[Closed] 30% cuts coming up

Its plain silly

It saddens me to see a lot of the things that I value about being a citizen of this country being systematically denigrated, destroyed or underfunded to the point they are no longer capable of delivering what they should.

I think that the current Tory party are doing such damage to British society whilst apparently reveling in their ability to do so is appalling.

Still, someone will be along in a minute to say how lucky public sector workers are, don't know they're born, 'work, call that work' etc etc and how we don't need all this state provided stuff like health care anyway as 'hard working families' will, somehow, save the day.

Started the year with 10 in our team. Two experienced staff quit for part time pub and shop work. Two are off long term sick. Leaves 6 people to do the work and train up four recent starters.

Cuts will really start to bite across the public sector, corners cut, service and safety compromised, new legislation in our area seems designed to get round the problems the cuts have caused rather than benefit what we should be doing.

There still areas we could be more efficient, I'm sure, but when you are up to your arse in alligators.....

How many people in the private sector are earning the same as they were 10 years ago? Not in relative terms, but the same amount of take home?

All while doing more work, with less people and longer hours.......

Not many, I reckon......oh, and my pension has also been decimated.

Is this 30% the overall cut?

If it is then a lot of areas will see much higher percentage loss of income as some services are 'protected' and only seeing reduction in funding by level of inflation.

Is this 30% the overall cut?

My take home has gone up £35 a month since 2008. Good job prices have been stable over that time. Oh, wait.... And as an EO my pay is still below the average wage. And below the benefit cap staff at a lower grade administer.

And I know private sector has had similar issues. But none of my private sector friends have been told they have another 4 years of this to go through.

Two weeks time MrsMC and I job swap. She goes full time, I go part time. We'll have more money and better work/life balance. No brained.

My take home has gone up £35 a month since 2008

Show off! Mines gone down since 2009 😀

You had to go there, didn't you? You had to respond so that a legitimate moan about your work in the public sector turned into a public vs private battle.....

Painful but not unexpected.

Austerity George was light on austerity (sic) in the Coalition and planned more aggressive cuts during this term. The ring-fencing of certain department meant that 30-40% cuts elsewhere were inevitable.

Still labour market trends - employment and wages - all going in a better direction although public sector wages are lagging the private sector in this recovery. so hardly a destruction scenario...

Will they keep going in the right direction after these cuts? Its a massive gamble.

race to the bottom...unless you are an MP

Identify savings whilst maintaining acceptable performance and implement = sensible.
Implement savings and then firefight = reductions in capacity and performance that may never be recovered.

musn't grumble

Why not? How will things change if you just keep taking it?

so hardly a destruction scenario...

Depends what you mean by destructive.All those cuts means the government won't be able to do things it did previusly. They are aiming for fundamental change in the relationship between state and nation.

Might be a good idea if you see yourself as a landed Tory squire but for most of us proles it is probably bad news.

You have to ask yourself, what sort of a country do you want to live in?

https://m.facebook.com/Hampshire-Risk-review-and-you-1489581798019630/

Cuts on the back of cuts are about to destroy Hampshire fire and rescue, make no bones about it residents of Hampshire will be left at a far greater risk.

No matter what 'spin' the dep chief looks to put on it.

how we don't need all this state provided stuff like health care

Would that be the health care that is not being cut and indeed gets more money each year ?

[url= http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/nhs-spending ]http://election2015.ifs.org.uk/nhs-spending[/url]

Still they cut, cut, cut rather than going after the big corporate tax dodgders, non-doms, etc.

rather than going after the big corporate tax dodgders

The big corporate tax dodgers can afford better lawyers than the government.

And it'll be made worse after all these cuts!

Might be a useful thread to bring up this:
[url= https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/104471 ]No confidence vote[/url]

Not that I think it will make any difference - I doubt it will even get debated. But the more that keep signing the less likely it will go away.
I think if it reaches a million it has to be debated.

What I don't get is the focus on opex, but capex is fine (and from what I can see increasing) What this means in reality is more and more money spent with firms and contractors who keep increasing rates and fewer and fewer competent perm staff to manage them and hold them to account, an overall net of leaking public money like a sieve.

Sure no one likes cuts, much as like when we were kids being told we couldn't go on holiday abroad this year because my folks were struggling to pay the mortgage. But can't see what the alternative is? To keep borrowing to fund increasing public service, continue spending more than we earn and bankrupting the country - oh wait nearly been there.

