Amongst all the dramatic events of this week, Gordon Brown has decided to announced a review into the cost of the final salary pension schemes offered to MP’s. Now, here is a man of action, we all know that when Mr Brown wants to grab the headlines with some ‘good’ news, he either announces a review or an inquiry. In the case of the former and, arguably the latter, nothing happens. In other words, say something, do nothing….the unnofficial cry of Gordon Brown and his Labour party.

Over the past 10 years or so, any final salary schemes within the private sector have had to be curtailed or withdrawn. In fact, some pension schemes have even collapsed completely because of the increased costs associated with Mr Brown’s tax attack on private sector and personal pension schemes. This tax grab has contributed in excess of £100bn to Treasury coffers over the past 10 years and ensured that many, many people that have contributed to pensions for most of their life, now have to struggle or rely on state handouts or means tested benefits. A real man of the people our Mr Brown.

Meanwhile, MP’s continued to benefit from what has been described as one of the best pension schemes in the world. Even taking into account that  our MP’s have a gold-plated pension scheme, the total cost is marginal when compared with the actual cost to the taxpayer of funding the generous, final salary schemes offered to public sector workers. The additional cost last year, to the taxpayers of this country, for the pension scheme our members of parliament enjoy was £12m. Quite a lot of money when you consider that this top up is paid out of future tax revenues, rather than an annuity. However, the estimated cost of the public sector final salary scheme is, by contrast, staggering and rising fast! 

Pension schemes for local government officers and MPs are funded but, five million people, including civil servants, teachers, NHS staff and members of the Armed Forces, are enrolled in schemes for which no money has been set aside. In 2006, the Government estimated the cost of these unfunded liabilities was £650bn, it has since been estimated that our public sector pensions deficit is £1,071 billion. Now that IS a big number!

According to the Treasury’s own figures, the annual cost of paying public sector pension schemes is 1.5% of GDP and this is expected to rise to 2% over the next 50 years. Lets put that into perspective, the annual cost to the taxpayer of these unfunded public pension schemes is currently £22bn, or if you prefer, equivalent to a reduction in direct taxation of 4p in the pound, or to put it another way, £900 for every family in the UK. But, over the next 3 decades, it is estimated by the IEA that this will increase to £76bn a year, enough to complete more than two banking bailouts or 250 new hospitals every year.

So, Mr Brown, lets see some action, not reviews. Yes, by all means he should tackle the issue of MP’s final salary pension schemes, but he must also, finally grasp the nettle in relation to public sector final salary schemes. A failure to do so will result in either, a significant increase in taxation or, an inability to honour the existing scheme. Average salaries within the public sector are now higher than those within the private sector, similarly pension schemes are on average, some 15 times more valuable within the public sector. 

Ultimately the taxpayer is expected to fund this financial burden, in addition to an ever increasing headcount within the public sector and it does not take Einstein to work out that it is simply not sustainable, in a booming, let alone a contracting economy. It is high time that public sector pensions were brought in line with the private sector, in terms of the type of benefits and the way they are funded.  It is time to act decisively, no doubt Mr Brown will once again, shy away from anything so commendable. Say something, do nothing

There is an inevitability in politics that your unguarded, or newor that matter your carefully delivered words will come back to haunt you. Here are some of Gordon Brown’s.

During his Labour Party conference speech in 2000, Gordon Brown said “We will not put hard won economic stability at risk. No return to short-termism. No return to Tory boom and bust” and he went on to say “why did the Tory party give Britain twenty years of stop-go, twenty years of boom and bust. It is Labour that is now the party for stability and growth.”

Now we know that whenever anything goes wrong, Mr Brown always blames the “Tory party” or now, he prefers to say that our problems are as a consequence of “world economic issues and the credit crunch”. Okay, for a change, there is some truth in that statement, but that is only a recent phenomena, it does not really answer the question of how we got into this position of boom and bust.

