A Bit Political

[Trish2410]

So if this gets deleted sorry . I can't be the only one on this site who works for local government and is under threat of redundancy. My local authority is looking for between 30 -50% cuts over 4 years and my particular dept has been put into the first round of cuts. Now I'm no mathematician (CSE grade 5) but surely this is going to put a huge number of people who used to contribute to the welfare state, into the welfare state????
As far as I understand it, the government are looking to charities to deliver this and many others services in the future. But with less people (and we are talking, according to the Times newspaper 27000 in my county alone) where is the money for charities going to come from? Not me that's for sure because I will be living off the state! (something I have never done in 30 years of full time work). This does not make sense to me and I would love to hear from others on here. (maybe we should have set up a page on child benefit too)?

[Hecouldshine]

I’m really sorry to hear about the redundancies Trish Is it the whole of your department?

The thing is, the charities are in the same boat. Dh works for one. They were given government funding over the last 4 years or so to deliver work that the government used to do. Now the government money has just stopped They can’t afford to keep delivering all these services without the money to do so, so they are laying off staff as well.

I could go on about the cuts being made to the NHS locally, crazy ones that will end up pushing up spending on inpatient care and on people on benefits, but I'd probably be suspended for being a whistleblower!

[Trish2410]

I think it is vital to debate this issue and cannot believe the experiences you are having in your and your DS work. So my question is, if all these departments, staff, charities etc., are having their funding cut and subsequently those staff joining the unemployment line, where is the money coming from to fund the work the charities are supposed to be picking up? And who is going to fund the increased number of people on unemployment benefit? I mean, I, like all the people I work with, have always been a contributor, that will now stop! Unless of course there is a reason why the government wish to create a large, low paid workforce???

[Welsh Mum]

I work in education and I am very worried about the effects the cuts are already having. Our class sizes have already increased as we had to make staff redundant last year. Class size is so crucial: there is a huge difference in how effective your teaching can be to a class of 25 as opposed to 35. I am also extremely concerned at the proposed changes to university funding. I do not think it will be the poor who are hit here but those just above the threshold for financial assistance. There is no doubt in my mind that this will make education a luxury that some can't afford . My DDs will already be graduating with debts of about £20,000, this will increase for future graduates of about £35,000. Of course if you are wealthy these worries won't apply. If they could be guaranteed well paid jobs then it wouldn't be so bad, but atm a large number of graduates are doing jobs like call centre work. My friends son has a first class degree in engineering and can't get a job

I think cutting jobs whole sale is a short term fix but not a long term solution. With huge numbers of unemployed then spending will go down, leading to even more unemployment. I actually think that all these measures are not what people voted for earlier this year.

[Trish2410]

I absolutely agree welshmum, I have a dd who will be going to Uni next year and it is frightening the amount of debt she will incur. I am a single mum with no other income other than my salary so maybe if I am made redundant DD will get a better deal? As I say, I will be a benefit reciever and not contributor. (OOOh I could do with a nice break)

[Nicola]

It's really interesting that you've posted this Trish, as I was just thinking about the same thing last night, although from a slightly different angle.

While I sympathise with anyone whose job or funding is under threat, I am getting really fed up of turning Breakfast News on every morning to hear yet another group explaining why they are the only people in the public sector whose budget should not be cut. One day it's the police; the next it's education; the next it's R&D; the next it's the public sector workers union, and then yesterday [on here] it was an arts charity.

I think that it would be wrong to make huge cuts ANYWHERE while leaving some groups untouched, but the simple fact is that cuts DO have to be made to get the country out of the mess that the banks have left us in. I think the uncertainty created by the delayed publication of the spending review has everyone scaremongering and panicking - hopefully once it's published, we''ll be reassured that the cuts aren't going to hit any particular group harder than any other.

My biggest worry is that while the banks have massively increased their profit margins on mortgages by NOT reducing our interest rates directly in line with Bank of England rates, when interest rates start to go back up (as is expected soon) they will not close down the disparity and keep their current profit margins exactly where they are. Thus, the crisis created by them, will profit them on an ongoing basis for ever and ever! Especially since they are making it harder and harder to switch mortgages, so that those of us who already have one which doesn't fit their new lending criteria have no choice at all but to stay with the provider we're with, regardless of what they charge.

And please don't think I'm unsympathetic to you Trish - it must be a worrying time, but we're all affected - Myself and my husband have had our own business for the last 11 years, and for the last 12 months, sales have been terrible - if we hadn't had had a good couple of years before that, we'd have already gone down, as have lots of our competitors. Public sector workers and charities don't have a monopoly on sleepless nights over the effect of the cuts and the recession - I've been having them for a year, and if we WERE to lose our jobs, there would be no fat redundancy packages offered to us!!

On a brighter note though, for 2 months running (September and October) our sales have increased sharply, and just as I was about to give up hope of us surviving, there's a teeny glimpse of light at the end of the tunnel that things may be improving in the general economy, which if so will filter through to higher tax revenues, putting more money into the public purse and therefore more tax money that can be spent where money would otherwise have needed to be taken in the form of cuts?

And my final controversial point is that although I'm absolutely sure that any public sector worker reading this is a necessary and productive part of their team [I'm putting that in before I offend anyone!!] it's a fact that the labour government massively increased public sector jobs and funding over their term if office, but I never saw a discernible difference in the services I received. I saw lots of league tables published, measuring things that in reality cannot possibly be measured (schools, hospitals) and lots of talk of "choice" where none seemed to actually exist, and lots of money wasted administering these sorts of services when the money would have been better spent on the services themselves. I'd much rather keep nurses, council workers, policeman, teachers etc, and get rid of those "administrators" who seem to be paid a fortune to oversee at great cost what was already happening!

