Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Default is inevitable. Discuss.

123578

Comments

  • #122
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Laois_Man wrote: »
    I may be nieve, and I am not a qualified economist - but we have only drawn down about 30% of the "Bailout" (I hate that term) money to date. It makes me mad that a single penny of that money plus our own taxes have already been thrown into a black hole. I don't accept that we need to or should continue to do so with large chunks of the other 70% (and then some).

    Have we even drawn down that much? I thought we'd drawn down only about a sixth of it.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #123
    Laois_Man
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,758 ✭✭✭Laois_Man


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Have we even drawn down that much? I thought we'd drawn down only about a sixth of it.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Sky News says we've drawn down about 20 billion!

    Edit: Here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42015917/ns/world_news-europe/
    MSNBC wrote:
    So far Ireland has drawn down about euro20 billion in EU-IMF funds to cover government bills and the estimated euro50 billion cost of sustaining five largely state-owned Dublin banks.

    Article dated March 10th 2011


  • #124
    fred252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 450 ✭✭fred252


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    That's a fair question - the answer is, in short, that the problem with winding up the banks is that it crystallises the banks' balance sheets, whereas the hope is to get the banks back on the market without ever doing that. Whether that's a credible hope is, of course, an open question!

    One can look at the banks and say that the government has been doing little but kicking the can down the road. That's largely true, but there is a reason for kicking the can down the road - that between stress tests, recapitalisation, NAMA, and the rest, the idea is that at some point someone else comes along and starts carrying that can, or buys it off us outright. AIB and BOI remain fundamentally profitable banks with a dominant home market presence and good overseas subsidiaries. To whatever extent the markets can be convinced that they're at least reasonably sound, state support can be gradually withdrawn.

    If on the other hand we crystallised the banks' balance sheets by winding them up, then we get to find out just how much of the banks' ECB debt they can repay - and because the ECB debt is state-guaranteed, we're on the hook for whatever of that can't be met from bank assets.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    you're clearly in the minority with that view. whatever about BOI how can you say an insolvent Bank like AIB is "fundamentally profitable".

    by the time this all plays out how many indigenous banks will be left? one or two i reckon with some form of amalgamation and/or rebranding. hopefully two because god knows there are a lot of people employed in that sector in this country.


  • #125
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    fred252 wrote: »
    you're clearly in the minority with that view. whatever about BOI how can you say an insolvent Bank like AIB is "fundamentally profitable".

    Because it makes a profit...although I should have said 'operationally profitable' rather than 'fundamentally', since the problem is largely that it fundamentally isn't profitable (or necessarily solvent without state support).

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #126
    fred252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 450 ✭✭fred252


    maybe slightly off topic here but i was just reading wikipedia's timeline of the subprime crisis. in sept 2008 it says;

    "
    September 25: Washington Mutual is seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and its banking assets are sold to JP MorganChase for $1.9 billion.
    ...
    September 30: US Treasury changes tax law to allow a bank acquiring another to write off all of the acquired bank's losses for tax purposes
    "

    so this was pretty much at the same time as our guarantee. why didn't we take the same approach i.e. seize the worst banks and sell their assets to the "less worse" banks and change the law to write off the worst bank's losses? then the state wouldn't be on the hook for a lot of this debt...


  • Advertisement
  • #127
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Is there a particular reason for ditching the IMF-agreed deficit reduction plan and substituting mine?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Because I don't see it working politically.


  • #128
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    fred252 wrote: »
    maybe slightly off topic here but i was just reading wikipedia's timeline of the subprime crisis. in sept 2008 it says;

    "
    September 25: Washington Mutual is seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and its banking assets are sold to JP MorganChase for $1.9 billion.
    ...
    September 30: US Treasury changes tax law to allow a bank acquiring another to write off all of the acquired bank's losses for tax purposes
    "

    so this was pretty much at the same time as our guarantee. why didn't we take the same approach i.e. seize the worst banks and sell their assets to the "less worse" banks and change the law to write off the worst bank's losses? then the state wouldn't be on the hook for a lot of this debt...

    There's the 60 billion euro question again...why wasn't Anglo taken into 'protective custody' as the DoF apparently wanted, rather than being given the same guarantee as the rest? Was it ineptitude? Was it some hidden motive? Were they genuinely convinced that anything other than a blanket guarantee of all the Irish domestic banks without discrimination would result in disaster?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #129
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    professore wrote: »
    Because I don't see it working politically.