On Gordon Brown’s watch, we have seen house prices rise some 200% (23% in 2003 alone) from 1997 to 2007, we have seen a massive increase in the availability of credit and people have felt relatively wealthy as a consequence of the increase in value of their homes. Easy credit meant that many people could remortgage their homes so that they could buy a new car or go on a fancy holiday. During the same period, 1997 to 2007, average wages rose by just 52%, so it was quite obvious that consumer spending had nothing to do with increased wealth through rising wages.

People were offered interest free credit for car and electronic purchases, 125% mortgages, equity release programmes and would receive credit card offers through the post every day. Because many people considered that the increase in their property value was a one way bet, they continues to borrow, believing that they could release equity as and when they needed to. Experts were telling us time and again that the level of consumer debt was at record levels and wasn’t sustainable. Gordon Brown chose to ignore this advice, in spite of the assurance he gave in his conference speech and on numerous occasions since, that he would not allow a return to boom and bust, what he termed a Tory disease.

Gordon Brown knew that the consumer boom was financed by debt, much of which was secured against property prices, which he knew could be volatile, he know that savings were down and debt has spiralled. But he did nothing, previous governments had put in credit controls to address these issues and risks, he sat there preening his feathers and claiming credit for growth figures, yet ignoring that one day it would all come to a dramatic end. It is unlikely he understood just how dramatic that would be, but he knew it would end up is a “bust”.

Gordon Brown’s relationship with prudence was a mere dalliance, personally, I am at a complete loss as to why political commentators and the tabloid press continue to refer to him as a good chancellor, an iron chancellor or one who places prudence first. At the same time as this country was experiencing an economic boom, financed on credit, he himself was, in spite of the fact that he had increasing tax revenues, on a government spending and borrowing spree. Fancy footwork ensured that the PFI initiatives, which will cost us £170bn between now and 2032, did not end up recorded as government debt, but it is still there and it has to be paid. In the good times he should have been repaying government debt, to place us in a better position when the inevitable “bust” came, he did not, he ignored it and continued to spend.

Rising commodity prices and the credit crunch have exacerbated the problem, but ask anyone with a little understanding of basic economics and they would have told you that the crunch was going to happen anyway, debt financed growth was not sustainable even in dreamland that was New Labour. Gordon Brown inherited, whatever he says, a steady and sustainable economy, he just blew it!

It is also worth noting, that manufacturing in this country has been in decline, yes, even under this government and our economy is heavily reliant on banking and financial services. Two areas that are under significant and sustained pressure. It remains to be seen how this will affect employment, tax revenues and our balance of payment deficits. With many banks and financial institutions making substantial losses, these will transfer, not just into an immediate loss of tax revenues, but, because they can accumulate these losses, a further reduction of tax revenues in the coming years.

Gordon Brown’s economic credentials and reputation for prudence is in tatters and we shall be paying the price long after he has left office.

If you have heard him say it once, you have heard him repeat it 100 times. Gordon Brown keeps telling is that the UK economic fundamentals are strong. Now I am no economist and that will become self-evident when reading this blog, but I am blessed with a little commonsense and logic. My conclusion, the so called fundamentals don’t look so great from where I am sitting, so common Gordon enlighten us.

At the CBI Scotland Annual Dinner, Gordon Brown outlines what he considered those fundamentals to be, they are;

“First, Bank of England independence has given us low interest rates founded on sound macroeconomic management and so despite increases in the prices of food and fuel - and I understand the impact this is having on families and businesses - the sound framework for monetary policy which we have established means inflation remains far below the double-digit levels we saw in the earlier decades. And this will help ensure that interest rates remain similarly low by historical standards.

Second, the most flexible labour market in Europe means that even though unemployment has risen in recent months, employment remains close to record highs - and wage pressures are subdued, led by our own responsible decisions on public sector pay. And with the investment in the New Deal and our latest welfare reforms there is more support than ever before to help people back into work and to fill the 600,000 vacancies still in our economy. And a balanced approach to migration allows businesses to benefit from the specific skills that economic migrants can bring to our country and improves the responsiveness of our labour market to fluctuating demand.

