lot?

I think you missed the bit that said, "or simply not doing some things at
all".

You get big savings by dropping entire activities, not just by doing all
the same things a bit more efficiently. And if governments interfere less,
that saves businesses money, too. In other words, don't process the forms a
bit more efficiently, but question why the government asks businesses to
complete the forms at all.

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected
so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

The Express headline grossly overstates the cuts. There will be cuts,
but
the 25% and 40% figures aren't those cuts; they're the menu of all
possible
cuts each department is expected to come up with. Many will be
politically
impossible, but the idea is to give the Treasury a long list of options
from which to k select. This happens after every election, and is a form
of
zero-based budgeting (ie, start with 100% cuts, and departments have to
justify everything that is added back).

"Letters will be sent to the head of every department that does not have
ringfenced funding, asking them to model two scenarios of 25% and 40% of
real-terms savings by 2019-20, the same levels of reduction requested
before the 2010 spending review."

From
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-clear-deficit

The idea is to force departments seriously to look at radical options,
such
as of doing business in a completely different way, or simply not doing
some things at all, rather than adopting the easy "10% cuts all round"
solution. One likely consequence is that some Departments may be
abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and
DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot
could
be saved by abolishing them,

Really?

Does abolishing a ministry, but still performing all of its functionally,
save a lot?

I think you missed the bit that said, "or simply not doing some things at
all".

No I didn't

I was specifically asking about the claim that abolishing ministries whilst
moving their functionality elsewhere saves money

tim

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

The Express headline grossly overstates the cuts. There will be cuts, but
the 25% and 40% figures aren't those cuts; they're the menu of all possible
cuts each department is expected to come up with. Many will be politically
impossible, but the idea is to give the Treasury a long list of options
from which to k select. This happens after every election, and is a form of
zero-based budgeting (ie, start with 100% cuts, and departments have to
justify everything that is added back).

"Letters will be sent to the head of every department that does not have
ringfenced funding, asking them to model two scenarios of 25% and 40% of
real-terms savings by 2019-20, the same levels of reduction requested
before the 2010 spending review."

From
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-clear-deficit

The idea is to force departments seriously to look at radical options, such
as of doing business in a completely different way, or simply not doing
some things at all, rather than adopting the easy "10% cuts all round"
solution. One likely consequence is that some Departments may be abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot could
be saved by abolishing them,

Really?

Does abolishing a ministry, but still performing all of its functionally, save a lot?

I think you missed the bit that said, "or simply not doing some things at
all".

No I didn't

I was specifically asking about the claim that abolishing ministries
whilst moving their functionality elsewhere saves money

The reason for abolishing them is that many of their functions are
redundant (do we really need a separate agriculture department, when it's a
tiny part of the economy, and most of the regulations come from the EU?).
Bureaucrats create work to fill their time. Much of that work is pointless
and consumes not just their own time, but that of other government
departments and private industry. Is farming made more productive by
farmers filling in lengthy forms for DEFRA?

When you abolish departments, you also drop those redundant functions and
the people who did them. The whole idea is for the government to do
significantly less, via fewer departments, not do all the same things
slightly more efficiently. It's only by asking for drastic 25% and 40%
cutback options that such opportunities are uncovered. No-one expects
overall savings of that magnitude, but there's still plenty to save.

So, to return to your question, there is no "claim that abolishing
ministries whilst moving their functionality elsewhere saves money". The
claim is that by dropping functions, you need fewer ministries.

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

tim..... wrote:

One likely consequence is that some Departments may be abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and
DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot
could be saved by abolishing hem,

Really?

Does abolishing a ministry, but still performing all of its functionally,
save a lot?

If you still need all of the "customer facing" people you still need all
of the buildings that they work in, and you still need most of the
management chain to manage them.

All you save is the single guy at the top (and the office that (s)he sits
in)

More than that in that there are fewer Permanent Secretaries and the like
and systems are merged with economies of scale. However because two
departments are rarely merged directly but rather responsibilities are
constantly respread around it's hard to get clear figures.

Oh and you save a little bit in your stationary budget by not having to
keep backup stocks of headed-notepaper (measured against the extra cost of
throwing away the old stock that you now can't use).

One of the more ridiculous things we do in this country is to constantly
reorganise government departments under new names such that the stationery
gets out of date and everyone gets confused by the titles - once when
lobbying a minister in another department we found even he didn't know for
sure the snappy short title of the Department of Communities and Local
Government. It had spent four years as the "Office of the Deputy Prime
Minister" largely because the name had already existed and it was a face
saving measure to cover up the fact that the Department of Transport, Local
Government and the Regions had been simply split. But it was then split from
the DPM and so needed an actual name. When Eric Pickles was exploring the
DCLG in 2010 he found it still had boxes upon boxes of unused biros from the
days of the Department of Environment, Transport and the Regions, 1997-2001.

In general the Cameron government has so far avoided renaming and
reorganising government departments, bar changing the Department of
Children, Schools and Families to the Department of Education *, but long
term it might be better to go the route of other countries where many
ministers have multiple titles for small portfolios, enabling them to be
easily shifted around without having to restructure the back offices.

