Budget will cost 1.3 million jobs

Is this really the best way to recovery?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/budget-job-losses-unemployment-austerity

George Osborne's austerity budget will result in the loss of up to 1.3m jobs across the economy over the next five years according to a private Treasury assessment of the planned spending cuts, the Guardian has learned.

Unpublished estimates of the impact of the biggest squeeze on public spending since the second world war show that the government is expecting between 500,000 and 600,000 jobs to go in the public sector and between 600,000 and 700,000 to disappear in the private sector by 2015.

For "will" read "may or may not really".

Forgive me for not taking an article from the tree huggers daily seriously.

Forgive me for not taking an article from the tree huggers daily seriously.

I suppose, we don't take him seriously when he uses an article from the Daily Heil or Daily Racist - then again do we EVER really take him seriously?

For "will" read "may or may not really".

When have you ever known Government estimates to be on the mark? They probably tried to underestimate the scale of predicted unemployment, to paint the budget in a good light.

Isn't it a good job that they also optimistically predict 2.5 million new private sector jobs. Magic (and obsessive ideologicallly driven magic at that).

I for one want to see job losses in the public sector. There are far too many public sector workers and it needs sorting out.

I for one want to see job losses in the public sector. There are far too many public sector workers and it needs sorting out.

These workers you want to weed out, I assume they are the least effective workers? You know the ones on £12-14K pa, who you want to sack and force to claim benefits (of say £12-14k pa) instead?. Hey, if they manage to fill in a few spreadsheets each year the government actually gains, right?

Oh, but you want to remove their benefits too, so what are they going to do? Beg?

These workers you want to weed out, I assume they are the least effective workers? You know the ones on £12-14K pa, who you want to sack and force to claim benefits (of say £12-14k pa) instead?. Hey, if they manage to fill in a few spreadsheets each year the government actually gains, right?

 

Isn't that a "Soviet" economy. If we give everyone a job, we could have full employment.

I'm sorry but you don't reduce the deficit by guaranteeing every public sector worker their job for life.

I dont think the government want the 10-15k jobs gone. You read the Guardian (I assume due to your initial snippet) and so would have seen for the last 10 years jobs in government advertised on ridiculous wages with job titles just as mad. Something on the lines of welfare of the fornication unit of the 18thc nuns- 65k pa

I may add that during the budget those low paid public sector workers were rewarded with a bonus, and rightly so. those people are appreciated IMO

I dont think the government want the 10-15k jobs gone. You read the Guardian (I assume due to your initial snippet) and so would have seen for the last 10 years jobs in government advertised on ridiculous wages with job titles just as mad. Something on the lines of welfare of the fornication unit of the 18thc nuns- 65k pa

I may add that during the budget those low paid public sector workers were rewarded with a bonus, and rightly so. those people are appreciated IMO

THe only 'front line staff' who I know of for certain who earn less than 21k are nurses...can someone enlighten me further? For example, I missed the bonus by about £10!

Isn't that a "Soviet" economy. If we give everyone a job, we could have full employment.

 

I'm sorry but you don't reduce the deficit by guaranteeing every public sector worker their job for life.

Well no of course, but I still think the banking sector (note, not the private) has really got away with this deficit. Surely I am not the only one who would have liked to have a seen a 'Robin Hood' tax as a gesture of "You ****ing caused this **** heap of a mess we are in, have some of that!"?

As another poster commented the other day, the government has done a fantastic job of piting the public sector against the private sector.

As another poster commented the other day, the government has done a fantastic job of piting the public sector against the private sector.

I already believed that public sector workers needed a kick up the arse before the coalition came to power.

Isn't that a "Soviet" economy. If we give everyone a job, we could have full employment.

 

I'm sorry but you don't reduce the deficit by guaranteeing every public sector worker their job for life.

Not really Lord D. A Soviet system would have 100% employed by the state, quotas to fulfil, and guns at the back of their heads to enforce it.

We are talking about those less efficient members of the public service, and whether it is more or less cost efficient to keep them in employment. Financially, there doesn't seem to be a lot in it. Socially, I'd argue that people who go out to work tend to bring up children who contribute more to society than those brought up by the long-term unemployed.

Sure, public services aren't efficient. And the obvious solution is to streamline them and run them like a top FTSE company. But what happens to the millions who are left to cope without employment? Workhouses?

I dont think the government want the 10-15k jobs gone.

What other jobs are they targetting? All they are doing is cutting the departmental budgets, and leaving the higher ranking civil servants to juggle the maths. Some of them are going to be left with stark choices: cut some projects; cut the private sector contractors who are keeping the department running; or cut some of the staff who are pushing pencils about.