Third - the underlying financial strength of British business reflects its improved efficiency - driven by your hard work in achieving the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. Britain remains a magnet for overseas investment and our export performance is improving, with our manufacturing productivity growth strong.

Fourth, low debt. The significant debt repayments we made since 1997 mean we have cut public debt as a share of national income from 43 per cent in 1997 to today’s 37.3 per cent. This means that, unlike in earlier economic slowdowns, we can sustain our ongoing commitment to investment in fixed capital infrastructure - up 58 per cent in real terms in the last decade. In 1997 we invested £144.5 billion. Today it is £229 billion. Even after inflation a 58 per cent rise.

And - while  no government can hope to protect people from the full impact of the global credit crunch or the worldwide spike  in commodity prices - I am determined that we should do what we reasonably can to help families and businesses through this difficult period of adjustment. So we will back up our investment commitments with careful interventions designed to provide targeted support for hard-pressed families - such as this week’s home-owners’ support package and the £120 a year tax cut for basic rate taxpayers that will start to feed into pay packets later this month.

Fifth – we are making all the long term decisions, difficult as they are, to boost our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. And the 2002 Enterprise Act has given us one of the most robust, independent competition regimes anywhere in the world. The support for British enterprise - strengthened over the last decade with the launch of Enterprise Capital Funds, the Small Firms Loan Guarantee and administrative burden reduction targets. Britain today has four and a half million businesses - more than ever before. And the OECD says Britain has the lowest barriers to entrepreneurship of any OECD country. ”

Now lets have layman’s take on this, as I said, I am no expert on economics, but I am one of the people that is expected to understand what the government is telling us.

Fundamental One

One of the primary movers in determining interest rates is inflation and as we have seen over the past few months, Gordon Brown is limited in what he can do to control inflation. Yes he can keep public sector wage deals low, but he cannot control commodity prices such as fuel and food, which can have, as we have seen, a significant impact on inflation. Furthermore, government borrowing can also affect inflation, but Gordon Brown’s fancy footwork has managed to keep long term debt such as the PFI initiatives off the government balance sheet. This may have the affect of massaging government borrowings, thereby providing a knock-on affect in terms of lower interest rates.

Fundamental Two

Gordon Brown goes on to lecture us that the second part of the fundamentals is a flexible workforce, low unemployment, low wage settlements, economic migrants and welfare reforms. Really? Firstly, there is no explanation of what a flexible workforce is, but whatever it is, the government cannot claim the credit for it. The low unemployment figure doesn’t stand up to close scrutiny either. There are now 1.7, people out of work and on top of that those claiming disability benefits have risen to 2.5m, many of which, under the old system, would have been classed as unemployed. So, once again, this would appear to be a deliberate manipulation of the true jobless total.

Granted, the government can be credited with reaching low wage settlements with the public sector, although their ability to maintain these agreements may be questionable given the increasing militancy of the the public sector unions. But there is something else that Gordon Brown has omitted to include here. Many public sector employees benefit from excellent, final salary pension schemes and, even though many of these have been withdrawn in the private sector, Gordon has not had the courage to likewise in the public sector. Therefore, whether Gordon Brown likes it or not, it is an inconvenient truth that pensions are a cost of employment and it is estimated that our public sector pensions deficit is some £890bn, yet the government does not include this obligation anywhere in their figures.

