490,000 public sector jobs expected to go by cuts by 2015

rick_chasey

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

:roll: It's always binary with people! Can't say I'm keen on Labour either.

I've sat in quite a few public sector offices and they all have a job that is necessary. It's election rhetoric that there is fat to be cut. The services the public sector provides will reduce as a result of cuts, both in quality and what is provided. The well off are likely to notice less, principally because they are in less need of the services provided, so don't come into contact with them as much.

I can't quite see why there is so much hostility to people holding on to their jobs! I'd be happy for them. I'm sure they have mouths to feed etc.

Instead there's a lot of schadenfreude. Disapointing.

Anonymous

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

:roll: It's always binary with people! Can't say I'm keen on Labour either.

I've sat in quite a few public sector offices and they all have a job that is necessary. It's election rhetoric that there is fat to be cut. The services the public sector provides will reduce as a result of cuts, both in quality and what is provided. The well off are likely to notice less, principally because they are in less need of the services provided, so don't come into contact with them as much.

I can't quite see why there is so much hostility to people holding on to their jobs! I'd be happy for them. I'm sure they have mouths to feed etc.

Instead there's a lot of schadenfreude. Disapointing.

You chuck intellectual petrol bombs about, showing how clever you are, but offer no alternative to your cleverly resourced points and links. I'd sack you on general principles for being such a smug left-wing smartarse.

BTW, by no means of the imagination am I to be taken seriously, just get fed up with your stoicism and banal rhetoric sometimes.

MattC59

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

:roll: It's always binary with people! Can't say I'm keen on Labour either.

I've sat in quite a few public sector offices and they all have a job that is necessary. It's election rhetoric that there is fat to be cut. The services the public sector provides will reduce as a result of cuts, both in quality and what is provided. The well off are likely to notice less, principally because they are in less need of the services provided, so don't come into contact with them as much.

I can't quite see why there is so much hostility to people holding on to their jobs! I'd be happy for them. I'm sure they have mouths to feed etc.

Instead there's a lot of schadenfreude. Disapointing.

You chuck intellectual petrol bombs about, showing how clever you are, but offer no alternative to your cleverly resourced points and links. I'd sack you on general principles for being such a smug left-wing smartarse.

BTW, by no means of the imagination am I to be taken seriously, just get fed up with your stoicism and banal rhetoric sometimes.

Ace

Anonymous

MattC59 wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

:roll: It's always binary with people! Can't say I'm keen on Labour either.

I've sat in quite a few public sector offices and they all have a job that is necessary. It's election rhetoric that there is fat to be cut. The services the public sector provides will reduce as a result of cuts, both in quality and what is provided. The well off are likely to notice less, principally because they are in less need of the services provided, so don't come into contact with them as much.

I can't quite see why there is so much hostility to people holding on to their jobs! I'd be happy for them. I'm sure they have mouths to feed etc.

Instead there's a lot of schadenfreude. Disapointing.

You chuck intellectual petrol bombs about, showing how clever you are, but offer no alternative to your cleverly resourced points and links. I'd sack you on general principles for being such a smug left-wing smartarse.

BTW, by no means of the imagination am I to be taken seriously, just get fed up with your stoicism and banal rhetoric sometimes.

Ace

Uber Multiquote!

Ben6899

NapoleonD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

:roll: It's always binary with people! Can't say I'm keen on Labour either.

I've sat in quite a few public sector offices and they all have a job that is necessary. It's election rhetoric that there is fat to be cut. The services the public sector provides will reduce as a result of cuts, both in quality and what is provided. The well off are likely to notice less, principally because they are in less need of the services provided, so don't come into contact with them as much.

I can't quite see why there is so much hostility to people holding on to their jobs! I'd be happy for them. I'm sure they have mouths to feed etc.

Instead there's a lot of schadenfreude. Disapointing.

You chuck intellectual petrol bombs about, showing how clever you are, but offer no alternative to your cleverly resourced points and links. I'd sack you on general principles for being such a smug left-wing smartarse.