You read the Guardian (I assume due to your initial snippet) and so would have seen for the last 10 years jobs in government advertised on ridiculous wages with job titles just as mad. Something on the lines of welfare of the fornication unit of the 18thc nuns- 65k pa

When was the last time a low paid job was advertised in a national paper? The only public jobs nationally advertised will be for specialists, managers, or possibly for lower staff in the event of a skills shortage.

Well no of course, but I still think the banking sector (note, not the private) has really got away with this deficit. Surely I am not the only one who would have liked to have a seen a 'Robin Hood' tax as a gesture of "You ****ing caused this **** heap of a mess we are in, have some of that!"?

 

.

This is a very delicate balancing act. If you go after the Bankers and let them "have some of that" they'll move their operation elsewhere. It's a industry that's very fluid and can move cities relatively easily. It's a question of getting the most tax revenue from them, without them leaving. There's no point in taxing them so high that you lose the tax revenues to another country.

This is a very delicate balancing act. If you go after the Bankers and let them "have some of that" they'll move their operation elsewhere. It's a industry that's very fluid and can move cities relatively easily. It's a question of getting the most tax revenue from them, without them leaving. There's no point in taxing them so high that you lose the tax revenues to another country.

Precisely. We've already lost our industry to China without losing the banking sector to Shanghai.

What other jobs are they targetting? All they are doing is cutting the departmental budgets, and leaving the higher ranking civil servants to juggle the maths. Some of them are going to be left with stark choices: cut some projects; cut the private sector contractors who are keeping the department running; or cut some of the staff who are pushing pencils about.

 

 

 

When was the last time a low paid job was advertised in a national paper? The only public jobs nationally advertised will be for specialists, managers, or possibly for lower staff in the event of a skills shortage.

If frontline services are to be protected, then the lower paid jobs will be saved. There is a lot of non essential staff higher up the chain who will go.The mandarins in the higher echelons will do thier best to keep their comfy life, and so will not hesitate to cut people in the higher paid jobs. The staff left will work harder as they will make sure they dont get the boot.Just like the private sector really.

If frontline services are to be protected, then the lower paid jobs will be saved. There is a lot of non essential staff higher up the chain who will go.The mandarins in the higher echelons will do thier best to keep their comfy life, and so will not hesitate to cut people in the higher paid jobs. The staff left will work harder as they will make sure they dont get the boot.Just like the private sector really.

No doubt frontline services will be retained, but every department has hundreds of low grade back office staff, many doing repetitive tasks, or pointless projects. Low grade back office staff can expect £12-16k pa, whereas, 'frontline' staff typically earn more: Firefighter c. £19k; Police Officer c. £30k; Nurse c. £26k, Teacher c. £29k*. It's the back-office low grade staff whose jobs will be on the line, not the frontline staff. I'm sure some management will be culled too, but unfortunately the much bemoaned 'middle management' will be largely retained, because the vast civil service simple couldn't operate with a flat management structure - there are too many people, in too many teams/projects who need to be overseen. By and large, middle managers will only lose their jobs if the low paid staff are removed from beneath them. Staff at the top of the tree will be virtually bulletproof, unless they fail to make efficency savings, or perhaps make some other political gaff. Also, this is the Tory party we are talking about, are they really going to sack middle or upper managers, when there are Labour voters to sack first?

You've also got to realise that many government departments are tied into lengthy contracts with private companies. These contracts can't just be cut mid-term, without penalties. As such, much of government spending, is already spent. The only real place cuts can be made is right at the bottom of the tree - the low-skill, low-paid, back office staff, who will find it difficult to find further employment in the Private Sector. They will end up on the dole, costing the government about the same as they did when they were in full time employment.

* Source salarytrack.co.uk

No doubt frontline services will be retained, but every department has hundreds of low grade back office staff, many doing repetitive tasks, or pointless projects. Low grade back office staff can expect £12-16k pa, whereas, 'frontline' staff typically earn more: Firefighter c. £19k; Police Officer c. £30k; Nurse c. £26k, Teacher c. £29k*. It's the back-office low grade staff whose jobs will be on the line, not the frontline staff. I'm sure some management will be culled too, but unfortunately the much bemoaned 'middle management' will be largely retained, because the vast civil service simple couldn't operate with a flat management structure - there are too many people, in too many teams/projects who need to be overseen. By and large, middle managers will only lose their jobs if the low paid staff are removed from beneath them. Staff at the top of the tree will be virtually bulletproof, unless they fail to make efficency savings, or perhaps make some other political gaff. Also, this is the Tory party we are talking about, are they really going to sack middle or upper managers, when there are Labour voters to sack first?

