100,000 Public Sector Jobs Gone

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

By cutting central grant support.

http://blogs.ft.com/westminster/2010/12/local-government-cuts-are-steeper-than-it-looks/

Best to know what a formular grant is.

The aggregate of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) plus income from redistributed business rates – national non-domestic rates (NNDR) – plus police grant is known as the Formula Grant.
police grant cut was £8.2M

With businesses tanking is this a cut or a fall steve.;) I don't think you can blame this government for making local business taxes tanking.

I am still fairly amazed that some think it is all this governments doing were the last government not going to do virtually the same.
All to easy to blame the new boss after the last one got sacked and racked up 8 years of losses.

StevieJ

Really2 wrote: »

Best to know what a formular grant is.

The aggregate of Revenue Support Grant (RSG) plus income from redistributed business rates – national non-domestic rates (NNDR) – plus police grant is known as the Formula Grant.
police grant cut was £8.2M

With businesses tanking is this a cut or a fall steve.;) I don't think you can blame this government for making local business taxes tanking.

I am still fairly amazed that some think it is all this governments doing were the last government not going to do virtually the same.
All to easy to blame the new boss after the last one got sacked and racked up 8 years of losses.

And Vice Versa

Really2

StevieJ wrote: »

And Vice Versa

Steve, I will ignore that one as you can't ingnore racking up a pre-crash deficit has not had massive implication on the amount the country has had to cut.;)

Labor had 20%+ cuts planed also, so you would still be saying the same about them had they got in.

Hank_Rearden

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am explaining the proposed revised redundancy scheme (or Civil Service Compensation Scheme). The idea is to cut redundancy payments, making it cheaper to sack civil servants. The main action is reduce the cap in year's wages that can be paid. For compulsory, the cap is planned to be reduced from 3 years pay to 1 year. For voluntary, the cap would be from 2 years to 21 months, with the option of being offered this option before compulsory (which anyone would of course).

The rub is that for under the existing voluntary terms you get two weeks pay per year of service, with double counting for years over the age of thirty (IIRC, it is awfully complicated) and some other provisos. Under the scheme proposed you would get one month's pay per year's service.

For me, this would double my severance pay under voluntary terms, and make no difference to any compulsory terms. However, things like notice period would be reduced.

If I were someone being made compulsorily redundant after 25 years service, the new terms would be worse however.

To answer your above post; the 21 month cap for voluntary was a concession by government in negotiations with the Unions. This concession suggests to me that the government may be worried that it may be impossible to unilaterally re-write contracts under European law.

This is what Eurosceptics mean when they complain about Europe undermining UK sovereignty. This means Parliamentary Sovereignty (in fact the power of the Executive which dominates Parliament in reality via the payroll vote, patronage and whipping).

Thanks for explaining. Nor am I a lawyer - I think I'm still confused, however (or maybe because I'm not).

Let's assume we need to redress the redundancy arrangements. (It might not be the case that we need to do so now - but I would think we can all imagine a situation where it might be so). Given that, there are three options:
Change in everyone's favour (to varying degrees)
Change in no-one's favour (to varying degrees)
Change so that some benefit and some don't (all to varying degrees).
As no-one is "equal" in situation, the "varying degrees" are unavoidable.

The first, roughly, seems to be what's happened more generally over the last 13 years. The trouble is that it's a one-way ratchet and it costs - hence the deficit.

So at some point we need either the second or the third. In the specific case that you're looking at, it looks like (3), a mixed bag - some benefit, some lose out, as the terms are regularised. What I'm confused by is why that is in any way discriminatory? Do we need to make sure everyone loses out (and even then, it won't be equally distributed) - to avoid the accusation of discrimination?

It reminds me of listening to a shadow minister talking about the pupil premium being a case of "robbing peter to pay paul" - precisely; taking from rich areas and giving to poor areas. Redistribution - that which the left seemed to believe was their domain. I assume that the opposition would rather rob everyone quietly, to pay peter and to pay paul a bit more?

tomterm8

Hank_Rearden wrote: »

Thanks for explaining. Nor am I a lawyer - I think I'm still confused, however (or maybe because I'm not)....

I think what Sir Humprey is upset about is the fact the government is unilaterally changing the law to default on its accrued obligations. In other words, if the government were to buy £100,000 of pink purple widgets from you, and then change the contract after you delivered to the government, so it paid £50,000 for the widgets it recieved you would be rather upset.

It may be illegal under European law, or it may be legal, but it would sure as heck make you wary before you ever did business with the government again.

Really2

Hank_Rearden wrote: »

What I'm confused by is why that is in any way discriminatory? Do we need to make sure everyone loses out (and even then, it won't be equally distributed) - to avoid the accusation of discrimination?

I don't think it is, it would have been if people younger or had less service got offered better packages than older longer serving staff (which is what I originally read).
Seeing they will be altered to the same rate it is non discriminatory.
(Or have I confused your point )

Hank_Rearden

Really2 wrote: »

I don't think it is, it would have been if people younger or had less service got offered better packages than older longer serving staff (which is what I originally read).
Seeing they will be altered to the same rate it is non discriminatory.
(Or have I confused your point )

I think I'd managed to confuse it all on my own. I get TomTerm's point - but I'm just trying to get a handle on what bit of this is "wrong", and what bit is illegal (if any), and what is simply not to the taste of civil servants/employees/trade unions.

It comes back to Sir Humphrey's point about the civil service keepin the government in check, and parliamentary sovereignty. Does the state have contractual obligations brought about by government x, which bind the next government? Obviously yes. But what does that mean if those commitments are unsustainable? Goddammit, it's moral hazard all over again, isn't it?

The_White_Horse

these people have had their faces in the trough long enough. they have better pay, better pensions and better standards than the private sector who pay for them all.

every public sector worker should be given a 25% pay cut instantly. if they don't like it, they can resign and get a better paid job in the private sector.

tomterm8

Well, figuring out whether something is legal is broadly left to the courts.

If the government is to bring policies into effect, it needs the public sector, public sector unions, the police, the armed forces and civil servants... desperatly... without these groups of people, the whole country grinds to a halt.

Say what you like about Thatcher, she knew that you couldn't get anywhere if you start a fight with everyone.

treliac

The_White_Horse wrote: »

every public sector worker should be given a 25% pay cut instantly. if they don't like it, they can resign and get a better paid job in the private sector.

Just how stupid does that sound!! It's best not to sound like a moron if you wish to be taken seriously.