It's not that different in the private sector. We're getting so lean and agile we are positively undernourished. I wonder when someone will realise that continually reducing "back office" support functions seriously impacts on the ability of A business to do its job (i.e. provide services and make a profit).

Employed people have money in their pockets to put back into the economy.

Sure no one likes cuts, much as like when we were kids being told we couldn't go on holiday abroad this year because my folks were struggling to pay the mortgage

As has been pointed out endless times, national economies don't work like household finances. If the analogy were accurate, your pay packet would be influenced by how much you spend at Tesco's.

What I don't get is the focus on opex, but capex is fine

Politics isn't it, Labour can't grumble at the Tories as they want to increase CAPEX spending. Plus cutting 2 heads across every organisation has little news impact against cutting a £5 Billion project.

I agree it seems slightly daft to me, should be balanced between CAPEX and OPEX.

[i]To keep borrowing to fund increasing public service, continue spending more than we earn and bankrupting the country[/i]

Debt = Money.

If governments stop spending "the" money (raised either through taxation or borrowing at lower interests rates than you can) then it forces the people to fund spending "the" money as a greater portion of their wages, or borrowing at higher rates than govts.

which will make use poorer.

[i]Started the year with 10 in our team. Two experienced staff quit for part time pub and shop work. Two are off long term sick. Leaves 6 people to do the work and train up four recent starters.[/i]

So you started with 10, and now you've 12 - that looks like a 20% increase?

10 - 2 + 4 = 12

The 2 off sick still cost.

[i]What I don't get is the focus on opex, but capex is fine[/i]

When cashflow is crap, you need to reduce OPEX.

I was talking to somebody who works in mental health care. They had 25% cut last year, 25% this year, and another cut is lined up for next year.

This means they simply don't have the resources to do their job properly, so instead of keeping people at home with a little bit of extra support, now they have to go into full time care which is far more expensive.

Penny wise and pound foolish 👿

I understand about reducing operational expenses, but what they are actually doing is transferring the same tasks to private firms/contractors who the charge multiple times more than it would cost to manage internally. The actual "service" is still there, and now you are paying vastly more for it, but you can claim it is capex, so that is okay. Overall though the cost of the same "service" has now increased year on year, and you'll have the expense of re tendering every 5 years.

Maybe my rudimentary understanding of accountancy is why I don't get it....surely to save money you have to actually cut the service rather than transfer it to a private firm and pay more for it?

Why not? How will things change if you just keep taking it?

+1, if you don't grumble everyone assumes it's all ok!

Its plain silly

Government spending is far too high versus income, something has to change. The electorate wanted education protected and nhs spending increased, so bigger cuts elsewhere.

I'd be in favour of higher taxes, starting with copying the rest of Europe and adding a lower rate of VAT on food. Our taxes are too low vs the government spending we'd like but people won't vote for that. I'd also abolish all the corporate tax deals with Luxembourg and Ireland etc but we'd have to leave the EU first.

If governments stop spending "the" money (raised either through taxation or borrowing at lower interests rates than you can) then it forces the people to fund spending "the" money as a greater portion of their wages, or borrowing at higher rates than govts.

The government doesn't raise money from taxation or borrowing for spending. It creates all money as all our debt is GBP and the sole source of GBP is the UK government. Any funding limits are purely self imposed by the government.

There may be knock of effects in terms of inflation and the value of the pound but these are policy decisions and nothing to do with taxation and government borrowing/spending

Taxation and spending cuts are political policy decisions not a necessity to raise money - usually to help control interest rates - the target of which is a government self imposed policy.

The Tory mantra of the country being like a company or household is totally wrong as the UK cannot default on any of it's debt and thus be made bankrupt. Unlike Euro countries that have debt in a non-sovereign currency.

s has been pointed out endless times, national economies don't work like household finances. If the analogy were accurate, your pay packet would be influenced by how much you spend at Tesco's.

Greece just kept spending and bribing the electorate with ever more handouts, then the music stopped and the markets declined to lend any more money. Choices where an eu bailout or a default, two very unpleasant choices.