 

You've also got to realise that many government departments are tied into lengthy contracts with private companies. These contracts can't just be cut mid-term, without penalties. As such, much of government spending, is already spent. The only real place cuts can be made is right at the bottom of the tree - the low-skill, low-paid, back office staff, who will find it difficult to find further employment in the Private Sector. They will end up on the dole, costing the government about the same as they did when they were in full time employment.

* Source salarytrack.co.uk

Haha, I would love to know where salarytrack gets their figures from! I would LOVE to earn that much!

I did notice in the projections that the public sector job losses would trigger even higher private sector job losses.

Haha, I would love to know where salarytrack gets their figures from! I would LOVE to earn that much!

You're a teacher aren't you? I could have picked from other souces...

"all teachers, including those at nursery and primary level, earn above £30,000 - salaries which are substantially above the rates earned by civil and electrical engineers."

"The average salary for a Teacher in the UK is: £30,889"

"the average teacher's salary in March 2006, when it stood at £31,434 ... Teachers had a 2.5% pay rise in September, which if reflected in the average would take it to about £32,200 at present."

Its a tricky balancing act. If the government dont cut the deficit then the UKs triple AAA rating will be lost - which will mean we will have to pay more interest on the £1.4 trillion plus we owe - and an extra 0.5%pa on £1.4 trillion is £7billion pa. So £7bn is going to come out of the economy whichever way you do it.

I did notice in the projections that the public sector job losses would trigger even higher private sector job losses.

But hang on a minute! Isn't the government saying that the private sector will 'mop up' those made redundant from the public sector?

But hang on a minute! Isn't the government saying that the private sector will 'mop up' those made redundant from the public sector?

I don't really get that bit. They seem to be simultaniously predicting a drop of between '600,000 and 700,000' private sector jobs (over the next 5 years), while at the same time an additional 2.5 million new private sector jobs... As far as I can see, the private sector will lose jobs which depend upon government spending, but them mysteriously create new jobs out of thin air during unfavorable economic conditions. Where are these new magic jobs going to be created? Which UK industry is about to expand?

Edit: Here's some more on those magic 2 million new jobs: http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jun/30/george-osborne-unemployment-statistics

You're a teacher aren't you? I could have picked from other souces...

 

"all teachers, including those at nursery and primary level, earn above £30,000 - salaries which are substantially above the rates earned by civil and electrical engineers."

 

"The average salary for a Teacher in the UK is: £30,889"

 

"the average teacher's salary in March 2006, when it stood at £31,434 ... Teachers had a 2.5% pay rise in September, which if reflected in the average would take it to about £32,200 at present."

He's not been teaching long enough to be at that scale. Those salaries would be after 5/6 years service. the "all teacher earn over £30K" quote is factually inaccurate. I'm in the sector myself so speak from experience.

He's not been teaching long enough to be at that scale. Those salaries would be after 5/6 years service. the "all teacher earn over £30K" quote is factually inaccurate. I'm in the sector myself so speak from experience.

Agree entirely. The "all teachers over £30k" is well off the mark, as they start on what, about £21K (ish)? But the average for all teachers is probably around the £30-32k mark...

Agree entirely. The "all teachers over £30k" is well off the mark, as they start on what, about £21K (ish)? But the average for all teachers is probably around the £30-32k mark...

Countrywide I would suggest that a median of £31k would be about right.

I deal with some schools (usually tough ones) where the staff are quite young (U30) and usually stay for 2-3 years and the staffing costs, outside of senior managers, are lower because of it and some schools (leafy nice ones) where the staff are all older (40+) and they've all gone through the threshold and staffings costs are very high.

I would say that is way overpaid, considering the amount of holiday they get.

I would say that is way overpaid, considering the amount of holiday they get.

You try doing it then.

I would say that is way overpaid, considering the amount of holiday they get.

Bit unfair IMO. Most of the teachers I know spend much of their leave on paperwork and marking. The amount of effort that's involved, and the level of training required is broadly in line with other private sector roles on c. £30k (say HR etc). Were the wage lower, we'd have difficulty recruiting quality teachers.

I would say that is way overpaid, considering the amount of holiday they get.

You really don't know what you're talking about. My son-in-law is a teacher and he works from 7am to 5pm 5 days a week and then spends either Saturday or Sunday preparing for the next week. During the recent bad snow, he walked 3 miles to his school to help clear the road / path / playground although in the end the school didn't open.

He regularly goes into school during the school holidays and he also attends courses, case conferences etc.

Quite often he spends his own money buying stuff relevant to projects he's undertaking with the children (he teaches primary school children with special needs).