    Which is to say...? Which bits don't you see working, and why? And should that be another thread? - because oddly enough we haven't really had much of a discussion of the austerity programme overall.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #130
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    fred252 wrote: »
    maybe slightly off topic here but i was just reading wikipedia's timeline of the subprime crisis. in sept 2008 it says;

    "
    September 25: Washington Mutual is seized by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, and its banking assets are sold to JP MorganChase for $1.9 billion.
    ...
    September 30: US Treasury changes tax law to allow a bank acquiring another to write off all of the acquired bank's losses for tax purposes
    "

    so this was pretty much at the same time as our guarantee. why didn't we take the same approach i.e. seize the worst banks and sell their assets to the "less worse" banks and change the law to write off the worst bank's losses? then the state wouldn't be on the hook for a lot of this debt...
    JP Morgan Chase has $2 trillion in diverse assets. US GDP is $14 trillion. Acquiring WaMu ($300bn assets) was easily affordable for JPM who had stayed profitable throughout the crisis.

    In Ireland's case, Both AIB and BoI had around €200bn in assets while Irish GDP was €160bn. Much of AIB and BoI's assets turned out to be very poor quality property loans. There is no comparison between the two situations.

    Laois_Man wrote:
    Sky News says we've drawn down about 20 billion!

    Edit: Here's a link: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42015917...d_news-europe/
    As far as I know we've only drawn down the first tranche of €5.8bn in January. Each quarter thereafter there is another tranche of 2.2bn for drawdown. The schedule is here. I don't think we've had the March money yet with the changeover in government.

    The first 10bn of the bank recap money is to come from us and the next 25bn from IMF/EU. We haven't put in our 10bn yet.
    ilovesleep wrote:
    Our banks never defaulted. our ex government stepped in, tried to save the banks and in doing so tied banking debt to sovereign debt. this thread is very much about a sovereign default.
    Anglo defaulted in November last year. see here: http://www.creditflux.com/Trading/2010-11-24/Anglo-Irish-has-triggered-restructuring-credit-event-says-Isda/


  • #131
    kenrr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭kenrr


    Can anybody suggest a reasonably credible scenario whereby a bank default of any significance would actually occur under the current rule of law?

    If I look at the covered banks ...
    Anglo and INBS have between them 3bn guaranteed senior bonds; 3.5bn unguaranteed senior bonds; 0.5bn junior bonds. The guarantee for the senior bonds exists for the life of the bond therefore Govt is on the hook for the 3bn whatever happens. Govt may put these banks into liquidation as a political gesture but it would not be of any significance in reducing Govt debt levels particularly if there are still some idiots with deposits in the banks which Govt has to legally reimburse under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme. If the banks defaulted by not paying the bonds' dividends and/or not paying out on maturity, how likely is it that the bondholders would force the banks into liquidation? Possibly unlikely; however the bondholders would know that Govt does not have the money to reimburse guaranteed bondholders and depositors so the bondholders may threaten liquidation?

    EBS and ILP have between them 6bn of guaranteed senior bonds; 5.5bn unguaranteed senior bonds; 1bn junior bonds. Govt is on the hook for the 6bn of guaranteed for the life of the bonds. These institutions have a large deposit base and Govt would be on the hook for many billions more under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme if put into liquidation. On a cost/benefit basis Govt would probably do almost anything to keep these institutions running.

    AIB and BOI have between them 12bn of guaranteed senior bonds; 26bn unguaranteed senior bonds; 6bn junior bonds. Superficially it may appear that the difference between 12bn guaranteed and 32bn unguaranteed senior/junior may make it tempting to put AIB and BOI into liquidation. However the amount of deposits guaranteed under the Deposit Guarantee Scheme would be very large ... no way does Govt have the money to reimburse depositors, let alone reimburse the losses of the 12bn guaranteed bonds.

    It's not the bondholder guarantee that would force Govt into sovereign default; it's the depositor guarantee which would be unpayable. Anything other than putting AIB and BOI into liquidation would not make any difference to a default/no default situation. If AIB and BOI default and go into liquidation then the ordinary Irish depositor will suffer losses which, in aggregate, will far exceed any losses suffered by bondholders.

    Presumably, of course, Govt could try to introduce some sort of retrospective legislation to change the way that bank default situations are legally handled (i.e. to discriminate against bondholders) but I assume that would probably be the subject of legal challenge.


