600, 000 jobs cut in the public sector = 700, 000 job cuts in the private sector

marklv

grubby23 wrote: »

100% agreed macaque. Hopefully some Labour supporter will learn until the next election what "living within our means" means.

Nonsense. If you follow the 'housewife with a budget' policy you will drive the nation to disaster. The government raises revenue through tax, and tax is raised from taxpayers, now if you want to raise more tax you need to grow the economy so that more people earn more money. How do you that? By cutting this, that and the other? Of course not - you do that by investing, creating jobs and growing the economy.

marklv

macaque wrote: »

That part of the 'private sector' which is funded by tax payers money does not qualify as legitimate 'private sector'. Gordon Brown created a huge number of jobs this way. Whilst some of them provide a valuable service many are nothing more than a way of keeping the unemployment numbers down. There are hundreds of thousands of these useless jobs being paid for by us.

For example, what practical good does Business Link or the Carbon Trust serve? Why is every senior public servant shadowed by 3 private consultants? A whole industry has been created to find jobs for the unemployed. The way to get unemployed back to work is to have a healthy and legitimate private sector.

The UK's legitmate private sector is having the life squeezed out of it by high salaries in the public sector (and pseudo private sector) high taxes and red tape. I recently looked at a business premises where the council rates were higher than rent.

Stop kidding yourselves guys, those 700,000 'make busy' jobs funded by our taxes need to go. We have to live within our means.

See above for my answer to your nonsense.

macaque_2

tomterm8 wrote: »

In the real world, losing 1.3 million jobs is a tragedy for the people involved. Telling these people that they are only doing 'make busy' jobs, and that they will lose their homes, and be unable to look after their families, but it is OK because the job they are doing is 'meaningless' is, frankly, likely to infuriate them.

Fair enough, these changes will blight many lives, but:

1. Put the blame where it lies. New Labour corrupted the econmy and crippled industry. Creating an army of unchallenging, unessary and unsustainable jobs is no way to solve unemployment.
2. Recognise that sustainable employment needs an environment where legitimate wealth creating businesses are not shackled by high taxes, red tape and unfair competetion from govement subsidised schemes.

Getting the economy back onto a sustainable footing is going to create hardship whether it is done now or later. The longer we wait however, the more painful it will be to correct.

A._Badger

marklv wrote: »

Work needs to be done, so you recruit staff - do you get the logic? You can argue, work could have been not done, but that's another argument altogether. The NHS IT programme was a huge white elephant from the start and arguably this should never have got off the ground. They massively underestimated the costs and workload required to pull off such a massive undertaking.

And a perfect example of why government should not be allowed near any major purchasing project. State control wastes money and money (despite what ninky et al appear to believe) doesn't grow on the magic money tree in No 11's back garden. It's our money, taken out of our pockets by other people to spend on their pet projects. The less of it we have, the more inefficiently that money is likely to be spent.

grubby23

marklv wrote: »

Nonsense. If you follow the 'housewife with a budget' policy you will drive the nation to disaster. The government raises revenue through tax, and tax is raised from taxpayers, now if you want to raise more tax you need to grow the economy so that more people earn more money. How do you that? By cutting this, that and the other? Of course not - you do that by investing, creating jobs and growing the economy.

The only difference is that the housewife can't steal from other people, and this is exactly what the socialists did: Borrowing and printing money, thereby running a high inflation which basically means the money we have is soon nothing worth it.

Generali

tomterm8 wrote: »

In the real world, losing 1.3 million jobs is a tragedy for the people involved. Telling these people that they are only doing 'make busy' jobs, and that they will lose their homes, and be unable to look after their families, but it is OK because the job they are doing is 'meaningless' is, frankly, likely to infuriate them.

I agree and, speaking as someone who had a longish period of enforced unemployment, feel that it is awful that people will have to lose their jobs and in some cases will suffer terribly as a result.

However if the money isn't there to pay them then they can't continue in employment.

amcluesent

There's going to be a heck of an awakening that UK has been, since 1973 or so, being living off the never-never.

We've not been earning anything like enough to cover the costs of society and welfare we think we 'deserve' from seeking off the Nazis. North Sea Oil was a 25 year sticking plaster, but that was spent as it came in. No Sovereign Wealth fund like the Norwegians!

What's left.

Debt - £££ Billions of it, we're trying to lesson the pain by allowing inflation to run up again.
Idle - 25% to 30% of those 16-65 are idle, 2nd and 3rd generation
Mill-stone - 60% of the economy in NE and Wales based on unproductive public sector
Age - demographic time-bombs of pensions and NHS costs
Fifth-column - 500,000 Islamist sympathisers, 1000s trained in terrorism
Fuel security - none of any significance, after two decades of dithering on nuclear power
Food security - under pressure, with crazy increases in population to 70,000,000 thanks to NuLabour's social engineering with immigration.

Income tax is already at the threshold where people will flee Britain, joining the 2,000,000 educated self-starters who've gone since 1997.

All that's left is consumption tax (VAT up) and increased use of asset confiscation dressed up in various forms (mansion tax, green tax etc.)

And the reneging on promises made on pensions etc.

Which ever way you look at it, quality of life by 2050 will be closer to the scrimping austerity of the 1930s. Inevitable. But no politician dares say it.

lynzpower

Stop kidding yourselves guys, those 700,000 'make busy' jobs funded by our taxes need to go. We have to live within our means.

You mean like sacking 1400 police officers?

Is Hampshire crime free then? I might move there if all the police dois thumb twiddle

StevieJ

grubby23 wrote: »

100% agreed macaque. Hopefully some Labour supporter will learn until the next election what "living within our means" means.

Won't be long now.

Generali

lynzpower wrote: »

You mean like sacking 1400 police officers?

Is Hampshire crime free then? I might move there if all the police dois thumb twiddle

How do you want to pay them? That is the problem.