Unemployment could hit 7 million

StevieJ

mbga9pgf wrote: »

As for difficulty in sacking the civil service, just wait and see... Last time the Civil service went on strike, did anyone really notice? I didnt. A few parking fines didnt get paid and the planning office didnt fine someone for building a house. Its hardly as if most of the council would be missed would they?

You may not mind tax not being collected but I am sure the government would

mbga9pgf

StevieJ wrote: »

You may not mind tax not being collected but I am sure the government would

Last time I checked, I thought thats what we had HR departments and PAYE for?

Face it, we could lose 1,000,000 civil servant jobs and the sun would still come up in the morning, in fact, the world would be a better place for it. Less intervention, people getting on with their lives without government interference (planning being a case in point here, together with environmental facists coming round and telling me what bin to use).

Old_Slaphead

StevieJ wrote: »

You may not mind tax not being collected but I am sure the government would

Most forms of tax are now collected online Stevie - straight to bank account, see, cut out the middleman.

macaque_2

beingjdc
This is odd. You're worried that public sector cuts will cause a further spiral in unemployment, but you think the solution is public sector cuts?

Though it may seem odd to you but there is a rational explanation. High levels of public sector employment has made the UK an expensive country to do business in (for several reasons). This is costing wealth creating jobs.

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Lets be honest about this, 7 million is a ludicrous figure.

I took the trouble of giving my reasons. You have denounced the figure without any vestige of a reason.

Here's another thought to reflect on. The 3 million jobs created by this government were largely funded by higher taxes. Tax income is now plunging.

mbga9pgf

macaque wrote: »

Though it may seem odd to you but there is a rational explanation. High levels of public sector employment has made the UK an expensive country to do business in (for several reasons). This is costing wealth creating jobs.

I took the trouble of giving my reasons. You have denounced the figure without any vestige of a reason.

Here's another thought to reflect on. The 3 million jobs created by this government were largely funded by higher taxes. Tax income is now plunging.

Sorry, macaque, fair point, I apologise, dopnt take it personally! (I often do in these situations). I agree, this qhole thing is not going to be good for Unemployment, I have already stated that. But to assume cuts to public sector expenditure will happen purely in terms of employment, I am not so sure. Remember, for every person sacked, thats an extra mouth to feed on benefits. Possible mortgage interest payments, JSA, on top of what we pay. I think a LOT of civil servants close to the breadline would probably find themselves on a lot more than what they could have earned by 'signing on'.

We are more likely to see cuts in public services investment, the NHS in particular, Defence, Legal services, Education and of course hopefully a wholesale review of benefits. Either way, it isnt going to be pretty, but increasing unemployment by 4 million would be completely counter-productive. I think the people who should be really cacking themselves at the mo are the ones that do bugg*r all for their council/government department. and are there purely for government legislation purposes (read equality and diversity facilitators, designated health and safety nonjobs, equal opportunity specialists, you know the sort I am talking about). They will most certainly be the first to go and I say good riddance! Those that do a decent job that benefits the nation will have nothing to fear, other than a pretty harsh pay cut. Which is much easier to administer than sacking someone. Lets face it, are they going to go on strike at the moment with so few jobs out there for them to transfer to?

macaque_2

mbga9pgf wrote: »

Sorry, macaque, fair point, I apologise, dopnt take it personally! (I often do in these situations). I agree, this qhole thing is not going to be good for Unemployment, I have already stated that. But to assume cuts to public sector expenditure will happen purely in terms of employment, I am not so sure. Remember, for every person sacked, thats an extra mouth to feed on benefits. Possible mortgage interest payments, JSA, on top of what we pay. I think a LOT of civil servants close to the breadline would probably find themselves on a lot more than what they could have earned by 'signing on'.

We are more likely to see cuts in public services investment, the NHS in particular, Defence, Legal services, Education and of course hopefully a wholesale review of benefits. Either way, it isnt going to be pretty, but increasing unemployment by 4 million would be completely counter-productive. I think the people who should be really cacking themselves at the mo are the ones that do bugg*r all for their council/government department. and are there purely for government legislation purposes (read equality and diversity facilitators, designated health and safety nonjobs, equal opportunity specialists, you know the sort I am talking about). They will most certainly be the first to go and I say good riddance! Those that do a decent job that benefits the nation will have nothing to fear, other than a pretty harsh pay cut. Which is much easier to administer than sacking someone. Lets face it, are they going to go on strike at the moment with so few jobs out there for them to transfer to?

For 12 years the government has been increasing taxes and using the money to create 'make busy' jobs in government, quangos, local government, private consultants etc. Unless they reverse this practice, unemployment will not only hit 7 million but it will keep on rising.

We won't reach 7 million because change will come about. It would be better for us however if the government would take the initiative and start public sector reform before it is forced on us. Wealth creating companies need efficient economies in order to compete in a global economy.

mvengemvenge

macaque wrote: »

For 12 years the government has been increasing taxes and using the money to create 'make busy' jobs in government, quangos, local government, private consultants etc. Unless they reverse this practice, unemployment will not only hit 7 million but it will keep on rising.

We won't reach 7 million because change will come about. It would be better for us however if the government would take the initiative and start public sector reform before it is forced on us. Wealth creating companies need efficient economies in order to compete in a global economy.

Hmmm, it's only going to work if it's targeted cuts. Cutting back-room staff and Quangos is fine, there is much waste there, but if cost-cutting means big cuts in front-line staff, this could affect even social cohesion in the country. There is already much under-staffing in job centres and benefit offices, I can imagine how it's going to be if people have to wait 10 weeks to get benefits instead of 10 days.

amcluesent

>I can imagine how it's going to be if people have to wait 10 weeks to get benefits instead of 10 days.<

Stupefy them with White Lightning cider on NHS prescription?

kennyboy66_2

macaque wrote: »

Though it may seem odd to you but there is a rational explanation. High levels of public sector employment has made the UK an expensive country to do business in (for several reasons). This is costing wealth creating jobs.

I took the trouble of giving my reasons. You have denounced the figure without any vestige of a reason.

Here's another thought to reflect on. The 3 million jobs created by this government were largely funded by higher taxes. Tax income is now plunging.

Equating £22bn to 4 million jobs is simply laughable.

Some facts for you.

UK Public sector jobs 1998 = 5.84 million
UK Public sector jobs 2005 = 5.16 million

Government spending 1998 = 325 billion
Government spending 2005 = 487 billion

Inflation averaged 2.3% (RPI) between these 2 years.

So an extra £100 bn (inflation adjusted) per annum in spending "created" 680,000 jobs.

Perhaps you would like to tells us how a cut in spending of £22 billion means the loss of 4 million jobs.

While you are right about the UK becoming more expensive to do business in, the fact is that the majority of the 3 million jobs "created" (your words, goverments don't really create anything) have been in the private sector despite increased taxation.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

You do realise there is already around 7 million people unemployed in the UK?