OECD growth forecast puts UK in 6th place

1984ReturnsForReal_2

worldtraveller wrote: »

No, you check again...;)

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/pdfdir/psf0111.pdf

Why are you putting a link up for Dec 2010?

Cant you read?

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

But lower than it would cost to keep them employed for another 2 years.

That depends on many things Graham

chewmylegoff

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

That was a made up figure. But the cost of redundancy & benefits payments to those made redundant is massive.

1) yes, but that doesn't mean it's cheaper to just keep people on instead

2) you don't have to pay redundancy pay if you don't replace people who leave / retire

3) you don't have to pay redundancy pay to contractors (large numbers of contractors, many of whom are, incidentally, IR35 dodging tax cheats have already been booted from the public sector)

4) you don't have to pay redundancy pay to anyone who has worked for less than a year

therefore, reducing the number of people employed in the public sector does not necessarily equate to huge redundancy payments being made. and large redundancy payments do not equate to an increase in costs to the taxpayer.

anyway, labour were going to make similar cuts, however much they now pretend that their cuts were all fluffy they would have also resulted in large numbers of public sector redundancies. presumably labour are clever enough to make sure the cuts only affect bankers and public sector jobs would have therefore increased.

chewmylegoff

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

Why are you putting a link up for Dec 2010?

Cant you read?

it's still 1 hour 38 minutes until 2010-2011 tax year was last year.

Graham_Devon

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

That depends on many things Graham

Like what?

What would make it cheaper to keep paying people a yearly wage, rather than paying a one off redudancy fee......which I believe, if I remember correctly, was reported to be a total of 14 months pay for those made redundant on average.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

Graham_Devon wrote: »

Like what?

What would make it cheaper to keep paying people a yearly wage, rather than paying a one off redudancy fee......which I believe, if I remember correctly, was reported to be a total of 14 months pay for those made redundant on average.

For example; re-employment & "Privatised" positions

chewmylegoff

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

For example; re-employment & "Privatised" positions

of course if you make someone redundant and then reemploy them it will turn out to be rather expensive.

happily, this only happens in the case of ludicrous mismanagment, such as suddenly shelving an NHS reform programme after the redundancies have started, and nothing like that would happen so everything will be ok.

Wookster

This is the legacy of £1.5 Trillion of private debt which is severely constraining spending power.

1984ReturnsForReal_2

chewmylegoff wrote: »

of course if you make someone redundant and then reemploy them it will turn out to be rather expensive.

If you believe this is all about budget deficit you have been seriously misled.

Some is, for sure, a run up to mass privatisation where the cost savings will be argued on yesterdays figures rather then tomorrows savings.

chewmylegoff

1984ReturnsForReal wrote: »

If you believe this is all about budget deficit you have been seriously misled.

Some is, for sure, a run up to mass privatisation where the cost savings will be argued on yesterdays figures rather then tomorrows savings.

yeah, it's all just part of a cycle. labour get in and magic up masses of totally necessary public sector jobs, the tories come in an sack masses of totally unnecessary public sector workers, repeat to fade.