  • Advertisement
  • #132
    fred252
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 450 ✭✭fred252


    dynamick wrote: »
    JP Morgan Chase has $2 trillion in diverse assets. US GDP is $14 trillion. Acquiring WaMu ($300bn assets) was easily affordable for JPM who had stayed profitable throughout the crisis.

    In Ireland's case, Both AIB and BoI had around €200bn in assets while Irish GDP was €160bn. Much of AIB and BoI's assets turned out to be very poor quality property loans. There is no comparison between the two situations.

    That doesn't mean it wasn't an option. It was. The question is why it wasn't chosen. Forget the comparison with the U.S. - I was just pointing out that this type of thing was an option.


  • #133
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Which is to say...? Which bits don't you see working, and why? And should that be another thread? - because oddly enough we haven't really had much of a discussion of the austerity programme overall.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    Looking at this: http://forexblog.oanda.com/20101124/irelands-austerity-plan-at-a-glance/

    * Corporation tax rate unchanged at 12.5%. Under severe pressure
    * 10bn euros of spending cuts between 2011-2014, and 5bn euros in tax rises. Tax base is shrinking so in real terms this will hurt big time.
    * Minimum wage to be cut by one euro to 7.65 euros per hour. OK
    * 3bn euros of cuts in public investment by 2014. OK
    * 2.8bn euros of welfare cuts by 2014, returning spending to 2007 levels. OK
    * Reduction of public sector pay bill by 1.2bn euros by 2014. Will not fly politically.
    * Reform public sector pensions for new entrants and cut their pay by 10%.
    Will not fly politically
    * 24,750 cut in public sector jobs, back to 2005 level.
    Will not fly politically
    * VAT up from 21% to 22% in 2013, then 23% in 2014.
    Counter productive.
    * Raise an extra 1.9bn euros from income tax. Painful on shrinking wage packets.
    * Abolition of some tax reliefs worth 755m euros.
    * Real GDP to grow by an average of 2.75% from 2011 to 2014. Good luck with that
    * Unemployment to fall from 13.5% to below 10% in 2014. Good luck with that
    * Introduce water metering by 2014.

    If nothing changes I see us not sticking to the deal and then an extremely messy default in 2012-2013. And I am normally an optimist. Unless FG/LAB really take charge of the economy and railroad these changes through, which I don't see happening TBH, even though I respect what they have done so far compared to FF.


  • #134
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    fred252 wrote: »
    That doesn't mean it wasn't an option. It was. The question is why it wasn't chosen. Forget the comparison with the U.S. - I was just pointing out that this type of thing was an option.
    Are you suggesting that BoI should have acquired Anglo and then we'd be fine?

    Anglo turned out to have a net liability of 30bn. BoI could not have survived with that liability. BoI pays a couple of hundred mil in tax a year, so a tax write off was never going to make up the difference.


  • #135
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    The 2 Year Ireland-Bund spread has just hit an all time record wide of 835 bps, following unconfirmed rumors that either Ireland or Allied Irish Bank has missed a coupon payment. Since the latter is backstopped by the former it is rather difficult to see where one ends and the other begins. And confirming that Europe can no longer use MENA or Japan as a smokescreen, Greek 10 year spread to Bunds widens 16 bps to 935 bps. Since pretty much all curves are inverted, we expect Ireland to approach Greek default risk within days. This is especially true since nothing in Europe's fiscal situation has changed and the dire funding requirements for debt rolling and deficit funding, are, well, dire.
    source

    Lets hope that all it is, is a rumour unlike the last time....


  • #136
    K-9
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 43,313 ✭✭✭✭K-9


    Indeed, I've pointed this out too, it isn't just a bondholders problem, it's a deposit holders problem.

    Also, I think the INBS and Anglo deposits have been transferred to PTSB and BOI, I think.

    Mad Men's Don Draper : What you call love was invented by guys like me, to sell nylons.



  • #137
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    professore wrote: »
    * Reform public sector pensions for new entrants and cut their pay by 10%.
    Will not fly politically
    This has been done already. New entrants are paid 10% less than existing. http://www.finance.gov.ie/documents/circulars/2010/circ182010.pdf

    * 24,750 cut in public sector jobs, back to 2005 level.
    Will not fly politically
    This is in the PfG agreed with Labour (cuts of 18,000-21,000 in public sector jobs)

    professore wrote: »
    * Reduction of public sector pay bill by 1.2bn euros by 2014. Will not fly politically.
    This is a consequence of cutting numbers.