BTW, by no means of the imagination am I to be taken seriously, just get fed up with your stoicism and banal rhetoric sometimes.

Ace

Uber Multiquote!

Got Uber Multiquote Pyramid?

ratsbeyfus

Ben6899 wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

:roll: It's always binary with people! Can't say I'm keen on Labour either.

I've sat in quite a few public sector offices and they all have a job that is necessary. It's election rhetoric that there is fat to be cut. The services the public sector provides will reduce as a result of cuts, both in quality and what is provided. The well off are likely to notice less, principally because they are in less need of the services provided, so don't come into contact with them as much.

I can't quite see why there is so much hostility to people holding on to their jobs! I'd be happy for them. I'm sure they have mouths to feed etc.

Instead there's a lot of schadenfreude. Disapointing.

You chuck intellectual petrol bombs about, showing how clever you are, but offer no alternative to your cleverly resourced points and links. I'd sack you on general principles for being such a smug left-wing smartarse.

BTW, by no means of the imagination am I to be taken seriously, just get fed up with your stoicism and banal rhetoric sometimes.

Ace

Uber Multiquote!

Got Uber Multiquote Pyramid?

Please do not 'quote' this post again as it will result in the internet becoming full.

TMR

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

:roll: It's always binary with people! Can't say I'm keen on Labour either.

I've sat in quite a few public sector offices and they all have a job that is necessary. It's election rhetoric that there is fat to be cut. The services the public sector provides will reduce as a result of cuts, both in quality and what is provided. The well off are likely to notice less, principally because they are in less need of the services provided, so don't come into contact with them as much.

I can't quite see why there is so much hostility to people holding on to their jobs! I'd be happy for them. I'm sure they have mouths to feed etc.

Instead there's a lot of schadenfreude. Disapointing.

You chuck intellectual petrol bombs about, showing how clever you are, but offer no alternative to your cleverly resourced points and links. I'd sack you on general principles for being such a smug left-wing smartarse.

BTW, by no means of the imagination am I to be taken seriously, just get fed up with your stoicism and banal rhetoric sometimes.

Ace

Uber Multiquote!

Got Uber Multiquote Pyramid?

Please do not 'quote' this post again as it will result in the internet becoming full.

RAMPAGE!

shouldbeinbed

ratsbeyfus wrote:

Ben6899 wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

dmclite wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

MattC59 wrote:

Rick Chasey wrote:

As the title says.

Leaked from a picture of the draft version of the cuts.

The coalition expects 490,000 public sector jobs to be shed by 2014-15 directly as a result of the drastic spending cuts, Danny Alexander, the Treasury chief secretary, has accidently disclosed.

I would gloat at those who voted tory, but that'd be insensitive....

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... t-job-cuts

You'd gloat at those who voted Tory ? After the f*ck up that the last government made ?!?!?!?

There are also job losses and pay freezes/cuts in the private sector, except that the private sector don't have unions to p*ss and whine about the fact that they're not on final salary pensions anymore.

The bottom line is that Labour wrote a lot of cheques that they couldn't cash, they over spent massively and created jobs that weren't needed. Unfortunately, the current government is now in the position that it has to rectify the problem and is going to be unpopular with the pink eye, lefty do gooders for doing so.

Cuts have to be made, end of. We're all in the same boat

:roll: It's always binary with people! Can't say I'm keen on Labour either.

I've sat in quite a few public sector offices and they all have a job that is necessary. It's election rhetoric that there is fat to be cut. The services the public sector provides will reduce as a result of cuts, both in quality and what is provided. The well off are likely to notice less, principally because they are in less need of the services provided, so don't come into contact with them as much.

I can't quite see why there is so much hostility to people holding on to their jobs! I'd be happy for them. I'm sure they have mouths to feed etc.

Instead there's a lot of schadenfreude. Disapointing.

You chuck intellectual petrol bombs about, showing how clever you are, but offer no alternative to your cleverly resourced points and links. I'd sack you on general principles for being such a smug left-wing smartarse.

