PEOPLE could surely be forgiven for thinking Chancellor George Osborne might be making it up as he goes along as he writes to public sector workers asking them how they think some of his massive spending cuts should be achieved.

Did he not think things through himself before he came up with his huge figures for additional cuts? They must, after all, be based on something, must they not? But, if they are, why does he need others to come up with ideas about what he can cut next?

Mr Osborne might lack an impressive track record when it comes to the economy. But he does not lack gumption. This has been demonstrated amply by the way in which he has attempted to portray a dismal economic performance as something quite the opposite, and then claimed credit for the imaginary good times.

However, years into an austerity programme that has ground down the morale of tens of thousands of public sector workers, he might be pushing the gumption thing too far this time.

Hopefully, some of those in the public sector might have the gumption to respond frankly but politely to his request, not suggesting cuts but perhaps laying out some of the problems created already by the austerity programme and warning of the dangers of further over-exuberant cuts. Come to think of it, we should maybe hope that they respond in some detail, especially with Mr Osborne often giving the impression he believes the public spending cuts, including slashed welfare provision, constitute a perfectly easy and obvious option.

Given he is ready and willing to listen to suggestions for cuts, this might be the ideal moment for those on the front line to explain, for example, that the welfare reforms are far from easy for those affected by them.

Whatever transpires from the consultation exercise, is it right, even if Mr Osborne is somehow unsure about where the latest cuts are going to come from, to ask public sector workers to offer suggestions as he cranks the dial up to “austerity max”? These are people who have often borne the brunt of austerity themselves, and suffered job insecurity and pay caps.

Surely the approach is more than a bit cheeky? Then again, Mr Osborne has been on a bit of a roll lately, with the Conservatives’ unexpected overall majority in May’s General Election seeming to have put a spring in his step.

He seems at times to be oblivious to the belated, stuttering and unbalanced nature of the UK’s recovery since the Conservatives came to power in 2010 as the senior coalition partner.

Last month, we had his so-called stability Budget, in which he trumpeted higher minimum wage levels but laid out plans to slash welfare spending by a further £12 billion annually. This might have seemed to some on the Conservative benches to be a triumph of presentation but it will leave so many people so much worse off.

Mr Osborne would do well to pay heed not only to any feedback he gets from beleaguered public sector workers on the detrimental impact of the cuts on people’s lives but also to warnings from leading economists about the huge effect on the wider economy of slashing welfare spending.

Meanwhile, you can almost hear“Shopping”, a song by the Pet Shop Boys about Margaret Thatcher’s privatisation spree, playing in the background as Mr Osborne has ramped up his own efforts to sell off the taxpayer’s assets.

This week, we even had the start of the sale of the UK Government’s stake in Royal Bank of Scotland, which was acquired to keep the Edinburgh-based bank afloat amid the financial crisis.

Analysis published this week by the Press Association has concluded that, including the proceeds from the sale of the taxpayer’s remaining stake in Royal Mail, Mr Osborne is set to raise more money through the disposal of public assets in the 2015/16 fiscal year than was generated by all privatisations in the previous two decades put together.

The RBS sale seemed curiously timed. And there were plenty of people who felt, perhaps justifiably, that the people who were benefiting were those City types whose culture of bonuses and excess played a part in bringing down the financial crisis upon us in the first place. Mr Osborne, as usual, seems unperturbed by any criticism.

Maybe if he had hung on a bit longer, he could have got a better deal for the taxpayer and reduced even marginally the need for future public spending cuts.

When it comes to cutting, there seem to be plenty of parallels between the political and corporate worlds right now. You get the feeling many companies’ top management, often egged on by well-paid external advisers unfamiliar with the business, pluck a percentage cost-saving out of thin air without much idea of how it will be achieved. Where top brass is at a loss as to how to boost shareholder returns, it seems to be fairly standard practice to cut, say, 10 per cent of the staff.

Such arbitrary decision-making and behaviour could be expected to result in a shambles. Would it be too much to ask for those at the top to take responsibility and actually earn their money through some original thinking? Surely they have to assess what will be lost with planned cuts to be able to make a decision on whether or not it is sensible to pursue such a saving, rather than just thinking of a number and then relying on others to make it happen.

And would they not be better to look at how to improve the top line in terms of generating additional revenues, perhaps through some investment, rather than merely focus on costs? After all, the cost-cutting route is far from risk-free. There is more than a good chance that it will reduce revenues, as the quality of a company’s products or services declines.

Although some top managers across sectors might not think it, you can only cut costs so far. And then what do you do for your next trick?

Maybe it has always been like this, but this obsession with cost-cutting seems far more prevalent than in the past. It seems to permeate society at the moment, like some kind of bad dream featuring the worst aspects of Victorian society, with a relentless slew of utterly tiresome “do more with less” rhetoric not only from the Government but from a raft of companies.

After years of austerity, from the Conservatives and corporations, resources have in many places been cut right down to the bone.

So perhaps, while he might have overdone it on gumption, it is no wonder Mr Osborne has to ask for suggestions about where else he can cut.