@Dave, you are sadly very much mistaken about potential economic pain. We can't just keep printing money to service our debt, not without creating rampant inflation and massive currency devaluation which would likely bankrupt many of our companies and plunge us all into poverty as imports became much more expensive (eg oil, food, cars, clothes). Why would international investors buy ever increasing amounts of uk debt when it's denominated in a currency in free fall ? So interest rates jump up massively (thus bankrupting businesses and mortgage holders) and the government debt becomes unserviceable as tax revenues plumit

every government dept I've dealt with or worked in could comfortably lose 30% of staff and still finish early on a friday.

its why I left the civil service.

For Labour to have allowed the deficit to grow as they did and not to have cut spending.

It was pretty modest up until the 2008 crash e.g. less than under the Tories in the early 90s. It only went tits up when all the banks crashed. Post 2008 crash if they'd slashed spending, to reduce the deficit, we'd have gone into full scale depression and possibly total financial meltdown (if they'd let all the banks collapse rather than bailing them out).

[img] ?w=620&q=85&auto=format&sharp=10&s=7a313c36413067832d11ad7f756bce4f[/img]

I'd be in favour of higher taxes, starting with copying the rest of Europe and adding a lower rate of VAT on food. Our taxes are too low vs the government spending we'd like but people won't vote for that. I'd also abolish all the corporate tax deals with Luxembourg and Ireland etc but we'd have to leave the EU first.

Except adding VAT to food just makes it worse for those at the bottom. Regressive taxation is not the answer.

@Dave, you are sadly very much mistaken about potential economic pain.

I was only stating the misunderstanding that taxes/borrowing are used to fund spending. They aren't. The government doesn't need this money to spend.

And we haven't reached a credit limit - There is no-one asking for the money back as it's all GBP that is created by ourselves. This is where saying it's like a household is incorrect.

And we have the choice of increasing interest rates - a key choice that Greece didn't have. Saying "rampant inflation and massive currency devaluation" are scaremongering as inflation can be very useful for growing economies.

There are consequences of higher interest rates but it's all policy - self imposed objectives. There is no need to have such austerity and make the policy decisions that the Conservatives have and they use analogies that are incorrect to try and justify them.

Except adding VAT to food just makes it worse for those at the bottom. Regressive taxation is not the answer.

There is no-one asking for the money back as it's all GBP that is created by ourselves. This is where saying it's like a household is incorrect.

We've just had a 28% cut in our production workforce announced, after an 18% cut in August.

That's private sector.

Woo hoo.

It's absolutely wrong to assume the government can just print money to pay an ever increasing debt burden with no serious negative consequences

What was quantitive easing all about then?

The cost of financing the National Debt, is again, quite modest by recent standards. Hence all this austerity nonsense is a choice rather than a necessity.

[img] [/img]

My team is meant to have 9 people has 5

so a 30% cut would leave you with six, non?

Yeah I know, but as you said there are other ways we could and IMO should be making up the shortfall before more VAT.

you absolutely [i][b]can[/b] [/i]make comparison between national economies and household finances.

You could compare national economies and business finances; but then what happens to social welfare?

Of course our household finances are always balanced by borrowing/repayment via a complex mix of bonds & gilts followed by stocks and shares. Why just the other day little Johnny was offering me dividends on the returns of his Smartie investments...

veedubba - Member

We've just had a 28% cut in our production workforce announced, after an 18% cut in August. That's private sector.

I understand about reducing operational expenses, but what they are actually doing is transferring the same tasks to private firms/contractors who the charge multiple times more than it would cost to manage internally. The actual "service" is still there, and now you are paying vastly more for it, but you can claim it is capex, so that is okay. Overall though the cost of the same "service" has now increased year on year, and you'll have the expense of re tendering every 5 years.

Maybe my rudimentary understanding of accountancy is why I don't get it....surely to save money you have to actually cut the service rather than transfer it to a private firm and pay more for it?

You're right, it's just out of one budget rather than another. Though I do seem to remember you can report on it differently so it 'looks' like you're not spending as much.

But basically it significantly reduces your pension expenditure in the future becuase they ain't your staff.

Pretty sure I remember seeing a statement from the Tories that they are ideologically committed to reducing the state (by selling it all off to their mates at bargain prices), having previously claimed these cuts were about saving money.

But that can't be right because that would mean they were telling barefaced lies, which obviously wouldn't happen.

so a 30% cut would leave you with six, non?

Non 30% is coming, we had a large cut last year in a reorganisation.