  • #138
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    fred252 wrote: »
    JP Morgan Chase has $2 trillion in diverse assets. US GDP is $14 trillion. Acquiring WaMu ($300bn assets) was easily affordable for JPM who had stayed profitable throughout the crisis.

    In Ireland's case, Both AIB and BoI had around €200bn in assets while Irish GDP was €160bn. Much of AIB and BoI's assets turned out to be very poor quality property loans. There is no comparison between the two situations
    That doesn't mean it wasn't an option. It was. The question is why it wasn't chosen. Forget the comparison with the U.S. - I was just pointing out that this type of thing was an option.

    Swallowing a minnow is swallowing a minnow, but the details are very different depending on whether the swallower is a pike or a water flea.

    All the banks here were too similar in size for one to be sold to another.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #139
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,557 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    Europe wont get us to concede on corporation tax, atleast not yet anyway, maybe they should tell us they will back off corporation tax, we honour to repay all debt but at lower interest rate, and start actually tackling the deficit, if I were them I would be very concerned about getting my money back! its like lending to a supposedly reformed spendaholic, who then continues living the high life at your expense after promising to change, the longer this goes on, the less chance you will ever see you money and your doing the guy a favor in first place! I think there is blame on us, the ECB and European governments, and that responsibility should be taken by all, and a compromise reached...


  • #140
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    In about 15 months Ireland will have to go to the markets to borrow more as "bailout" runs out

    what then? what exactly will bring down our rate between now and then?? considerings it just keeps rising


  • #141
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    In about 15 months Ireland will have to go to the markets to borrow more as "bailout" runs out

    what then? what exactly will bring down our rate between now and then?? considerings it just keeps rising

    A reduction in the regularity of default threats might help somewhat, as would actually reducing the deficit. At the moment, we have an agreement that's barely a few months old, and we're already trying to change the terms, after a snap election in which nearly everybody promised default or restructuring except the party that had no hope of winning - it's not exactly confidence-building.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #142
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,557 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    In about 15 months Ireland will have to go to the markets to borrow more as "bailout" runs out

    thats the thing, I dont think they will, simply because we cant, simply because the government are not doing anywhere near enough to tackle deficit.


  • #143
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    thats the thing, I dont think they will, simply because we cant, simply because the government are not doing anywhere near enough to tackle deficit.

    Between maturing debt and the deficit, it's easy to see that the €50bn in the bailout facility falls short of being a 4-year provision, let alone a 5-year one:

    Year|Govt Bonds|Short Term Debt|Retail Debt|Other Debt|Liquid Assets|Total|Deficit (€bn)|Total Debt (€bn)*||||||||
    2011|4585|6977|1083|1035|-16164|-2485|17.7|15.22
    2012|5770||1083|||6852|15.1|37.17
    2013|6055||1083|||7137|11|55.3
    2014|11882||1083|||12964|6.6|74.87

    By that reckoning (debt maturities and deficit figures are from the NTMA) we should indeed need to go back to the markets in late 2013. To stay within the envelope, we should have been looking at a deficit this year of about €15bn, €12bn next year, €9bn in 2013, and €6bn in 2014.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #144
    Taxi Drivers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 182 ✭✭Taxi Drivers


    If we are to default on bank/sovereign/all debt where does this fit in?

    Irish%20Securities%20held%20by%20Covered%20Banks_thumb.png?imgmax=800

    The covered banks hold €11 billion (out of €90 billion) of existing government bonds. The €40-odd billion of private sector bonds are largely those given to the banks by NAMA. Worryingly, it shows that banks hold €32 billion of bonds from Irish monetary financial institutions. I'm not sure where the €30 billion of promissory notes given by the government are.

    Anyway, it seems a soverign default will cost the banks some portion of the €11 billion of government bonds they hold. That's a loss for us.

    More worryingly, I think is the €32 billion of bank bonds held by the bonds. Apparently, the big jump in this series last month was due to the issuing of €17 billion of self-held bonds so these aren't a huge issue. But what about the other €15 billion. The piece suggests that this is €15 billion of bonds which the covered banks hold in each other. I'm not convinced.

    Maybe the banks hold bonds from financial institutions other than the guaranteed ones themselves. Another thought was that maybe these are bonds from offshore subsidaries/divisions of the banks but it says the bonds comes from Irish financial institutions so that rules that out I think. Would a bank default just be another loss for us?

    Anyone of our informed contributors got an answer to this? It would be nice to think that a default would not end up just burning outselves.