So what about economic migrants, who do they benefit? Well yes, they benefit private companies that cannot or more likely, will not offer a wage sufficient to get ‘local’ workers to join their business, even though we have 1.7m unemployed. But what about the hidden cost, economic migrants can bring their families if they wish and many do, so when they are here, we must provide them with, at the very least, free education and free healthcare. So, in effect, by offering these benefits free, we, the tax payer are effectively subsidising employers looking for cheap labour. As the government knows only too well, these economic migrants could not possibly pay enough in tax and national insurance to cover the cost of these free benefits. If I was Mr Brown, I would be keeping my mouth shut, unless of course, he thinks we are all too stupid to work it out.

Fundamental Three

Gordon claims that we have the fastest growth in average productivity in the past decade across the whole of the G7. This may be true and therefore I will accept it at face value. But, can he really claim that their is an underlying financial strength in British business? Over the past few months, we have seen a high street bank have to be rescued by the tax payer, we have had a series of profit warnings from major retailers and manufacturers, we have had a number of high profile companies having to go to the stock market for more money to shore up their balance sheets and we have seen the failure of several airlines and the UK’s third largest travel companies. This doesn’t look strong.

In addition, we are now starting to see the highest level of business failures in over a decade, particularly small and medium sized businesses. Gordon Brown would do well to be remember that it is the SME market that has created many of the new jobs that he takes credit for, but also, because they cannot afford to go offshore or look at fancy methods of tax avoidance, they loyally pay their taxes. So what has he done for them?

Despite promised to the contrary, he has saddled them with a mountain of red tape, punitive fines and penalties for even the smallest misdemeanor in respect of tax or VAT returns. He has ensured through legislation that, the SME employer now has to have expensive experts on hand either as employees or consultants to advise on health and safety issues and employment issues as they have become one of the largest burdens on any small or medium sized business. In doing so, Gordon Brown, his cohorts and civil servants have demonstrated that they know nothing about running a business of this size.

Further, as a result of reduced central government funding to local authorities, business are having to pay ever higher business rates, even though they are getting less and less in return. Typically business rates now equate to 50% of the SME’s lease or rental costs. That is not business friendly, it is punishment. Far from taking credit for the business sector success, certainly in terms of the SME’s, he and his penal policies have made it increasingly difficult for them to survive as will be demonstrated over the coming months with a disproportionate number of SME business failures. You mark my words Mr Brown. This government also withdrew tapered tax relief a few short years after it was introduced to encourage entrepreneurship.

Fundamental Four

This takes the biscuit, Gordon Brown claims that government debt, as a percentage of national income has fallen from 43% in 1997, to 37.3%. As I have mentioned before, this is not a true figure, it is massaged. Mr Brown has become adept at using fancy footwork to ensure that government obligations do not end up on the government balance sheet. Now, I am not suggesting that he can’t do this, because he has, but what is the point in kidding himself, unless of course, the plan is to kid us? Between now and 2032, we will have to pay back some £170bn through the various PFI schemes used to pay for our schools, hospitals and other infrastructure projects. This doesn’t appear as a borrowing, so what is it? Then there is the debt from the failed Network Rail project and Northern Rock, as well as countless other obligations, why don’t these show up?

This man, even claimed in his speech, that he is using government intervention to assist families and business, bragging that basic rate tax payers will receive £120 a year in tax cuts. Have I missed something, this is the man that though he could rip us off using a classic trick of smoke and mirrors, got caught out and had to back down, Then he is trying to claim that it is some gift from the government. What an arrogant, deluded little man he is. 

Fundamental Five

This is really a more detailed repetition of Gordon’s ‘Fundamental Three’, but there are many more grandiose claims that do not bear scrutiny, but I haven’t got the time to analyse them one by one, so perhaps Gordon can enlighten as all be telling us how many of the 4.5m businesses he alludes to have actually been able to benefit from the Enterprise Capital Funds and the Small Firms Loan Guarantee? Precisely what red tape burdens has he removed and does this assessment include the new red tape this government has introduced.