BTW, by no means of the imagination am I to be taken seriously, just get fed up with your stoicism and banal rhetoric sometimes.

Ace

Uber Multiquote!

Got Uber Multiquote Pyramid?

Please do not 'quote' this post again as it will result in the internet becoming full.

ok

d87heaven

Its not numbers that need to be cut out of council its the deadwood and inept that need to be shown the door. That would be a start anyway.

finchy

Pross wrote:

The whole "tax dodging rich" is a bit of a red herring as well, if you try to tax them they will live overseas as much as necessary. It happened in the 60's when they tried to introduce a punitive tax rate - look at all the protest songs from rich rock stars at the time who went to live abroad. Plus, it's what a couple of thousand people and it won't fix the huge hole!

I'm not talking about raising taxes any further than the current 50%, just enforcing the existing laws.

I saw a proposal from the government a while back suggesting naming and shaming tax dodgers if they are caught. The rationale being that since most of them stay in this country because they are doing business here, they wouldn't want to lose customers through being named and shamed.

MarcBC

Interesting thread this, all based on a missquote by the press. The actual words on the document are (they can be seen on the document and some press have correctly reported it):
“The OBR’s [Office for Budget Responsibility] budget forecast was for a reduction in public sector workforce numbers of 490,000 by 2014-15. "

Note the word "was". That does not mean it is a for sure.

Of course it could happen, but the words do not say it will!

Tom Butcher

The local paper here did a breakdown of public sector employees in the area earning more than 100k. It then made a big play of a handfull of council managers earning 100-160k.

What it failed to make a fuss over was that just under half of those on the list were in fact doctors - many of them GPs so hardly highly specialised staff. The highest earners on the list were hospital consultants - no doubt many of them topping up their 200k plus from the public sector with plenty of private work.

On the rich moving abroad issue - it may be difficult but if they want to live abroad let them - just tighten the rules about how often they are allowed back in - how about never.

finchy

If you look at the document closely, it says that these jobs will be lost by 2014-5

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... ed-picture

Now assuming that the average public sector worker works for 40-45 years, this would mean that at any one time, assuming that all age ranges are represented equally within the public sector, about 10% of the workforce will be up for retirement within about 4 or 5 years.

If the figures quoted by other posters are correct, and the 490,000 workers represent 8% of the workforce, then this means that the government could make the cuts by natural wastage and redeployment not only without sacking a single person, but they could even recruit.

Mind you, I feel sorry for the poor sods who'll be left doing more than one person's job.

And when everyone's services get affected they'll realise that it civil servants do more than just shuffling pieces of paper and attending equality and diversity courses organised by the PC brigade.

rick_chasey

johnfinch wrote:

If you look at the document closely, it says that these jobs will be lost by 2014-5

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... ed-picture

Now assuming that the average public sector worker works for 40-45 years, this would mean that at any one time, assuming that all age ranges are represented equally within the public sector, about 10% of the workforce will be up for retirement within about 4 or 5 years.
.

If a job still exists, it gets replaced by people who become the right age. It's not 490,000 people losing jobs, it's 490,000 jobs, which are filled by people, are lost.

Take a language department in a university - say, Italian at Cambridge - say someone retires and the job is then closed. Eventually, if the same happens for the others the department still closes, and there are still that amount of people not in a job who would have been (since they'd have replaced them)

finchy

Rick Chasey wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

If you look at the document closely, it says that these jobs will be lost by 2014-5

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010 ... ed-picture

Now assuming that the average public sector worker works for 40-45 years, this would mean that at any one time, assuming that all age ranges are represented equally within the public sector, about 10% of the workforce will be up for retirement within about 4 or 5 years.
.

If a job still exists, it gets replaced by people who become the right age. It's not 490,000 people losing jobs, it's 490,000 jobs, which are filled by people, are lost.

Take a language department in a university - say, Italian at Cambridge - say someone retires and the job is then closed. Eventually, if the same happens for the others the department still closes, and there are still that amount of people not in a job who would have been (since they'd have replaced them)

I know, I was just looking on the positive side - that it could be done without sacking people. I know about all of the negative consequences, as I alluded to in my post.