I think he is one of the most hard-working dedicated people I've ever met.

Bit unfair IMO. Most of the teachers I know spend much of their leave on paperwork and marking. The amount of effort that's involved, and the level of training required is broadly in line with other private sector roles on c. £30k (say HR etc). Were the wage lower, we'd have difficulty recruiting quality teachers.

Already the case in Maths and Science which is why new recruits get their 'golden hello' to make the job more inticing...

Littlejohn's got it spot on. There is massive waste in the Public sector and thankfully we have a Govt prepared to risk short term unpopularity to do so.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1290427/Black-magic-online-poker--just-slow-day-Town-Hall.html

Littlejohn's got it spot on. There is massive waste in the Public sector and thankfully we have a Govt prepared to risk short term unpopularity to do so.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1290427/Black-magic-online-poker--just-slow-day-Town-Hall.html

I don't think anyone has ever said there isn't waste. I see it everyday. The problem is that when the cuts come I doubt that they'll be targetted where they should be or be done by the people who know where the waste can be cut!

Littlejohn's got it spot on. There is massive waste in the Public sector and thankfully we have a Govt prepared to risk short term unpopularity to do so.

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1290427/Black-magic-online-poker--just-slow-day-Town-Hall.html

A bit like with Saints they are working to a 5 year plan. The thinking of the Coalition is to make the tough decisions now so that by the time of the next election the country is getting back on its feet and the electorate will appreciate that the gain was worth the pain.

You really don't know what you're talking about. My son-in-law is a teacher and he works from 7am to 5pm 5 days a week and then spends either Saturday or Sunday preparing for the next week. During the recent bad snow, he walked 3 miles to his school to help clear the road / path / playground although in the end the school didn't open.

 

He regularly goes into school during the school holidays and he also attends courses, case conferences etc.

 

Quite often he spends his own money buying stuff relevant to projects he's undertaking with the children (he teaches primary school children with special needs).

 

I think he is one of the most hard-working dedicated people I've ever met.

I'm just going by personal experience, a few of my mates are teachers and most of them just ended up teaching because they couldn't get jobs in the the subjects they graduated in (WTF can you do with a degree in history nowadays?).

Also at school there were plenty of teachers who just turned up, stuck a video on and sat in the corner of the room for an hour. There are obviously good and bad but 30K is a decent wage considering the time off they get IMO.

I'm just going by personal experience, a few of my mates are teachers and most of them just ended up teaching because they couldn't get jobs in the the subjects they graduated in (WTF can you do with a degree in history nowadays?).

 

Also at school there were plenty of teachers who just turned up, stuck a video on and sat in the corner of the room for an hour. There are obviously good and bad but 30K is a decent wage considering the time off they get IMO.

My son has a Philosophy degree. He has a very senior job in IT. Employers consider that achieving a good degree shows application and motivation as well as intelligence so, for non technical jobs, the subject matter doesn't matter.

I know a lot of teachers. I don't know one who actually only works school hours and who doesn't do anything job related in the holidays.

I'm just going by personal experience, a few of my mates are teachers and most of them just ended up teaching because they couldn't get jobs in the the subjects they graduated in (WTF can you do with a degree in history nowadays?).

 

Also at school there were plenty of teachers who just turned up, stuck a video on and sat in the corner of the room for an hour. There are obviously good and bad but 30K is a decent wage considering the time off they get IMO.

Those teachers you mentioned have been weeded out over the last couple of years, you simply can't get away (or couldn't under Labour) with that anymore :-)

Those teachers you mentioned have been weeded out over the last couple of years, you simply can't get away (or couldn't under Labour) with that anymore :-)

Public sector workers being expected to work. What is the world coming to?

It's about time teachers holidays were addressed though as it's nonsense for teachers to be paid for sitting on their arses for week on end. I know we often don't see eye to eye but surely you must agree that it's about time teachers were brought in line with the real world.

Also at school there were plenty of teachers who just turned up, stuck a video on and sat in the corner of the room for an hour. There are obviously good and bad but 30K is a decent wage considering the time off they get IMO.

I'm just coming up to the end of my 30th year teaching in Berkshire secondary schools. Some of what you say about the profession with regards to teachers sticking a video on and plonking themselves in a corner may well have been prevalent in the past. Schools that allow staff to get away with that today simply would not get past OFSTED. As for the salaries. I'd be interested to know what you regard as acceptable as you obviously imply here that 30000K does not offer vfm. The holidays thing is always trolled out whenever teacher's salaries, terms and conditions are discussed. Some cannot see how we get paid when we don't work. It's just that salaries are divided into twelve monthly installments instead of being paid only in term time. My job as a senior teacher is one which involves me managing the difficult and dissaffected across a school of around 1000 students and without wanting to wanting to sound like billy Big ******** I earn well over half as much again as the average teacher. I have demanding targets, one of which was to reduce exclusions from the school by 35% this year, the team I lead has reduced it by 64% and at the same time improved the performance of said disaffected in exams. Every Child Matters.