I would also be very keen to hear precisely how this government can claim credit for boosting our competitiveness; on energy, planning, transport, housing, digital technology, science and skills. I don’t remember any of the companies operating in this sector thanking the government for their contribution. He also claims that our exports are improving, could this be anything to do with the fact that Sterling has weakened against all of the other major currencies, one of the primary reasons that our bills and inflation is rising, given we are a net importer of goods.

There are also other things that a government should be doing, such as planning. Gordon Brown makes no mention of the fact that as a direct consequence of his government’s prevaricating over nuclear power stations, there is a very real risk that we could suffer major power shortages in  3 or 4 years few years time, as the older power stations are de-commissioned and new one’s which take 10 years to build, are not ready. We could be reduced to third world levels of power shortages, with an estimated reduction of some 35%, affecting every family, every home and every business in the country. There is your legacy Mr Brown.

As I have stated at the outset, I am not a financial or economic expert, but when I analyse what Gordon Brown has said, against what had actually happened, I see a massive gulf. Therefore, this man must be deluding himself, or attempting to hoodwink the public. Either way, it is not good for us or our country. Step aside Mr Brown, before it is too late.

For the past eleven years we have heard nothing else but, how Gordon Brown was going to put an end to “boom and bust”, how he was an iron chancellor, and how New Labour were beyond reproach in terms of economic competence. How does this correlate with a UK recession that, by all accounts, only those outside government could see coming?

How could so many British people be so naive as to believe that a government that increased taxes and borrowing during a period of significant growth and wealth creation could sustain this? Why did we allow a government to dupe us in terms of its true financial position, with the off-balance sheet PFI initiatives that leave us owing some £170bn, which must be paid off between now and 2032? Government pension deficits of £790bn and so on? All of this on top of the “official” debt figure of a tad under £500bn.

Gordon Brown and his government have been caught out in the lie that has become the legacy of their time in office. They have left this country vulnerable, with high taxes, high debt, long term financial commitment and, above all, lacking leadership. New Labour has become synonymous with spin and its ability to consistently dupe the public and manipulate the press. Inevitably, we will all have to pay for their incompetence. Tony Blair was a prime architect and whilst he may be basking in the fruits of his former position of PM, giving lectures and writing books, he shares responsibility with Gordon Brown. Alistair Darling is just cannot fodder, he knows it, we know it, he is just the fall guy for Gordon Brown.

True leaders show their ability it times of crisis, not the good times and as this government moves from crisis to crisis, relying on a sticking plaster to fix things, it is just going to get worse. True leaders know when their time is up and those with integrity and pride, will step aside and let someone else in. However, there are two large problems here, firstly, a new leader of the Labour Party will not make any difference, given they are clearly a spent force, who have substituted the so called Tory sleaze, with a programme of lies and inept ministers. The second problem is where do we go from here?

David Cameron’s conservative party has still not told us what it is they stand for, what their policies are and what they are about. Yes, Cameron has come up with some quaint new soundbites, such as a ‘broken society’, but so far, it is just rhetoric. This is not backed up by new ideas, proposals, policies or answers. So we still have no idea what they would do if they were in government, so why would the electorate entertain such a party? We could simply be going from the frying pan, into the fire. As for the LibDems, well do we know who they are? Clegg says some sensible things, but this is a party that a year or so ago proposed higher taxes, how many governments have been voted in with a promise of higher taxes? Vince Cable is very knowledgeable, but the party sidelined him, because they felt he was too old, so what does that say about them?

The future does not look so bright! There is no obvious choice, unless Cameron can start to convince us that his party has original ideas and, above all, people that are capable of delivering on them. The main parties have 550 or so MP’s between them, but how many of us could name more than 10 or 20? What does that say about the way the political party’s are run. Even if we can name them, how many would we trust, if any, to lead us through this mess and do we know what they stand for?

