Skip to content

Have Your Say, Tell Me What You Think

Reading Time: < 1 minute

Good morning one and all.

I’ve been giving some thought to the awful Draconian cuts that this government has inflicted upon many if not all of our Public Sector Services.

I have written a short, online survey, which should take no longer than 2 minutes to complete.

You can remain anonymous or you can put your name to it, I don’t mind either.

It doesn’t ask your occupation, previous occupation or current employment status and makes no mention of any political parties whatsoever.

Time will tell whether sufficient people respond to make the results meaningful, but if you could spare 2 minutes of your time, at the very least we’ll have some answers to questions that I haven’t actually seen any government ask the population before.

I will leave it open until the day before Election Day and then analyse and publish the results.

Some folk have already taken the survey, some left names, some didn’t. I thank you all.

 It doesn’t matter to me, it’s the answers that count.

You can access the survey HERE

Thank you for your time

Enjoyed the post? Share it?

27 thoughts on “Have Your Say, Tell Me What You Think”

  1. I’m a bit late since I’ve only just seen this post but here are my views, sorry they’re not just the Yes or No you were perhaps looking for.

    Police? No – Not until the men and women who sign up are allowed to return to being Police Constables serving their communities. Let me explain what I mean. My local Police “Service” has a Marketing Department. There is no need for anything other than an office to respond to press / media enquiries. Recently the Head of the Roads Policing Unit was talking about crews being involved in filming. My council tax pays them to do policing of the roads not mess about in front of cameras. The Police need to stop trying to be social workers & social engineers and return to their primary role of enforcing the law of the land.

    NHS? No – the NHS has more money than people would generally think. What needs to happen there is to lose the ridiculous internal market that sees time, effort & money being spent to win the contracts to run services; whether it’s cups for the cafe or X-Ray. Give each hospital its own territory where they are responsible for all services, dismantle the bidding structures and put the money you save from doing that into delivering services free at the point of need.

    Armed Forces? No – The way to save money here is for politicians to stop pretending we’re the policemen of the world. If our armed forces are to fight, it should be in the interests or defence of the country, not the financial interests of Corporations. I’d suggest the last war fought under that pretext was the Falkland Islands in 1982.

    Education? Yes – Particularly around University fees. Far too many of the students attending are saddling themselves with debt through tuition fees which they will have to pay back for most of their lives. This debt will no doubt be sold on to private interests, so does not benefit the student or the country.

  2. Don’t worry Norman,if I find out one of my colleagues has killed 200 people then I will come forward and say something.
    In the meantime make sure you check your brake pipes before you drive to the shops today.

  3. In her Report on the Shipman killings, Dame Janet Smith identified “A CULTURE OF FEAR IN THE NHS” as the reason why Shipman was able to go on killing long after he should have been stopped.
    jaded48 says,
    “I publish anonymously as I have something to lose.When I retire in 4 years and 3 months I will put my real name.”
    Seems the CULTURE OF FEAR’ is not only in the NHS, but runs throughout all those on The State payroll.

    1. Each to their own Norman. Police Officers have a set of Regulations and a Code of Ethics they must adhere to. Until the situation regarding use of Social Media is clarified Jaded48 and many others choose to remain anonymous. I’m sure if I asked him who he is he would tell me, but not you, but I choose not to ask him until/unless I NEED to.

  4. As is often said, I would have thought, once you’re retired, you’d be entitled to string up any contributer who jumps in, without much ado, making unfounded accusations that their polite host is a Quisling or a Mr Plod or implying he’s a Thicko or Senile etc..

    If some bull charges into a china shop, all horns flailing, then criticises the vendor for selling china rather than helping him find silage, it’s a shame if cups and saucers (for tea) would later have contributed even more in the long term – had they remained intact – than silage itself (for milk) towards the success of negotiations with future reliable silage providers over a civilised afternoon beverage..

  5. Sorry Norman, I publish anonymously as I have something to lose.When I retire in 4 years and 3 months I will put my real name. The world is full of people like you who feel they are experts on policing and delight in unfair criticism of us.

      1. If you would like to have a sick laugh about the cuts, and you were a serving cop and now coming up to state pension age apply for a pension forecast.
        My forecast tells me that under the new pension scheme, 30 years as a cop, and 10 other years paying National Insurance Contributions entitles me to a pension of £42.40 a week.