Public sector workers being expected to work. What is the world coming to?

 

It's about time teachers holidays were addressed though as it's nonsense for teachers to be paid for sitting on their arses for week on end. I know we often don't see eye to eye but surely you must agree that it's about time teachers were brought in line with the real world.

Or trolling on an internet forum?

You must have a job lot of tar to brush people with.

Or trolling on an internet forum?

 

You must have a job lot of tar to brush people with.

Well whilst they are on their long and regular school holidays they are hardly working and earning their money are they?

Well whilst they are on their long and regular school holidays they are hardly working and earning their money are they?

Stanley in 'not bothering to read perfectly valid points by people who actually know stuff' shocker.

You also miss the point that you seem to spend an inordinate amount of time on here when, I imagine, you are supposed to be working.

You finally miss the point that many teachers actually spend time on their school work during school holidays and weekends, not to mention the unpaid work they do for parents' evenings and preparation for OFSTED visits.

But I forgot, you've been so busy with that tar brush, you've forgotten to go to the opticians to get your tunnel vision corrected.

Or trolling on an internet forum?

 

You must have a job lot of tar to brush people with.

He's just a not very bright, live at home with mum, poorly qualified, low skilled neo nazi.

If our lives were as sh*t as his I guess we'd all feel as bitter and cheated as he does.

He does read so much better on ignore though.

He's just a not very bright, live at home with mum, poorly qualified, low skilled neo nazi.

 

If our lives were as sh*t as his I guess we'd all feel as bitter and cheated as he does.

 

He does read so much better on ignore though.

I'd forgotten we have that option. I'll use it right now

Thib article from the Guardian (not The Mail or The Express) says it all...

Life as a teacher is just one long holiday

"With 13 weeks holiday a year, teachers are more likely to use the summer period for extended breaks with 1 in 4 (25%) using their time to take long holidays abroad - double the amount of most other professions," the TDA says.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/mortarboard/2008/jul/25/onelongholiday

Most firms in the private sector off about 25 days per anum so clearly the coalition need to sort this waste of tax payers money out.

So Dune, is your name Charles?

I have sent 4 children through the schools system and obviously went to school myself. My Wife also went to uni as a mature student to become a midwife and my Uncle was a Head teacher for many years.

In my experience there are some fantastic teachers who inspire and enthuse the children. There are also some hopeless one's completely out of their depth, who do more harm than good. It should be up to the headmaster to get rid of these hopeless cases, just as it is for me to Manage out any hopeless staff I have. It is the useless lazy teachers that are bringing the profession into disrepute and allowing people to make stupid comments that tar all teachers.

Does anyone know the % of teachers that are fired, not for misconduct, but for capability in this Country. My gut feeling is that it is not many. We should pay good teachers more, a lot more, but have zero tolerance of bad teachers, with Headmasters given the freedom to decide such issues.

The holiday issue is just a very silly tool to hit teachers with. If we want our children to have 6 weeks off in the summer, it makes sense that teachers are off to. Unless you want them going into school with no one to teach.

My son-in-law is a teacher and he works from 7am to 5pm 5 days a week and then spends either Saturday or Sunday preparing for the next week.

There are millions of self employed and small business owners that work far in excess of this.

During the recent bad snow, he walked 3 miles to his school to help clear the road / path / playground although in the end the school didn't open.

...and so he should. Wouldn't want him sitting on his arse at home at the taxpayers expense.

He regularly goes into school during the school holidays and he also attends courses, case conferences etc.

You can't beat a taxpayer funded jolly on the **** with like minded people

I think he is one of the most hard-working dedicated people I've ever met.

Maybe he is hard working for a Public Servant, but his hours are part time compared to hundreds of thousands of people in the private sector.

There are millions of self employed and small business owners that work far in excess of this.

 

 

 

...and so he should. Wouldn't want him sitting on his arse at home at the taxpayers expense.

 

 

 

You can't beat a taxpayer funded jolly on the **** with like minded people

 

 

 

Maybe he is hard working for a Public Servant, but his hours are part time compared to hundreds of thousands of people in the private sector.

Are you Stanley in disguise?

And if you think attending a case conference about an abused child is a jolly then you are a sad, deluded idiot.