300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

marklv

The_White_Horse wrote: »

this is 700,000 too few.

those that remain in public sector employment should have a 25% pay cut as of June 1st and a pay freeze for the next decade.

this may take things back to where they should be.

Funny! :rotfl:

marklv

tomterm8 wrote: »

At the end of the day, the only reason to cap redundancy payments is in order to make it cheaper to fire Union members, so I can see why the union would be against it.

I think a recruitment freeze is inevitable. Actually firing people is quite an inefficient way to go about things, even if you make these alterations to terms and conditions.

As for contract law... contract law is what Parliament says it is. Full stop. If a government wants to change these contracts it can do so.

I don't actually believe there will such huge job losses in the civil service, the papers are exaggerating things to attract readers. My reckoning is that local government will be worst hit, and also the NHS - the civil service is probably lower down the 'hit list'.

jonewer

Kohoutek wrote: »

I understand that it does take money out of the economy and I think the government should be cautious about the job cuts it makes as a consequence, but it appears that the alternative is running a deficit forever, which clearly isn't a real option.

It doesnt take money out of the economy! At best it robs money from peter and gives it to paul. In reality apart from robbing peter to pay paul, the government is borrowing money at an unsustainable rate and robbing all of us to service its debts.

This is not a sustainable way of managing a country and its going to end in tears!

LizEstelle

donaldtramp wrote: »

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article7134040.ece

Front page of the Sunday Times.

And not before time.
Lets get the axe out before we become Greece, the sequel.

The massive expansion of the public sector and increase in bureaucracy has masked unemployment figures, caused us to be even more unproductive and was paid for at great expense (in BILLIONS of pounds worth of debt)

Oh and this is not the "nasty Tory/Lib dems", Labour would have had to do exactly the same. They did after all, blow all the money.....

Does one by any chance detect the smugness of someone who does not have a child in school or a friend or relation needing hospital treatment... as the majority of us do..?

This is precisely nasty Toryism 'getting the axe out'. Your gleeful attitude sums up the situation... if anyone seriously believes Camertoff has succeeded in ridding his party of the 'nasty tendency', they'd better take a close look at the type of comments forthcoming from Tory supporters on these pages...

A._Badger

LizEstelle wrote: »

Does one by any chance detect the smugness of someone who does not have a child in school or a friend or relation needing hospital treatment... as the majority of us do..?

This is precisely nasty Toryism 'getting the axe out'. Your gleeful attitude sums up the situation... if anyone seriously believes Camertoff has succeeded in ridding his party of the 'nasty tendency', they'd better take a close look at the type of comments forthcoming from Tory supporters on these pages...

Just what is 'nasty' in what he wrote? It seems to me that the impression of gloating is solely in your mind (which, from your use of the silly 'Camertoff', we have to assume is pretty firmly slammed shut).

The poster simply states the facts. Maybe you think the facts are 'nasty'? Maybe they are. Facts are often like that. We have spent more than we had and now we have to behave like grown-ups and clear-up the mess. That isn't a judgement. It's a fact.

LizEstelle

A._Badger wrote: »

... and now we have to behave like grown-ups and clear-up the mess. That isn't a judgement. It's a fact.

I wouldn't argue with that. It's just that you seem to believe there is only one way of doing the clearing.

I for one would bang up taxes on top earners and put a 95% tax on all bankers bonuses, for starters.

You wouldn't agree? Too left wing for you? I wonder if it would be too left wing for Cleggie and Cable. Can't be too long before the cracks begin to appear...

Kohoutek

LizEstelle wrote: »

I for one would bang up taxes on top earners and put a 95% tax on all bankers bonuses, for starters.

You wouldn't agree? Too left wing for you? I wonder if it would be too left wing for Cleggie and Cable. Can't be too long before the cracks begin to appear...

It would be too left-wing for most people in powerful positions in the Labour Party, unless Denis Healey is making a comeback as shadow Chancellor...

Alan_Cross

LizEstelle wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with that. It's just that you seem to believe there is only one way of doing the clearing.

I for one would bang up taxes on top earners and put a 95% tax on all bankers bonuses, for starters.

You wouldn't agree? Too left wing for you? I wonder if it would be too left wing for Cleggie and Cable. Can't be too long before the cracks begin to appear...

Yep, it'll be cut after predictable Tory cut, all paraded in front of us with a superficial whitewash of Cleggery but cheered to the rafters by the kind of smugness portrayed in the OP. Blue sky thinking of the type which would actually hurt the big earners and landed wealthy you can forget about now.

Surely, sooner or later, LibDem voters are going to wonder if this was what they really wanted from their guys... it certainly wasn't what was promised.

lynzpower

dave4545454 wrote: »

so tell me exactly what job you're supposed to be doing? caring for your husband when you spend 24 7 on here. i'm suprised the poor sod hasn't left you just to get away from the pointless lazy b!tch you are.


and for your information, i've never been unemployed, i have a full time charity job doing good for people unlike wasters like you.

and what a hypocrite you are benefit bashing people when you've been on JSA yourself

my god what a nasty thing to say. What is wrong with you?

A._Badger

LizEstelle wrote: »

I wouldn't argue with that. It's just that you seem to believe there is only one way of doing the clearing.

I for one would bang up taxes on top earners and put a 95% tax on all bankers bonuses, for starters.

You wouldn't agree? Too left wing for you? I wonder if it would be too left wing for Cleggie and Cable. Can't be too long before the cracks begin to appear...

Of course I wouldn't agree. It wouldn't raise a fraction of what is needed and it would destroy business confidence. Is it that socialists cannot learn from history, or just that they refuse to?