As we enter this uncertain time, perhaps it is also a period for reflection, we need to consider whether our political system is truly representative. For example, how many ordinary people have a realistic opportunity to get elected as an MP, if they are not already aligned with one of the principal parties? The Labour and the Conservative party select their candidates based on many things, which often includes, but is not limited to, race, gender and loyalty. Why shouldn’t they advertise to get the best candidate? Yes this is simplistic, but the best ideas often are, surely the electorate is entitled to the best man or woman for the job, not those that are already part of the ‘club’ that is party politics right now?

Over the past 11 years, we have witnessed an obsession with government control, from the 4.2m CCTV cameras, through to the right to detain for up to 42 days without charge. We have been told that we must have ID cards to help protect us from the threat of terrorism, yet the government are trying to include so much biometric data that it is difficult to comprehend the true justification. It is claimed that the UK government and its agencies have more access to our private details than virtually any other country including Russia and China. This obsession with state control is worrying in isolation, but when this is coupled with a dishonest government, self-obsessed ministers, weak members of parliament and a virtually non-existent alternative party, we must start to worry.

There is no sense in kidding ourselves that we have choice or that we live in a democracy, if our choice of ‘elected’ representative is limited to the whim of party leaders. This country was quick to criticise China for primarily limiting their choice to existing members of National Peoples Congress. What is the difference, surely it is only scale?

We need change in this country, we need to review our whole political system and above all, we need to look at the way much of the news media sets the agenda. British Politics expands on this argument.

In a recent statement, Gordon Brown said, “We are showing that,unlike previous governments that could not manage a way through these difficulties successfully… we are resilient in the way we are dealing with these problems.” What an arrogant, self-serving and belligerent remark from this man. He is passing judgment on previous government initiatives with the benefit of hindsight, whilst arrogantly assuming that his measures will succeed. Why, because he says so?

This is a prime example of a man that is deluded, one that believes he can do no wrong and one that is undoubtedly surrounded by ‘yes’ men constantly telling him how brilliant he is. Any decent leader will surround himself with people that will challenge him, test him and guide him. This ensures that the ‘leader’ keeps his feet firmly on the ground and does not start to believe his own spin, it is a dangerous cocooned world. Smart people recognise this; clearly some politicians and cabinet ministers do not. But it is the difference between leaders and truly great leaders. Take a look at Gordon Brown’s ‘inner circle’ can you see anyone that is likely to challenge him on policy without being crushed?

If this wasn’t enough, Gordon Brown has, once again said, “There are unique circumstances with the trebling of oil prices. That has not happened previously - and of course with the credit crunch”. In other words, it’s not my fault guv, I have done everything right; it is everyone else that is at fault. If your ministers and advisors don’t have the balls to tell you what you have done wrong, maybe it is left the public?

• You have hiked our taxes through a series of stealth taxes, to the extent that you have nowhere else to go, you have little or no room for any further tax increases.
• You have raised £billions in national insurance contributions and then recklessly spent this money on quick fixes rather than long term investments in the health service.
• You have allowed government departments to squander £billions of taxpayers money on projects that have been curtailed, scrapped or changed.
• You defied repeated warnings from your own officials in terms of the time bomb you would create by scrapping tax relief on dividends paid into pension schemes. As a consequence of your actions, you have devastated the lives of hundreds of thousands of pensioners and what do we have to show for the estimated £100bn you have scored from their misery? As a result of your meddling, many final salary pension funds have been scrapped….and some companies have had to find £millions to top up the funds.
• It is estimated that you cost this country close to £2bn when you decided to sell our gold reserves at the wrong time. On this occasion, you ignored the advice of the, Bank of England.  

Whilst the last conservative government may have introduced the Private Finance Initiative (PFI), you made it into a major instrument for the provision of public facilities and services, effectively forcing public bodies to use the PFI model. As a consequence, public bodies are committed to paying a total of £170 billion to contractors in more than 800 PFI schemes up to 2031-2032…not surprisingly; this figure is growing every year.