These cuts will render my Agency just about impotent on the ground. My team is meant to have 9 people has 5 and we have to lose 1.5 more over the next 4 years. Still expected to do the same amount of work.

What exactly does your team do, obviously someone higher a captain perhaps has decided to make your team surplus to requirements by the act of cutting and cutting more.

Being self employed the work has seriously droped off the last month from the public and non from any trade contacts, its going to be a BLACK CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR FOR A LOT OF US

Project no we are not surplus to requirements

its going to be a BLACK CHRISTMAS AND NEW YEAR FOR A LOT OF US

Yeah I bet these guys are really struggling. We're all in it together after all.

[img] [/img]

You're right, it's just out of one budget rather than another. Though I do seem to remember you can report on it differently so it 'looks' like you're not spending as much.

It appears (IMHO) to be accounting flim-flammery, depending on the current whims of the CFO. Some organisations have a culture of preferring CapEx over OpEx, some vice versa, some about face as they change faces at the top.

Every time we've outsourced, it's cost. Although the promise is better,brighter,cheaper the only way it happens is if everything remains in contract - and it never does. All the 'extras' soon add up to being more than the saving of outsourcing. But they are on a differnet budget so that's OK.

Project no we are not surplus to requirements

From experience thats not the way others in your organisation think, lots of stupid and daft job cuts going on that cost a ot more in the finasl outcome as contractors have too be employed to do the job.

My Fire Brigade has cut back to the point where they lurch from one mess to the other. Anything that does not need immediate attention gets put on the shelf, until it needs immediate attention.

They are proposing introducing small fire engines with less people on them. To anyone passing a station it will look like no change but these vehicles and the crew on them will not be able to deal with any serious incident. Smoke and mirrors. We are already seeing safety standards that have been seen as vital in the past being 'relaxed' as we don't/won't have the people available to carry out procedures safely in the future.

This is before the next round of cuts. The CFO said if they're anywhere near the % that's been quoted it will mean compulsory redundancy and Station closures.

As well as how it will affect our response to our usual calls it will have a knock on effect on other services as we regularly turn up to incidents well ahead of the Police or Ambulance services (As we know, both are under huge strain and struggle to meet attendance times) and even if we are not needed as Firefighter we can act as Police/Paramedic until they arrive. If we stop turning up, no one will be turning up which will lead to people losing their life.

My Fire Brigade has cut back to the point where they lurch from one mess to the other. Anything that does not need immediate attention gets put on the shelf, until it needs immediate attention.

They are proposing introducing small fire engines with less people on them. To anyone passing a station it will look like no change but these vehicles and the crew on them will not be able to deal with any serious incident.

Merseyside fire service have recently got new PFI fire stations shared with the ambulance service,paid for infinit,y we also had for a short time fire bike, motorcycle fireman, big tank of AFF on the pillion seat after a few fell over they got sent away, we now have less fire stations with only one engine, our local one used to have 4, were all just waiting for a large fire in a shopping centre or block of appartments/hotel to see how these cuts are going to rescue people

Footflaps - nice one, good to see some numbers rather than opinions.

As an aside, I think it'll be interesting to see whether the government are still going to spend 6bn (at current prediction) renovating the Palace of Westminster. I've got an alternative for them - relocate Parliament to the Millenium Dome or one of the halls at the NEC and flog off the Palace to the Chinese or Yanks.

Merseyside fire service have recently got new PFI fire stations shared with the ambulance service,paid for infinit,y we also had for a short time fire bike, motorcycle fireman, big tank of AFF on the pillion seat after a few fell over they got sent away, we now have less fire stations with only one engine, our local one used to have 4, were all just waiting for a large fire in a shopping centre or block of appartments/hotel to see how these cuts are going to rescue people

Yeah, we're all getting it and something big will go wrong before long. The vehicles our mob want are the same as many others have had and are now starting to reject.

Problem we've got compared to the Met Brigades is that we were already very lean and reliant on the Retained (Who we can't recruit or retain as the money is rubbish) so any loss of appliance will leave a huge gap in cover somewhere in North Yorkshire.

It's laughable to say the NHS is protected

Efficiency savings have staff moral at an all time low, waiting times increasing, cancer referral targets being missed, just as real progress was being made. Oh and a junior doctors mass exodus.
The promised increase in NHS spending hasn't actually arrived yet
We all know that an older fatter population needs much more investment, not more belt tightening.
All new infrastructure is coming from more PFI (which labor are too ashamed to condemn)
When a hospital like Addenbrooks is put into special measures you know the health sec is out to destroy the service completely.
Mid staffs was a crisis of understaffing and cost cutting, it seems insane that this is the the eay the entire NHS is being driven.

