100,000 Public Sector Jobs Gone

Really2

As we all like a nice graph or 2.
Here is the Budget deficit for the last few years.

abaxas

DiggerUK wrote: »

From the 1980's onwards, elections were won on the promise that the restrictions on 'free enterprise' would be removed, that this would lead to great wealth for all, that this wealth would 'trickle down' to the masses, and that there would be oodles of dosh to make sure that "public services will be safe in our hands"

After 30 odd years of this government nonsense, it appears that whats 'trickling down' on peoples backs ain't wealth.

You have Tony 'Frock You' Blair and Gorgon 'I spend it' Brown to thank for that.

DiggerUK

Being labeled as part of 'The Loony Left' in the 80's is a source of great pride for me now. It was a title of denigration, that's all, and we were right about what would happen.

The arguments we put forward, have in the main been proved correct. So it's about time that the 'All Hail Free Enterprise' culture was seen for the nonsense it is.

I was an engineer after I left school, and remember laughing at government plans for a service economy.
Who's laughing now, it's the countries with a manufacturing base, that's who.

Really2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

It would be much less generous for those with long service. There are other details which reduce its attractiveness (such as notice periods etc).

This is why I do not support the new scheme, despite the proposed new voluntary terms being twice as generous for me as before, with no change in my compulsory terms.

If I was in my late 40s, the changes would be very bad. I am taking a strategic view.

That is illegal? are your department trying to be sued?
They can't offer better terms for fewer years service or based on age?
Are you having to build cases for voluntary, councils are just hanging out anybody on the same terms, what the point of giving them more voluntary when you can compulsory for less.
Poor cost cutting IMHO.

DiggerUK

abaxas wrote: »

You have Tony 'Frock You' Blair and Gorgon 'I spend it' Brown to thank for that.

There have been a mix of governments from 1980, all pursuing the same 'lick the spivs and speculators rears at all times' policies.

Absolutely no difference, the Libs are now showing they would have been no different either.

abaxas

DiggerUK wrote: »

There have been a mix of governments from 1980, all pursuing the same 'lick the spivs and speculators rears at all times' policies.

Absolutely no difference, the Libs are now showing they would have been no different either.

I would disagree, up until 96 the policy was pro business. Post '96 this changed to pro big business, anti small business.

Corporate communism is probably the best description.

Really2

DiggerUK wrote: »

I was an engineer after I left school, and remember laughing at government plans for a service economy.
Who's laughing now, it's the countries with a manufacturing base, that's who.

Not sure the US, Japan and Germany would agree not even China are laughing. Every country is taking hit regardless of industry TBH.

We do need a larger industrial base I agree, but that does not insulate against recession, look at any european car manufacturer, they have been hit fairly hard despite help.

Really2

abaxas wrote: »

Post '96 this changed to pro big business, anti small business.

Corporate communism is probably the best description.

I agree there, small business got shafted. The goverment forgot they employ the most people and went for the Tesco approach.

Hank_Rearden

StevieJ wrote: »

Purely a cynical political tactic so they don't have to cut jobs just before the next election.

As cynical political tactics go, that seems a bit stupid given that local elections are next year. (Unless of course the electorate approve).

I suspect the truth is that they, like anyone who has gone through consultation and redundancies, know how disruptive it would be to run the process through multiple iterations. Far more efficient to make the tough calls in one go and then rebuild. It's certainly what the private sector would do.

DiggerUK

abaxas wrote: »

....... up until 96 the policy was pro business. Post '96 this changed to pro big business, anti small business.....

Guess what, there was no change in 1996, there will be no change now. Jokes over.