Is this really unreasonable?

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Jacey53 wrote: »

But the police and fire service will not be recruiting - they are public services and subject to cuts.
.

That's not true.

Almost all branches of government and public services will still be recruiting over the next few years.

The cuts are significantly less than the rate of natural attrition, which is why there will be very few forced redundancies.

The cuts are equivalent to 120,000 jobs a year, the government loses 300,000 people to natural attrition.

Therefore givernment will still be recruiting at least 180,000 people a year. Or another 720,000 people by the end of this parliament.

Graham_Devon

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

Allmost all branches of government and public services will still be recruiting over the next few years.

The cuts are significantly less than the rate of natural attrition, which is why there will be very few forced redundancies.

The cuts are equivalent to 120,000 jobs a year, the government loses 300,000 people to natural attrition.

Therefore givernment will still be recruiting at least 180,000 people a year. Or another 720,000 people by the end of this parliament.

It's still less people employed, whichever way you desperately spin it.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Buses truly are awful.
.

For most of the country, that's absolutely right.

Outside of major cities, buses are impractical and expensive. Not a viable option at all.

Form my last house, a 37 mile/40 minute trip door to door to work by car would have taken well over 2 hours and cost £18 by bus/train.

mvengemvenge

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Buses truly are awful.

I'm sure they are good in London, as is the tube, but they are simply no good here.

Theres 2 problems.

1. Not enough people use them.
2. Not enough buses at the right time for people to use them.

For example. A car I had previously decided to spew oil out of the gearbox, classic VW case cracking issue. So there was me merrily driving along and a whining noise started to happen. Dumped it at the garage I use, which is actually on the way to work and got me a bus.

I was 12 miles from work. 2 hours 20 mins later, I arrive at work. Fantasic. I also had to leave at 3.15 in order to get home.

It's not a direct route for the buses I will admit, but none of them seem to link up. Had to leave at 3.15 as in order to catch the bus home I had to be in another town and hang around for 45 mins. Then could catch the second bus I needed. BUT, can't catch one any later than 5.15, as there isn't one. If you miss that one, you then have to catch another, which takes you through 2 other towns, dumps you there, and you can then get a bus back to my town. In total, around 75 miles, roughly 5 hours, in order to do a trip which is bang on 20 miles and 30-40 mins in the car.

Buses all seem to stop after 5 or 6 if you want to go any further than the outskirts of any towns, or you want to go to a town that's not on the main line. On the main line, buses run up to 2am. But that's only covering a tiny part of the area.

They don't tend to run any earlier than school bus time, and they are filled with kids. But you get plenty after that (when you should be sat at your desk) with loads of people with bus passes using them.

Basically, buses cannot cope and are not made to get people to work, outside of London unless you live in a largish town, and work in the same largish town, or work on the main line. Outside of those variables, your totally scuppered. Half my work day (literally) would be spent actually getting there.

Cas IS king.

Thing is, Graham, staff in a jobcentre would not expect someone to get to a job if they know the local buses aren't there to make it possible. I think this is more about people who refuse to travel when it is possible.

tomterm8

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

That's not true.

Almost all branches of government and public services will still be recruiting over the next few years.

The cuts are significantly less than the rate of natural attrition, which is why there will be very few forced redundancies.

The cuts are equivalent to 120,000 jobs a year, the government loses 300,000 people to natural attrition.

Therefore givernment will still be recruiting at least 180,000 people a year. Or another 720,000 people by the end of this parliament.

According to John Redwoods blog, the lrate of attrition in the public sector is 8% (i.e. 8% retire or resign every year), and if that is the case you could make 500,000 job cuts with a simple recruitment freeze over 2 years, without even offering voluntary retirement or redundancy, and while still hiring teachers and NHS front line services.

Sir_Humphrey

tomterm8 wrote: »

According to John Redwoods blog, the lrate of attrition in the public sector is 8% (i.e. 8% retire or resign every year), and if that is the case you could make 500,000 job cuts with a simple recruitment freeze over 2 years, without even offering voluntary retirement or redundancy, and while still hiring teachers and NHS front line services.

Look, the redundancy schemes have already started. Even if were attrition only, that is still 500000 jobs fewer for the unemployed, new graduates etc.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Graham_Devon wrote: »

It's still less people employed, whichever way you desperately spin it.

No Graham, it's less people employed by Government.

Not less people employed....

The OBR are forecasting that unemployment will fall from current levels to around 6% over the course of this parliament.

By anyones definition, 6% unemployment is less than 8% unemployment, so more people are employed, no matter how desperately you try to spin it.

tomterm8

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Look, the redundancy schemes have already started. Even if were attrition only, that is still 500000 jobs fewer for the unemployed, new graduates etc.

I'm sure they have... I am only saying what they could do, not what they will do.

From a practical viewpoint, it makes sence to cut as much headcount naturally as possible, since this costs much less money. But if you look at the cuts, they aren't evenly spread out, so people like council workers, trading standards, environmental health, carers etc will be much worse affected than the notional numbers suggest.

I agree with you that broadly speaking, whether these job losses are voluntary, involuntary or natural wastage doesn't make much difference to unemployment.

I think the methods they are using just measure direct job losses, and that inevitably more job losses will be hidden in the private sector, where it is easier to cut jobs without the politicans being blamed.

HAMISH_MCTAVISH

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

that is still 500000 jobs fewer for the unemployed, new graduates etc.

No it isn't!!!!!!

It's fewer public sector jobs. NOT fewer jobs!!!!!

tomterm8

HAMISH_MCTAVISH wrote: »

No it isn't!!!!!!

It's fewer public sector jobs. NOT fewer jobs!!!!!

I think the people who post that don't really make sence. It is fewer public sector jobs. It is fewer private sector jobs that specialise in providing stuff for the public sector. It is fewer jobs for people that supply food, clothes, etc to people that used to be employed by the other people who lost their jobs.

The idea that everything will be just swell and the private sector will just produce new jobs suffers from the fact that unemployment is already 8%, and less jobs are being created than after most recessions.