So these radical, ideologically driven, nasty-Tories are hell-bent on bringing government spending as a percentage of GDP down to the levels last seen in....

....wait for it....

....2000.

And that is radical?????

Austerity George has already backed off once and highly likely again. There is little radicalism - more basic pragmatism (combined with stealing off the prudent via QE)

The UK has defaulted before although we like to pretend we didn't. We (cough) restructured...

I understand about reducing operational expenses, but what they are actually doing is transferring the same tasks to private firms/contractors who the charge multiple times more than it would cost to manage internally. The actual "service" is still there, and now you are paying vastly more for it, but you can claim it is capex, so that is okay. Overall though the cost of the same "service" has now increased year on year, and you'll have the expense of re tendering every 5 years.

Maybe my rudimentary understanding of accountancy is why I don't get it....surely to save money you have to actually cut the service rather than transfer it to a private firm and pay more for it?

That reads like you're confusing / conflating outsourcing with PFI, as do a few of the other posts on the subject.

PFI is, all round, a con and even a rudimentary understanding of acounting is normally enough to see it. That's the one where someone else build you a new hospital, school, leisure centre or whatever, and we pay them a lease for the next 30-odd years, bundled in with facilities management lock-ins, which is where you get the stories of it costing £10K to move a lightswitch etc. I don't know that anyone has ever, with a straight face, tried to claim that it saves money. Oh, they do value for money calculations that prove that they're better value than a publicly funded build, but it's not much of a secret that it only comes out that way when they apply subjectively arrived at risk premiums / discount factors, i.e. they fiddle the calculations to get the answer they want. What is does do is not so much move opex costs into capex costs (in fact, with over-inflated facilities costs built into the contracts it's more the converse) but it avoids the government accounting for any of the costs or liabilities at all, other than at the point of expenditure.

That's right, that £200 million commitment to pay for a hospital over the next 30 years doesn't appear as a debt on the government's balance sheet.

To apply the seemingly popular "compare it to household finances" approach, it would be like if you applied for a loan and were told that you didn't need to disclose your mortgage in the "liabilities and debts" section. (My other "household comparison" would be that the facilities contracts are rather like buying a house but it being on the condition that you could only furnish it from Brighthouse, in perpetuity).

It's shameful. I'd go as far as to say it's scandalous, particulary for those of us with kids, who'll be paying for all this over the next few decades. Why isn't anyone making more noise about this? Well, the Tories started the ball rolling on this one, but then Gordon Brown really grabbed hold of it with both hands...

Anyway, back to the point, PFI is not about efficiency or money saving, it's about spending money you haven't got on capital you can't afford in a way that doesn't show in the accounts. These don't go out to tender every five years.

Outsourcing is where the state pays someone else to do something that used to be done by the state directly. Might be emptying the bins, running an MRI unit or a whole hospital (although that's not gone well), might be running the canteen. Happens a lot in the private sector too - go to a big factory and the chances are the canteen is run by someone else.

Done well, outsourcing can definitely result in better, and better value for money, services. Why? Specialism, for one. Say you run a car factory. Your expertise and focus is in building cars. Who's going to be better at running the factory canteen - you, or the contract catering specialists who do that as their main business? Exactly.

Many years ago I worked for a firm that did outsourced stuff for the government. We had numerous cases where we went in, ran it more efficiently and delivered more units of the thing, at lower cost, than the in-house predecessors, and still managed to turn a profit for the shareholders. One reason for this was that we had shareholders who demanded it, so there was no hiding place for inefficiency.

Nowadays I work for a charity. We work on lots of contracts that come from, one way or another, "the government". Our sector brings it's own unique factors that are harder to find from within the "state machinery" - Nimble, innovative, closer to the communities we serve, less bureaucratic, those are some of the things we write in our tenders. And every five years is a reasonable timescale for an outsourced contract - too long and providers get complacent, stagnate. It's a pain, but re-procuring is a decent way of ensuring value for money in thses things.

Would that be the health care that is not being cut and indeed gets more money each year ?