I agree you are resilient, there are not many people that could make so many mistakes, so consistently and still claim to be the leading architect of the success of this country. We have succeeded in spite of you, not because of you and one day the electorate and the newspaper editors will wake up to this fact. If you had been genuinely prudent, we would not have the level of public sector borrowing that we have, we would not be in a position where there in no money in the piggybank to allow us to weather the storm of this current downturn. And, we would not all feel so much pain as a direct consequence of your massive tax take from our current earnings, as well as the reduction in value of our pension funds affecting our retirement plans.

Let me remind you, that £400m was spent on ‘cost control’ for the Olympics, how can you honestly justify that level of expenditure with a straight face? Would a “prudent” chancellor allow expenditure of over £16 million on the creation and upkeep of VIP lounges in Heathrow and Gatwick despite the fact they are not government-owned?

You cannot abdicate responsibility by blaming Blair for the first 10 years either, because we know that, the Treasury, under your tenure, became the principal originator of government policy, rather than an evaluator of policy. Your personal obsession with micromanagement has lead to the introduction of thousands of targets aimed at directing policy; it also determined exactly each the departments should meet their targets. So when a department was or is failing, it is impossible to tell whether the cause is the policy itself or its implementation. This has made it virtually impossible for the Treasury to judge poor performance. Another tidbit for you, during your tenure, the Treasury was one of the largest spending departments, with a budget of £20bn. Is that prudence?

Let me remind you of some of the things you have achieved. Following your introduction of complicated tax credits, it is estimated that the taxpayer (no not the government, it is our loss, our money) loses £2bn every year through fraud and errors. In spite of your micromanagement, it is estimated that the planned NHS computer system will cost £6bn more than originally planned. 

I could go on, but it would take me weeks to list Gordon Brown’s “achievements”. Far from being a prudent chancellor, I am convinced that in years to come, we will look back at both his chancellorship and his period as prime minister and have a completely different take on this so-called iron chancellor. I am further convinced that we and our children will be spending the next 30 or 40 years paying for the mistakes of this government, the former chancellor, the former prime minister and the current prime minister. Gordon Brown should consider his words carefully, because they will surely come back and haunt him, no doubt at a
time when he is not surrounded by yes men telling him how brilliant he is.

David Cameron has been quoted as saying he would not rule out tax increases because he could not be certain of the public finances in two years time. I accept this in part, but let’s face it; there has been a huge amount of information released in recent years outlining this government’s excesses and waste. Surely, David Cameron is not going to preside over a continued waste of taxpayer’s money.

If Cameron wants to be prime minister, he needs to get a grip, by accepting what any businessman will tell you, there is always money to be saved in terms of fat and excess, without necessarily reducing output, service or standards. This is prime example of what happens when we seek to put inexperienced people into office to run a ‘business’ with revenues in excess of £250bn per year. Cameron is supposed to be the leader of the Conservative party with ambitions to be the leader of this country, isn’t it time we witnessed some of his leadership skills?

Clearly Cameron needs some pointers, so here are a few samples of this government’s waste of taxpayer’s money.

 £20bn on an IT system for the NHS that has had questionable trials, and lacks the support of NHS staff, who have also indicated a limited confidence in the systems capabilities. Another £2bn has been lost in tax credit fraud or errors. Or perhaps Cameron could consider the £2.3bn refurbishing civilian offices of MOD?

£1.7bn of taxpayer’s money is being spent settling Metronet’s debts following the failed privatisation of London Underground and it worth reminding ourselves that it was Gordon Brown, who forced through the controversial Public Private Partnership of the Tube when he was Chancellor. A further £300m will go to Transport for London to cover its cost in taking on Metronet’s contracts.

Let’s take a look at the Department of Work and Pensions which has wasted £300m on two cancelled IT projects In 5 years the DWP managed to spend £2.14bn on IT projects, both ongoing and cancelled, with over £500m going to consultants alone. Will this type of mismanagement continue with a Cameron lead government?