TMR

The 50% tax rate is a joke any way. There should be a flat rate of Income Tax, those who earn more will pay more. It's insane that someone who has worked hard in life should have the fruits of their endeavours taken from them to support the lazy and feckless and their feral children.

Tom Butcher

A flat 40% rate would leave lots of people on lower wages in poverty - a flat rate of say 20-25% would mean we had to make much much deeper cuts in public spending.

I do agree 50% is maybe a touch high but then again how many of them actually end up paying that much.

finchy

The Mad Rapper wrote:

The 50% tax rate is a joke any way. There should be a flat rate of Income Tax, those who earn more will pay more. It's insane that someone who has worked hard in life should have the fruits of their endeavours taken from them to support the lazy and feckless and their feral children.

:roll:

Here we go again, "lazy, feckless". Try being unemployed, I've written off for every single job I've seen which I could do over the last few months. So far I've had only four replies (interview on the 5th November though. 8) ).

finchy

Tom Butcher wrote:

A flat 40% rate would leave lots of people on lower wages in poverty - a flat rate of say 20-25% would mean we had to make much much deeper cuts in public spending.

They have a flat tax rate in Slovakia. They're going to abandon it though because it doesn't work, for exactly the reasons you've mentioned.

TMR

johnfinch wrote:

:roll:

Here we go again, "lazy, feckless". Try being unemployed, I've written off for every single job I've seen which I could do over the last few months. So far I've had only four replies (interview on the 5th November though. 8) ).

:roll: Yourself.

Why are you unemployed?

TMR

johnfinch wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

A flat 40% rate would leave lots of people on lower wages in poverty - a flat rate of say 20-25% would mean we had to make much much deeper cuts in public spending.

They have a flat tax rate in Slovakia. They're going to abandon it though because it doesn't work, for exactly the reasons you've mentioned.

Of course it works. Plenty of countries have a flat rate of Income Tax.

finchy

The Mad Rapper wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

:roll:

Here we go again, "lazy, feckless". Try being unemployed, I've written off for every single job I've seen which I could do over the last few months. So far I've had only four replies (interview on the 5th November though. 8) ).

:roll: Yourself.

Why are you unemployed?

I moved back to the UK at the start of the recession because my girlfriend needed stability after both of her parents died. As we had been planning to settle down in Hungary before that, I was concentrating on teaching English as a foreign language as a career, with the intention of opening a language school in the Lake Balaton area. Therefore my experience doesn't really help me when applying for jobs in England.

I got six months teaching out in Slovenia from January to June, but that's come to an end, and now I'm back here trying to kick start a new career.

I've applied for low end jobs, but I'm vastly over-qualified, so I don't even get a reply from those.

TMR

johnfinch wrote:

I moved back to the UK at the start of the recession because my girlfriend needed stability after both of her parents died. As we had been planning to settle down in Hungary before that, I was concentrating on teaching English as a foreign language as a career, with the intention of opening a language school in the Lake Balaton area. Therefore my experience doesn't really help me when applying for jobs in England.

I got six months teaching out in Slovenia from January to June, but that's come to an end, and now I'm back here trying to kick start a new career.

I've applied for low end jobs, but I'm vastly over-qualified, so I don't even get a reply from those.

Then you are neither lazy or feckless and not in the demographic I was referring to. I have no issue with state assistance to decent people who have fallen on hard times. Keep your chin up and keep at it.

finchy

The Mad Rapper wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

Tom Butcher wrote:

A flat 40% rate would leave lots of people on lower wages in poverty - a flat rate of say 20-25% would mean we had to make much much deeper cuts in public spending.

They have a flat tax rate in Slovakia. They're going to abandon it though because it doesn't work, for exactly the reasons you've mentioned.

