300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

treliac

lynzpower wrote: »

anyone who works in government will know that the axe will fall in completely the wrong place.

Ok so they wil not recruit for those jobs that lay empty at the moment. IMO they are child protection social work....

Your cynicism is no doubt well placed. But child protection is already in crisis... it would be a huge error for any govt not to maintain existing services, as an absolute minimum.

And yes, bring back in-house services - the loss of which was another disaster for the country. However, things have moved a long way and there are reasons, for example the personalisation agenda, that would make it incredibly difficult to change now.

treliac

donaldtramp wrote: »

Do you seriously think the benefits systems will survive as it is?

I think you only have to read many of the other threads on the board to know what a lot of us think about that!!

marklv

The_White_Horse wrote: »

lefties are morons. no point trying to argue with them.

And arch-capitalists are mentally deranged - no use arguing with them either. Bear in mind that not everyone who disagrees with you is some kidn of leftie - I'm pretty right wing on most issues.

marklv

tomterm8 wrote: »

The budget deficit is £160 billion.

The NHS budget as a whole is £100 billion.

The NHS employs 1.6 million people.

Why don't you think we are looking at 300,000 job losses?

Becaseu if there is work that needs to be done, you need people to do it. Cutting staff is OK up to a point - then you reach a point at which any further cuts means projects get cancelled or delayed and the machinery of an organisation simply breaks down.

lynzpower

treliac wrote: »

Your cynicism is no doubt well placed. But child protection is already in crisis... it would be a huge error for any govt not to maintain existing services, as an absolute minimum.

And yes, bring back in-house services - the loss of which was another disaster for the country. However, things have moved a long way and there are reasons, for example the personalisation agenda, that would make it incredibly difficult to change now.

Agreed.

For an "outsider"to these services they would say ( just going off what my old team was like)

20 jobs in a team
10 vacant
8 of them filled by "temps"
those temps paid significantly more than the permanent staff - why did none of them want to go perm?
the agencies making money per hour
all those temps were non- UK nationals ie from Aus/ NZ/ South Africa/ Canada - foreigners "taking 'our' jobs"

We all know that the Clegg/cameron wont be getting thier hands dirrty with this anyhow will they- theyll be cutting LG budgets and this is what will follow.

marklv

donaldtramp wrote: »

Do you seriously think the benefits systems will survive as it is?
We are BROKE!

We are NOT broke. At the end of WW2 we were in a far worse financial situation than now, even after taking account of Marshall Aid, yet we recovered very well within a few years. And in those days the state also had to maintain very large conscript armed forces until the early 1960s. What is happening now is nowhere near that bad, despite the hysteria from the national press and various special interest groups who have a vested interest in painting as bleak a picture as possible.

marklv

mitchaa wrote: »

The military benefit from a non contributory final salary pension,surely this should be looked at? NHS/Police etc at least have contributory pension schemes.

The military have been mollycoddled for far too long. This is the one part of the public sector that has been immune from the usual cutbacks - it's time this changed.

StevieJ

marklv wrote: »

The military have been mollycoddled for far too long. This is the one part of the public sector that has been immune from the usual cutbacks - it's time this changed.

No chance, they will be needed to protect the politicians (and family assets) from 'their' voters :eek:

marklv

donaldtramp wrote: »

500 people at my work recently got the sack. They got no warning and no 6 month wage pay off that the public sector are "entitled" to in many cases. They haven't been in receipt of taxpayer money for their pensions whilst in employment. They didn't threaten to go on strike and hold their employers and the public to ransom.
They just got on and went to look for other jobs.

Private sector employees are people too. Just a bit less "equal" than the public sector.

So what? Do you think that giving yourself a feeling of schadenfreude by seeing public sector employees sacked in huge numbers will make things any better? Most public sector workers choose to work there because they prefer to look for security and stability over financial gain - those who aim for financial gain alone work in the private sector or as freelance contractors. You have to take the rough with smooth.

bryanb

marklv wrote: »

We are NOT broke. At the end of WW2 we were in a far worse financial situation than now, even after taking account of Marshall Aid, yet we recovered very well within a few years. And in those days the state also had to maintain very large conscript armed forces until the early 1960s. What is happening now is nowhere near that bad, despite the hysteria from the national press and various special interest groups who have a vested interest in painting as bleak a picture as possible.

"Large conscript armed forces" were simply a place to hide large numbers of unemployed, in exchange for a few shillings a day, a bed and rations.