A further £486m has been wasted on the computer project for the Child Support Agency and £140m on a system designed to streamline payment of benefits which was shelved because it never worked. Or perhaps £77m on an IT system meant to clear the backlog of immigration casework which was shelved because it missed deadlines.  Maybe he should consider the waste in respect of a system that was being introduced to manage the applications of adults applying for independent learning grants which was scrapped after millions was lost in fraudulent applications; the cost of this was another £97m of taxpayer’s money.

Maybe David Cameron could take a closer look at the Ministry of Defence (MOD)? Apart from the £2.3bn alluded to earlier, to make the civil servants comfortable, he could consider the following.

After failing to include a clause ensuring that Chinooks purchased from the USA would meet UK airworthy standards (responsibility of the previous Conservative government), the MOD has spent more than £300m, now forecast to be £500m to upgrade them. Ordered in 1995, after 20 years, the upgrade on these 8 Chinooks has still not been completed. Likely waste is in the region of £500m plus the cost of the Chinooks! The MOD also scrapped a computer inventory scheme before it was introduced at a cost of £118m and a further £77m on a radar system for the Harrier before it was decided to withdraw it from service.

Once again the MOD judgment must be called into question over a similar situation with the Nimrod AEW aircraft that was supposed to replace the RAF Shackletons. Despite the fact that a well proven replacement, The Boeing E3 was available, the Government decided it was better to spend £1.5billion on a radar system that didn’t work. Having wasted this £1.5bn, they went on to spend another £750 million buying the 7 aircraft that the RAF had wanted to begin with!

The MOD also wrote off £118m on a failed inventory IT project (DSMS). In fact, the MOD may end up writing of over £3bn for a programme to upgrade RAF Nimrods, a plane that is built on the 1950’s Comet airframe and almost certainly with a very limited lifespan. David Cameron does not have to look very far to find government departments where good judgment has been demonstrated to be highly questionable.

Maybe Cameron could review The Pathway project, which promised to introduce a benefits payment card in 2000 and was scrapped after four years of expensive development was scrapped at a cost of £1bn Another £400m was spent on a project aimed at ‘cost control’ for the 2012 Olympics. Something else that should be taken into account when considering the use of taxpayers money is the plan to share services for human resources, payroll and finance using a computer system which was originally forecast to cost £55m with savings of £112m. It is now forecasted that costs will reach £120m with savings of just £40m.

This government has presided over a situation where in spite of the fact that nearly £3bn per annum is spent on ‘consultants’, the decisions that have been reached, remain highly questionable. Has anyone taken any responsibility for this complete waste of public money, the expensive consultants, the lofty, highly rewarded civil servants or the inexperienced ministers? I don’t think so! In spite of proving that they are incapable of making the right decisions in respect of Information Technology projects, this government is forecasted to spend another £14bn of taxpayer’s money this year, this is roughly equivalent to a reduction in personal taxation of 7p in the pound, or if you prefer, a reduction in the top rate of tax from 40% to 33%. Has David Cameron provided any indication that this wanton waste of taxpayer’s money will be a priority of his government if he got into power, I don’t think so!

Now this government wants to spend another £5bn on a computer system to manage a new ID card system. Granted, David Cameron has indicated, in one the few policy decisions he has announced, that the Conservative party, in government will scrap the ID card system. If however, no matter how unlikely, the Conservative government do not get into power, how certain can we be that the Labour government have learnt the lessons of the past and that this, highly questionable project, would be brought in on budget. A recent report indicated that 82% of IT projects have either come in over budget or are expected to. That is an appalling record and for Gordon Brown, someone who is often held up as one of the best (and toughest) chancellors of all time, a very poor legacy indeed. In fact, in my personal opinion, I believe in years to come, this government and specifically this chancellor will be seen to have done more long term damage to this country than any previous government or chancellor in history and we shall be paying the price for decades to come.

.

 Loading ...

 Loading ...