25% cut in public sector - the biggest headline?

markharding557

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Not according to Osborne......

Unemployment is predicted to fall from 8.1% to 6.1% over the next 4 years.

Going to be interesting to see if that bears out,i am sceptical.

hugheskevi

The main headlines I've seen seem to be about the 20% VAT rate - I just wondered why the main headline isn't the 25% cut in budgets to the public sector?

I was just wondering why this might be - I would have thought that the level of impact of the latter is potentially much greater? i.e definite job losses versus increased expense....??

The cut is a real terms cut of 25% over 4 years.

Over that period, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility think RPI will increase by 14%, so that means a cut in nominal expenditure of about 10% over 4 years that has to be found.

And the cut is in terms of budgets, not staff.

Salaries are already frozen for two years. Add to that not upgrading IT, not recuiting new staff, an early retirement exercise and not increasing salaries by much in the two years after the freeze ends should deliver those savings fairly easily without the need for any redundencies. I think it is too early to say there will be definate job losses at this stage.

pixie76

hugheskevi wrote: »

The cut is a real terms cut of 25% over 4 years.

Over that period, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility think RPI will increase by 14%, so that means a cut in nominal expenditure of about 10% over 4 years that has to be found.

And the cut is in terms of budgets, not staff.

Salaries are already frozen for two years. Add to that not upgrading IT, not recuiting new staff, an early retirement exercise and not increasing salaries by much in the two years after the freeze ends should deliver those savings fairly easily without the need for any redundencies. I think it is too early to say there will be definate job losses at this stage.

Lets hope so . I really hope they do not announce job cuts in the Autumn.

useless

hugheskevi wrote: »

The cut is a real terms cut of 25% over 4 years.

Over that period, the Office for Budgetary Responsibility think RPI will increase by 14%, so that means a cut in nominal expenditure of about 10% over 4 years that has to be found.

And the cut is in terms of budgets, not staff.

Salaries are already frozen for two years. Add to that not upgrading IT, not recuiting new staff, an early retirement exercise and not increasing salaries by much in the two years after the freeze ends should deliver those savings fairly easily without the need for any redundencies. I think it is too early to say there will be definate job losses at this stage.

Interesting, that's seems exceptionally confident to me, but that's just IMO.

MobileSaver

useless wrote: »

The main headlines I've seen seem to be about the 20% VAT rate - I just wondered why the main headline isn't the 25% cut in budgets to the public sector?

As you alluded to, the VAT increase directly affects every single adult in the country and hence is the big story.

Depending on circumstances the public sector cuts may or may not affect individuals and of course the devil is in the detail and there is no detail yet.

ILW

casper_g wrote: »

Dunno. Do you think it's more than it would cost to let them keep getting more unhealthy and pay for their coronary care, disability living allowance....

Just tell them to go on a diet or medical care will not be provided. People really should take some responsibility for themselves.

Niche

Gorgeous_George wrote: »

You will notice the increase in VAT.

GG

I didn't notice the reduction in VAT, so doubt I will really notice the increase

M.Holloway

amcluesent wrote: »

It's a mechanism to start the spin that, regrettably, the NHS can't be ring fenced when it's gobbling up £124 billion every year. I.e. Do you really want to sack local bobbies when a GP is trousering £100K plus.

Do you know how much of that money goes straight into big pharmas pockets?

For example, asthma costs the NHS £2.3 Bn a year with £659 million going straight to GSK!

So surely government intervening and fixing prices would be a far more sensible option?

ILW

M.Holloway wrote: »

Do you know how much of that money goes straight into big pharmas pockets?

For example, asthma costs the NHS £2.3 Bn a year with £659 million going straight to GSK!

So surely government intervening and fixing prices would be a far more sensible option?

How can a government fix prices of drugs purchased from private companies?

kennyboy66_2

ILW wrote: »

How can a government fix prices of drugs purchased from private companies?

it partly does already with the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme which has been going for the last 50 years or so.

Its not much different in many other countries.