Of course it works. Plenty of countries have a flat rate of Income Tax.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#C ... ax_systems

Here's a list of countries with flat rate tax systems. There aren't many on there whose government finances aren't a complete and utter mess.

finchy

The Mad Rapper wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

I moved back to the UK at the start of the recession because my girlfriend needed stability after both of her parents died. As we had been planning to settle down in Hungary before that, I was concentrating on teaching English as a foreign language as a career, with the intention of opening a language school in the Lake Balaton area. Therefore my experience doesn't really help me when applying for jobs in England.

I got six months teaching out in Slovenia from January to June, but that's come to an end, and now I'm back here trying to kick start a new career.

I've applied for low end jobs, but I'm vastly over-qualified, so I don't even get a reply from those.

Then you are neither lazy or feckless and not in the demographic I was referring to. I have no issue with state assistance to decent people who have fallen on hard times. Keep your chin up and keep at it.

Thanks. You'll understand I'm a bit sensitive about these things at the moment.

TMR

johnfinch wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#C ... ax_systems

Here's a list of countries with flat rate tax systems. There aren't many on there whose government finances aren't a complete and utter mess.

Yes, I've read that. To be fair, there aren't many countries whose Government finances aren't in a complete mess regardless of the tax system.

finchy

The Mad Rapper wrote:

johnfinch wrote:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_tax#C ... ax_systems

Here's a list of countries with flat rate tax systems. There aren't many on there whose government finances aren't a complete and utter mess.

Yes, I've read that. To be fair, there aren't many countries whose Government finances aren't in a complete mess regardless of the tax system.

Yes, I understand that. I just mention it because I've lived in Slovakia where they do have the system and as I've said they're almost certainly going to abolish flat rate, and I think that the Czechs and Estonians are on the verge of doing the same.

Pross

Rick, I notice you still haven't said what your strategy would be to get the country's finances back on track only plenty on what shouldn't be done. As far as I can see it we can:-

a) Do what the coalition are doing and make deep cuts.
b) Make lesser cuts and put up tax (which is what a Labour shadow cabinet member said this morning they would have done - I don't recall their election manifesto telling us this though!).
c) Make cuts over a longer period (this must be the easiest option for a politician to take so presumably there's a reason they didn't jump at the chance. My guess is that it is because of the money that will be wasted long term on the interest payments on the deficit plus from what I heard on the radio the other day the deficit being referred to is the amount over and above what can realistically be covered by future growth so it would never actually get paid off in this situation).

Do you you have another option that you would rather see? :?

rick_chasey

I never said I had the solution - I'm just pointing out the problems.

Personally, I'd cut as little as possible - > i.e. just enough to keep the markets and credit ratings on side, and aim a few taxes at those who can afford it, and I mean JUST. The cuts that are made, I would aim at higher income earners sooner.

I'm kind of old school Keynes in the sense that I am of the opinion you MUST spend out of recessions, since recessions are essentially that - a lack of spending by everyone.

Cutting so hard so fast when the economy is so fragile can only lurch the economy back into recession, especially if the slack won't be picked up elsewhere.

Ultimately, I don't have access to the figures, and the numbers, so I can't really offer a proper solution that I know works. For all I know, what I suggest won't work.

I did find what Tim Farron said this morning quite interesting:

There will be some waste to be cut today. But 80, 90% of the things that are cut today are important and good things that we should restore as soon as the country's finances are back in shape ... This is a temporary necessity.

So much for all this 'wastage' everyone was going on about! I think we were all hoping it was going to be more than that.

Pross

But in cutting quickly and deeply maybe there's a chance that the deficit will be sorted out and future spending can be raised more quickly. If you spend out of recession surely you just add to the debt and have to try to pay that off in the good times and from what I've read and heard even in the best of times paying back the debt will need major cuts? I think from a politicians point of view the last election was a good one to lose - the incoming Government has to do something very unpopular and may just start to be coming out of it in time for the opposition to take power and start spending again (pretty much as happened to a lesser extent in 97). Other than their liking for tax cuts I'm sure some of the Tory reputation for liking cuts has come from inheriting collapsing economies from a Labour government.