--
My blog: http://adf.ly/4hi4c

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
"tim....." wrote:
"Recliner" wrote in message
...
Mizter T wrote:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/george-osborne-sharpens-axe-40-6111425

"Schools, health, international development and defence are protected
so
local government, Home Office, transport, environment, justice and
the
courts, arts and sports will be hammered by 25% and 40% cuts in
November’s Spending Review."


http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/592816/Budget-spending-cuts-George-Osborne-welfare-Whitehall

"Councils, police, prisons, the courts and the transport network are
expected to bear the brunt of the swingeing spending reductions."


Some broader thoughts from R. Peston:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33609662

The Express headline grossly overstates the cuts. There will be cuts,
but
the 25% and 40% figures aren't those cuts; they're the menu of all
possible
cuts each department is expected to come up with. Many will be
politically
impossible, but the idea is to give the Treasury a long list of
options
from which to k select. This happens after every election, and is a
form of
zero-based budgeting (ie, start with 100% cuts, and departments have
to
justify everything that is added back).

"Letters will be sent to the head of every department that does not
have
ringfenced funding, asking them to model two scenarios of 25% and 40%
of
real-terms savings by 2019-20, the same levels of reduction requested
before the 2010 spending review."

From
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2...-clear-deficit

The idea is to force departments seriously to look at radical options,
such
as of doing business in a completely different way, or simply not
doing
some things at all, rather than adopting the easy "10% cuts all round"
solution. One likely consequence is that some Departments may be
abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and
DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot
could
be saved by abolishing them,

Really?

Does abolishing a ministry, but still performing all of its
functionally, save a lot?

I think you missed the bit that said, "or simply not doing some things
at
all".

No I didn't

I was specifically asking about the claim that abolishing ministries
whilst moving their functionality elsewhere saves money

The reason for abolishing them is that many of their functions are
redundant

perhaps, but that wasn't the claim made, nor the point I was asking about

I wasn't just referring to the example in this thread when I asked. There
have been several suggestions over the years (obvious elsewhere) of
departments that can be merged to "save money", and I really can't
understand where the mega savings are.

Savings usually appear to be the reduce costs of procurement that a larger
department can achieve (whether that be of paper clips, photo copiers, cars,
or billion pound bespoke computer solutions), but if that's where the
savings are then merging departments isn't the solution. The real solution
to the inability of a small department to negotiate, or even "recognise" the
"best" deal is to not to let individual departments do the negotiating in
the first place but provide it as a central service across the whole of
government (including local authorities)


(do we really need a separate agriculture department,

we don't have one

when it's a
tiny part of the economy, and most of the regulations come from the EU?).
Bureaucrats create work to fill their time. Much of that work is pointless
and consumes not just their own time, but that of other government
departments and private industry. Is farming made more productive by
farmers filling in lengthy forms for DEFRA?

When you abolish departments, you also drop those redundant functions and
the people who did them. The whole idea is for the government to do
significantly less, via fewer departments, not do all the same things
slightly more efficiently. It's only by asking for drastic 25% and 40%
cutback options that such opportunities are uncovered. No-one expects
overall savings of that magnitude, but there's still plenty to save.

So, to return to your question, there is no "claim that abolishing
ministries whilst moving their functionality elsewhere saves money".

not from you perhaps, but there has been from "others"

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

"Tim Roll-Pickering" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:

One likely consequence is that some Departments may be abolished
or merged. For example, on Newsnight, it was suggested that DEFRA and
DCMS
didn't really need to exist as separate departments at all, and a lot
could be saved by abolishing hem,

Really?

Does abolishing a ministry, but still performing all of its functionally,
save a lot?

If you still need all of the "customer facing" people you still need all
of the buildings that they work in, and you still need most of the
management chain to manage them.

All you save is the single guy at the top (and the office that (s)he sits
in)

More than that in that there are fewer Permanent Secretaries

So there are "two" men at the top that you save.

OK I do fully appreciate that the number that you will save is greater than
that, but it's still barely into double figures and even though they will be
at the higher end of the pay scale the savings involved are still of the
relative order of "amount found down the back of the sofa".

and the like and systems are merged with economies of scale.

what systems can you merge with "economies of scale?

and if you can, why are they not already merged across the whole of
government anyway (my example of IT support really being one that I expect
HMG to have got expensively wrong here).

tim

25% - 40% cuts coming to the transport budget?
 

"tim....." wrote in message
...

what systems can you merge with "economies of scale?

Lots of functions that are common to any business - e.g. procurement, HR,
finance.

and if you can, why are they not already merged across the whole of
government anyway (my example of IT support really being one that I expect
HMG to have got expensively wrong here).

A colleague of mine was telling me of a business tranformation project he
worked on at a large local authority. The savings identified by merging
common business functions across the LA were huge, to the extent that the
consultants (of which he was one) were happy to share the risk by providing
a loan to fund their fees that would be paid off from the savings after
project implementation.

The project was cancelled when the unions called a strike over the loss of
their member's jobs that would result from the project: the politicians
responded by cancelling the project.

--
DAS