  • #145
    kenrr
    Closed Accounts Posts: 42 ✭kenrr


    K-9 wrote: »
    Indeed, I've pointed this out too, it isn't just a bondholders problem, it's a deposit holders problem.

    Also, I think the INBS and Anglo deposits have been transferred to PTSB and BOI, I think.
    The majority of Anglo and INBS deposits, total about 12bn, were sold to AIB and ILPP. It appears there's still 2bn to 3bn remaining on deposit with Anglo/INBS ... not sure why though?

    However, as you say, the bank problem is both a bondholder and a depositor problem. My point is that the depositor problem is far greater than the bondholder problem.

    If the 6 covered banks (including AIB and BOI) were allowed to go into default and consequently were liquidated then Govt is legally obliged to reimburse guaranteed depositors (assume 100bn total guaranteed deposits) losses up to 100K under the DGS and the guaranteed senior bondholders (total 21bn) losses under the ELG. I don't see there's any way that Govt could revoke either of these guarantees.

    If liquidating the 6 covered banks resulted in, say, senior bondholders and depositors taking a 30% haircut, then Govt would have to pay out 30bn to the guaranteed depositors and 6bn to the guaranteed senior bondholders. Obviously the money isn't there and, as far as I can see, default by the 6 covered banks must inevitably result in immediate sovereign default. To me, all this stuff about Govt protecting bondholders is nonsense ... having regard to the scale of the banking problem, Govt has never had the ability to meet it's legal obligations to reimburse depositors under the DGS ... and that's the 500lb gorilla in the room.


  • #146
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    As clear as all this seems, European politicians are largely unwilling to admit that their banks may be short of capital. Economists and other observers have realized all along that the true reason for (temporarily) offering aid to Greece was to protect banks in other countries (including Germany and France) from losses on their holdings of risky euro-area sovereign debt. The policy community downplayed this fact—until Ireland. By then, the game was up. It became clear last fall that the true objective of the euro "bailouts" was to buy time for European banks to rebuild their capital so that they could endure eventual losses from debt restructurings.

    Markets are not fooled by policy rhetoric or by ineffective stress tests. Consequently, banks in some countries have had chronic problems in borrowing privately. Ironically, to protect itself, the banking system has sought to buy protection against the defaults of governments. But this hedging, using credit default swaps, drives up the cost of the insurance, so that CDS spreads have widened. In response, some politicians argue that buying protection should be banned or insist that more stringent fiscal consolidation is the answer. But these diagnoses miss the point: Europe's sovereign-debt problems cannot be separated from its banking problems. If the banks were better capitalized, then sovereign spreads would be narrower, and the banks could withstand a government-debt restructuring needed to put budget deficits on a sustainable path. Repairing Europe's banks would help end the financial crisis, even if large economic adjustments would still be needed in the euro area to promote convergence and growth

    ...


    Ultimately, the crisis in Europe will continue until we have answers to two critical questions: How much money is needed to stabilize the banks, and where will it come from?

    http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704893604576198850194400550.html


  • #147
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    dynamick wrote: »
    * 24,750 cut in public sector jobs, back to 2005 level.
    This is in the PfG agreed with Labour (cuts of 18,000-21,000 in public sector jobs)

    Similar to the massive reforms and productivity gains seen under social partnership, benchmarking and the Croke Park Agreement?


  • #148
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    Europe France and Germany wont get us to concede on corporation tax,

    Fixed your post


  • #149
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    professore wrote: »
    Similar to the massive reforms and productivity gains seen under social partnership, benchmarking and the Croke Park Agreement?
    There was a reduction in ps headcount of 3,800 in 2010 following a reduction of 20,400 in 2009. I don't think it's far fetched to expect that another 20,000 reduction can happen in the next 4 years. That's 1% reduction per year through not replacing people who leave.


  • #150
    professore
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭professore


    dynamick wrote: »
    There was a reduction in ps headcount of 3,800 in 2010 following a reduction of 20,400 in 2009.

    This is news to me. Source?


  • Advertisement
  • #151
    dynamick
    Closed Accounts Posts: 724 ✭✭✭dynamick


    source is cso qnhs

    I don't agree with cutting public sector numbers in this way. If numbers have to be cut I would prefer if an outsider came in and picked out the bottom 5% by performance and fired them with minimal compensation. Instead we will lose those confident enough to leave and find work elsewhere.

    Instead of making any PS redundancies that may lead to disimproved services, I'd prefer to see further pay cuts or increased pension levies.


Advertisement