Well, there's various ways of looking at it and the obvious "more or less pounds than last year" one is one of the least useful on health spending. The current government I've noticed are making much less noise about this as time goes on, but one example of creativity that some of you may have missed is this one:

Publich Health. When the coalition came in in 2010 this was, unsurprisingly, firmly and indisputably part of the National Health Service. The NHS.

In 2013, commissioning and budget responsibility for Public Health was transferred from the NHS to Local Authorities.

Almosty unnoticed this summer, the lovely George Osborne announced massive cuts to Public Health spending.

But that's okay, because it's not part of the "NHS" any more is it?

Yes PFI is basic subterfuge and then we have the Ponzi scheme that is public sector pensions! Politicians don't you just love 'em

And these are the kinds of people that some would like to be running more of our economy?

Bizarre idea.... 😉

Cuts to mental health services are going to get someone killed (again); until that happens they will keep slashing the funding.

Mind you its only normally poor people who get killed so I guess the Tories see that as killing two birds with one stone.

I opened the threading hoping to see Chain Reaction discounts codes..

Instead I hear more about the "we're all in it together' party cutting more whilst they still keep their payrises..their arrogance is astounding...

Cuts to mental health services are going to get someone killed (again); until that happens they will keep slashing the funding.

I wish I shared your optimism.

So these radical, ideologically driven, nasty-Tories are hell-bent on bringing government spending as a percentage of GDP down to the levels last seen in....

....wait for it....

....2000.

And that is radical?????

What is radical is concentrating the cuts on the poor.

Oh I see...

Of course we are all in it together on the big sea of austerity. Only difference is the privelidged few are in a warm comfy lifeboat whilst the rest of us are in said sea clinging to the crap left over from the sunken HMS UK!

Just heard today that arriva transport won the contract for non emergency patient transport services for hospital visits,

THE company in charge of running non-emergency ambulances for patients in Bolton and across Greater Manchester has admitted “overstating performance standards” and incorrectly claiming more than £1.5 million in incentive payments for its services.

and now the fire service is going to be sent out to people suffering a heart attack, to relieve pressure on the ambulance service, so one less fire engine and crew available to fight fires and cut people out of RTC,S.

Already happening in some counties Project

Just heard today that arriva transport won the contract for non emergency patient transport services for hospital visits,

Shocking.

[quote=project ]
and now the fire service is going to be sent out to people suffering a heart attack, to relieve pressure on the ambulance service, so one less fire engine and crew available to fight fires and cut people out of RTC,S.

Not just heart attacks, been called to anything the the ambulance service control dress up as an emergency... 🙄

That rings a familiar bell, excuse the pun 😀

[i]THE company in charge of running non-emergency ambulances for patients in Bolton and across Greater Manchester has admitted “overstating performance standards” and incorrectly claiming more than £1.5 million in incentive payments for its services.[/i]

You get the supplier you deserve.

5h1t controls, 5h1t management - that'll be whoever it was that was supposed to be managing the contract...

Yup, that NHS, with its short skirt, hangin around with bad types, they was asking for it.

In our place (prison service) at a wild guess, we have maybe 5-10 ambulance/paramedics called out per week due to prisoners 'going under' on New Psychoactive Substances.
OMG what are we to do!

As for creating more pounds to pay debt see my point about currency and inflation

The point I was making is that you cannot compare our economy to that of a household or business. The UK cannot become bankrupt (that is not being able to service it's debt)

I've been a bond investor for 30 years, I expect my money back every few years and then decide at that point whether to reinvest.

How you manage debt is a policy matter - Japan is running a national debt that is 240% of GDP and is doing fine thanks. UK is around 85% I think.
I agree there are consequences to allowing interest rates to rise and printing money - that's not the point I'm making.

We don't have to make the cuts we are making to balance anything - this decision is arbitrary and Conservative policy - you cannot equate it to having household debt as they are different. We will always have a national debt - we need a national debt.

EDIT

These points only apply to a country with sovereign debt. If we had the Euro we could be made bankrupt, technically - like our sun loving friends the Greeks.

Is there a fundamental issue with the outsourcing and privatisation is that so much of the profit is now funneled offshore and no taxis paid on it. What used to happen was that the money within an economy stayed within that economy at a national level. If you start siphoning a lot of that liquidity out of the market then will start to see holes in the economy.

If somebody could explain where the holes in this argument are then I would be really interested to know.