  6. Please Feel Free To Comment –
    I wish to generalise and comment that all politicians are corrupt and should be strung from the lampposts and that most are pretty darn sick. I think that they invite a response and if they want to take some expenses, they should be prepared to dish it back to us once they’re caught. As for anonymity, their real names are clearly visible on the news. So, if they can’t see their electorate then I would suggest that is more a problem for them than it is for us.
    – Gerald Scarf, Tunbridge Swell

  7. You claim you don’t allow ‘personal insults’. Yet you not only publish anonymous ones from jaded48, but add your support.
    At least I’m not afraid to give my name.

    1. If you wish to generalise and comment that all cops are corrupt and should be strung from the lampposts, or that they are ‘thick’ then I think that you invite a response and if you want to dish it out you should be prepared to take some. As for anonymity, my real name is clearly visible on my blog. If you can’t see it then I would suggest that is more a problem for you than it is for me.

  8. Such ridiculous questions could only be thought up by a Quisling. Sticking to the theme of ‘Funding’, I ask my own.
    ‘Would you be willing to pay extra taxes to buy the large amount of rope which will be needed if & when bent coppers & crooked judges are strung from the lampposts?’ ,

    1. I knew I could rely on you to be totally negative Norman. Thank you for not letting me down. When you have a POSITIVE suggestion to make I’ll be happy to post it for you. Till then………

      1. It is no surprise that Mr Plod doesn’t even know the difference between Positive & Negative. NOTHING could be more positive than stringing ’em up from the lampposts.
        I was a thicko even before I became senile, but I’m a genius compared to you. .

        1. As you’ve now lowered yourself to personal insults, I must inform you that any further comments of that nature, directed against ANYBODY, will not be approved for publication so you needn’t wast your time. I’m perfectly happy to publish your opinions whatever they may be, but not your insults

          1. It was the legendary C P Scott, long time editor of the greatly respected Manchester Guardian I(now the less respected Guardian) who published the dictum, “FACTS ARE SACRED, COMMENT IS FREE”. It is no surprise that a retired Plod is among the large number of people who cannot understand the difference between the two.
            It is fairly obvious I HAVE been wasting my sending ANYTHING to you. In fact, never having asked to be on your mailing list, I have several times asked you to take me from it, but STILL they keep coming. Against my better judgment, I do open them, & they give an insight into the mind of a retired Plod, which can be useful.
            And, to give credit where it is due, there is an occasional snippet of very useful information, e.g. about Northumbria PCC Vera Baird. Thank you for that. .

      2. What is ridiculous about these questions? On what basis does NS insult their author?

        “Whoever wins the next election, it seems inevitable that we are going to face a further 5 years of cuts.

        What public sectors would you like to help save?

        Which of the following would you be willing to fund by paying more Council Tax, Income Tax or NI Contributions?

        Would you be willing to pay a small amount more each month to help safeguard our..
        1. Public Services? Y/N
        2. Police? Y/N
        3. NHS Y/N
        4. Armed Forces? Y/N
        5. Education? Y/N
        6. Coastguard? Y/N
        7. What is the max. amount per month you would be willing to pay on top of your current taxes?”

        1. Your questions are certainly in line with modern forms of participatory budgeting & tax choice – so the kneejerk scorn from NS still baffles:

          “Participatory budgeting” often leads to more equitable public spending, greater government transparency and accountability, increased levels of public participation (especially by marginalized or poorer residents)..

          “Tax choice”; individual taxpayers should have direct control over how their taxes are spent

          With all these newfangled digital computer mobile app whatsits, why shouldn’t the electorate register their preference for govt. departments or spending areas they prefer to be increased or decreased the following year?

          Your questions would be perfect examples: I would log in (via a code generated from my NI number, eg) & tick Y (allocate more for Coastguards) or N (less) next year.

          Some independent web-like statistics authority could continuously consolidate everyone’s choices in real time, displaying voters’ combined preferential budget adjustments.

          If a nervous treasury objected that the country would go broke next year if it acceded to sudden ‘increase’ demands, it could still set the total affordable budget but, within that, should shift spending as the electorate dictates.

          If nervous departments objected that they couldn’t so quickly reduce or increase their spending, the consolidated voter preferences could be restricted to an agreed %age of each department/area budget per year.

          If the public say “spend more on police”, the police allocation would increase next year by their current agreed ‘maximum manageable’ yearly extra, perhaps 5%/year. If the voters preference is repeated the next year, the police should receive a further increment.

          Why not?

    Comments are closed.

    Verified by MonsterInsights