new figures out

[slark]

Show one in five young people are now out of work. Most of the Tory cuts have not started to take effect will we soon see a new record high or will they doctor the figures.

http://news.sky.com/h...ness/article/16051484

[dave50]

What, do all you who go on about "Tory wicked cuts", suggest should be done as an alterntive to reducing spending? Close our eyes, put our fingers in our ears, pretending there isnt a huge deficit and think it will all magically go away if we ignore it long enough?

[Ankou]

yep did much the same when thatcher took over,
went from 1.5m to 3m.

[slark]

Dave i have never mentioned the word wicked is the truth lurking in the back of your mind.

[jake-the-peg]

No we should be making cuts and increasing taxation but to a lesser extent.

slashing public sector jobs ends up saving very little as they end up having to pay redundancy payments and then benfit payments because there aren't the private sector jobs for them to go to.

You've clearly been suckered into the Tory line of "Our cuts program is the only answer"

50 economists - Including a Nobel prize winner told Osbourne he was wrong

http://www.guardian.c...-plans-top-economists

[Old_Geezer]

Maybe if they lowered the retirement age then fewer young people would be out of work.

[dave50]

We definately shouldn't be increasing direct taxation. I simply do not believe there is no scope to make public spending cuts without hurting the vunerable. The reason councils shut old people's homes, cut meals on wheels and the like is purely political so as to portray the present government in a bad light. They still find money for the climate change or diversity gravy train.

[modeller]

Don't all governments 'doctor ' the figures. All the under 18s are assumed to be still in education and they are paid to stay in education even if they dont attend . Labour brought that in to hide the true unemployment . They also only included those who actually signed on as unemployed . There were 1000s who live on benefits but don't sign on . I know of several redundant public servants who told me its not worth signing on as they would lose other benefits. All those who work part time but would like a full time job are not counted. I'm not sure but I understand that all those getting job seekers allowance are not included in the unemployment figure.

[Gromit]

The devil will find work for idle hands to do.

[boxtops]

The current cuts are only trying to redeem the situation after the profligate spending of the previous administration. And yes - I do work in the public sector, I'm as affected with this as the next person.

[Ankou]

modeller, thatcher through her recovery measures carrid out huge cuts in the government statistical service, whose staffing was reduced by 53% over her first decade.

so maybe there were no longer enough numbers to crunch the numbers. either that or they just came up with the wrong answer and were swiftly replaced by thatchers thought police.

[R1Geezer]

yes but what ankou is not telling you is that before MrsT took over it was almost impossible to fire anyone so they wern't real jobs. Simlarly unemploymemt raises now because the Toriberals are sifting out the hundreds of thousands of non jobs that Noo Labour created for their core voters.

[jake-the-peg]

Got any evidence for that Geezer?

Go on shock us - back up something you say

Show us these thousands and thousands on non-jobs

[heathfield]

Quangos for a start, Jake?

[R1Geezer]

come on Jake, I don't think anyone disputes Noo Labours non job creation scheme.'

[modeller]

Let me give you an example of non jobs or maybe not needed jobs. In the last budget the government transferred the finance and responsibility of running certain support schemes from the councils to the education establishments who had been receiving this service . This resulted in hundreds of lost jobs in the councils but the interesting point, is those education establishments have decided they dont need and have never needed the service in the first place and therefore have decided they are not going run them.

[modeller]

My neigbour recently had an extension built . The local English builder and son were given the job and advertised for an assortment of trades, paying the normal rates for the jobs. Who turned up Poles and immigrants and one English bloke who only worked for two days because he said he lived too far away 3 miles and didn't have a car. Oh ! The work was of a very high standard . They were there at 7am and worked till dark .

[New Judge]

You only need to look through the range of activities (or what they consider to be activities) undertaken by your local authority to see what Geezer means. That’s before you start on central government. However, it goes on unabated. Here’s just a sprinkling from today’s offerings in The Guardian:


Residences Sustainability Officer (£26k, London School of Economics)

“This post will support the Head of Environmental Sustainability in delivering a range of projects to fulfil the School’s Environmental Policy commitments in particular in halls of residence.”


Environment and Quality Manager (from £33k, Shepherds Bush Housing Group)

Shepherds Bush Housing Group has created a new role of environment and quality manager to lead on designing and implementing environmental strategies within the group so that we become recognised as an exemplar in this area.


The London Borough of Merton has obviously found a few quid stuffed under one of their mattresses:

"Merton, in the heart of southwest London, is one of the capital’s greenest boroughs, with big ambitions for regeneration and development over the next 10 years. The newly created FutureMerton team is dynamic and forward thinking in its approach to enabling development. FutureMerton brings together disciplines from Planning Policy, Regeneration, Economic Development, Transport Planning, Climate Change and Urban Design to deliver a wide range of regeneration projects. We’ve already made a start, adopting our LDF Core Strategy, delivering new housing with the HCA at Rowan Park in Mitcham and are currently renewing the public realm in Wimbledon and Raynes Park.

We are looking for a range of people with a can-do attitude, creative approach to their work and proven experience in regeneration and planning projects. To complete our team we now need to fill six posts including a Business Growth Officer, Development Surveyor, 2 Climate Change Officers, a Transport Planner [all to £40,700] and a Policy Monitoring Officer [who has to muddle along on a mere £32,600].


So, the thick end of a third of a mill to do things that, largely, have not been done up to now. When I see this section of The Guardian empty I shall begin to believe that “cuts” are being made. Until then, I remain unconvinced.

[Ankou]

as opposed to thatchers urban enterprise zones which cost the country hundreds of millions and created hardly any jobs.

and besides, i don't see those as non-jobs.

[New Judge]

It may have passed you by, Ankou, but Mrs Thatcher is no longer involved in politics and hasn’t been for 20 years. Herbert Asquith, Stanley Baldwin, Anthony Eden – they’re all out of it too. It’s 2011 and things have moved on.

So you think local government has a “climate Change” role, then. What about a “2012 Culture Officer” (London Borough of Hackney, £39k)?:

“This is your chance to take the lead in Hackney’s Olympic and Paralympic Unit on all cultural aspects of input and support for the Games and subsequent legacy, whilst working with the Head of the 2012 Game Programme and Head of Libraries Heritage and Culture to facilitate all the cultural input to the 2012 programme.”

Or “Equalities and Diversity Manager” (City of London Corporation, £48k)? Another new post. I won’t bore you with the usual “Diversity” type job description claptrap but suffice it to say that if this “activity” has not been undertaken thusfar (and nobody seems any the worse for it), can the City of London Corporation really afford to start it now?

I’ve only scratched the surface. There are pages and pages of these “job” vacancies. All of them pay considerably above the average salary and on top of this is the cost of generous pensions and the other public sector benefits. And of course these are only the vacancies. I’ve not begun to calculate the cost of those already employed.

Clearly central and local government continue to employ and recruit people to these ridiculous posts. The activities are not necessary, nobody benefits from them (apart from those employed to do them) and nobody suffers if they are not done. The government needs to get a grip on this problem if it is to convince the electorate that there is no money to maintain our armed forces and police forces at the current levels.