Private sector job growth slowing

ninky_2

kabayiri wrote: »

If the private sector want to take over running some of the public sector work, it seems obvious they will want to do it on a more efficient budget.

That may translate into less bodies to do the work, or lower wages.

How it will actually pan out is anyone's guess.

which parts of the public sector are they going to take over running?

i thought the issue was all the non-jobs that don't need doing?

chewmylegoff

lemonjelly wrote: »

I do.

good luck with that. i don't want to disappoint you but this government are still going to be talking about this budget deficit right up until they leave office. you can hardly blame them, it is rather big. do you seriously think that any government who had inherited such a situation would do anything other than constantly draw attention to it?

of course the previous administration was also a fan of "look, this started in america" and "this is a global situation" whenever this was discussed. no responsibility was ever taken (except for when they saved the world er er i mean the banking system).

ninky_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

good luck with that. i don't want to disappoint you but this government are still going to be talking about this budget deficit right up until they leave office.

what was the deficit when labour left office and what is it now?

Graham_Devon

Would have been no different if labour were in power.

The mess is too big. Playing the party political boxing match is pointless. Were screwed. And either way, whoever is in power, it WILL get worse.

Why? Because we havent even started paying back yet, we are STILL borrowing to enable us to function.

One point though, is growth is still growth. It's not reversed into falls. So I'm a little confused about the anger in the OPs post.

chewmylegoff

ninky wrote: »

what was the deficit when labour left office and what is it now?

i'm not a torydem supporter, so there's little point having an ideological slanging match with me about the size of the deficit and the relative merits of either side's strategies, but if the position was completely reversed, and the labour party had inherited a deficit and then failed to cut it, do you think they would be saying:

(i) the tories caused this deficit, the tories the tories it was all the tories; and

(ii) it is all our fault, we did this, vote tory.

Thrugelmir

lemonjelly wrote: »

Oh, & please do not allege this is due to the deficit. 11 months in now, surely their policieas have started to trickle through.

No Government policy can influence export markets. The UK is in part dependent upon an increase in orders from abroad which in itself requires growth.

Even Labour only created an average of 91,000 per annum over a 10 year period. Hardly dynamic!

In 1999, there were 5,221,000 public sector employees. In 2009, there were 6,070,000 – an increase of 849,000.

At the same time, the total number of private sector jobs went up from 21,895,000 to 22,806,000 – a jump of 911,000.

ninky_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

i'm not a torydem supporter, so there's little point having an ideological slanging match with me about the size of the deficit and the relative merits of either side's strategies, but if the position was completely reversed, and the labour party had inherited a deficit and then failed to cut it, do you think they would be saying:

(i) the tories caused this deficit, the tories the tories it was all the tories; and

(ii) it is all our fault, we did this, vote tory.

it's not a slanging match. it was a genuine question. i've no idea what the answer is. is the deficit getting smaller or not?

i'm guessing from the rather touchy responses that maybe it isn't...but i could be wrong.

chewmylegoff

ninky wrote: »

it's not a slanging match. it was a genuine question. i've no idea what the answer is. is the deficit getting smaller or not?

i'm guessing from the rather touchy responses that maybe it isn't...but i could be wrong.

so you agree option (i)?

i have no idea what the deficit is now. £175 billion when labour left office. i guess it's probably higher now.

ninky_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

so you agree option (i)?

what's that got to do with the price of bread?

no the tories didn't cause the deficit. but they are in charge of it now. so is it getting smaller?

chewmylegoff

ninky wrote: »

what's that got to do with the price of bread?

well it is directly relevant to the point that all politicians blame someone else, usually the previous government. labour were masters at it. if you want to pretend they didn't do it every day, that is fine by me.