It's like the new expenses watchdog for the House of Commons - set up this year with a budget (for this year) of £6.46 million. That's to oversee the process of making sure none of our MPs claim for one more bath tap than they're entitled to! The amount the MPs have had to pay back in total over all the previous years was 1.12 million! There will be 60 full-time members of staff, which divided out makes 1 full-time member of staff for every 10 MPs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is it any wonder that those of us in the private sector see the public sector as wasteful?!

[Trish2410]

There's nothing like a full and frank debate and all views should be heard and respected

[tikka]

It's like the new expenses watchdog for the House of Commons - set up this year with a budget (for this year) of £6.46 million. That's to oversee the process of making sure none of our MPs claim for one more bath tap than they're entitled to! The amount the MPs have had to pay back in total over all the previous years was 1.12 million! There will be 60 full-time members of staff, which divided out makes 1 full-time member of staff for every 10 MPs!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Is it any wonder that those of us in the private sector see the public sector as wasteful?!

I'm absolutely gobsmacked to read this. Spending £6 million to save £1 million in itself is crazy, but bearing in mind its a saving of £1 million from claims from MPs who are supposed to be law abiding. I can't imagine how you'd spend £6million on checking expenses claims!

[nextinline]

My eldest ds will get caught by the university fees increase in 2012, it is making him and his friends really think about what they want to do and whether it is worth such a huge loan. Hope things work out for you Trish2410. I don't think anyone can count on there being a job whatever they do as every job in the economy is linked in some way and dependent on something else being viable. Even if you work for your own business you need cusomers and suppliers.

[Nicola]

The thing that is most worrying about the university situation (and I have 2 due to start in 2011 and 2012!!) is that if money becomes an issue more so than it currently is, it will be the less well-off elements of society that decide it's not worthwhile and the already more advantaged kids that can afford to take the risk to go into debt by getting a degree.

Of course the result of that will be fewer people with degrees, leading to degrees increasing in "value" in terms of job prospects (as they will again be used to differentiate between candidates), creating even more of a gap between the life chances of the richest and poorest in society.

In lots of ways, I'm glad I'm not the person at the top trying to sort out all these problems - it doesn't seem to work if everyone gets a degree; it doesn't work if we use a financial disincentive to cut the numbers taking up a place. It certainly puts how lucky we and the generation before us were to have no tuition fees and a maintenance grant (albeit meagre!) to see us through our course!!! If you could get to the end of your A-levels, by whatever means, your chances of getting into the best universities for the most popular (and financially rewarding courses) were exactly the same, regardless of your parents' income - now, it seems we're going backwards?

[Trish2410]

I must point out that my initial post was about the effect the number of redundancies and non appointment of local government jobs (and the knock on effect this will have) would have on an already overwhelmed welfare state. Me personally does not matter, in fact bring it on I could do with a lovely state paid for rest. I just cannot figure out the maths but guess that someone somewhere has.

[Nicola]

Sorry for hijacking your post, Trish - just needed to have a good old vent too!!!!

[Nicola]

I'm not an economist either, Trish but what about this logic (of course, I could be completely wrong) - if you lost your job and went onto benefits, I'll bet anything that they won't give you as much back in benefits as you previously received as salary? In simple terms, the difference between what you earned and what they'll give you back in benefits until you find another job is their saving. Following that, when you get a new job, NOT in the public sector, they stop paying for you altogether?

That's probably making it much too simplistic - I did A-level maths, but I've seen enough now to know that logic (or maths...or sense for that matter!!) doesn't necessarily dictate government policy!!!

[proudmum]

I have an interest in this subject as I work for my local authority. We are looking at a possible £25 million budget cut and I am probably in line for redundancy,my package will be minimal as I am not in a high income bracket,I believe you get 1wks money for every year worked and ive been there 5yrs (5wks money isnt going to last long). I work in a Childrens Centre and I agree with the cuts in general,I see so much waste,this is what I think could be cut and it wouldnt affect services.

1- the amount of staff we have is ridiculous and could be halved
2- Labour said everyone should be able to walk to a CC resulting in my local borough now having 12,could easily reduce by half
3- £millions spent on National this and that day
4- cut agency staff,hourly rates are outrageous
5- reduce managers,I have 3 before I get to the big guys
6- big screen tv's in staff rooms
7- sourcing the best buys rather than the large companies

I would be upset at losing my job but as soon as I started working for the council I was shocked by the lapsidaisy view on all of the above. We spend so much on buying/renting buildings,completely refurbishing them,stocking them with great toys and equipment and then letting the grops continue even if only 1 parent attends(2 staff). CC were supposed to link health,education and social care under one roof to enable the care and well being of children and those "in need", in theory they are a great idea but in reality it hasnt made that much difference. They are mostly attended by well to do parents who just go from centre to centre to enjoy the facilities. In the private sector this would never be allowed to happen. We had a teddy bears picnic that cost £10,000 and a Roma national day that cost £12,000 what a shocking waste of resources!!!

I truly believe the country is in such a bad way that the goverment have no choice but to make huge cuts and I have to say in the public sector these are long overdue.

[Welsh Mum]

I can only speak for the cuts in schools and there is no doubt in my mind that this will effect education (though of course very few of the government children go to ordinary schools!). Our class sizes are bigger, meaning less time with each pupil, less accurate marking ( I teach over 250 pupils a week), fewer resources (books, dvds, pcs etc) and our school buildings will get even more delapidated. Schools are now far more restricted as to who they can statement (getting them extra help) this means that I have children with real learning difficulties in large classes with no help for them - this is very frustrating for me as a teacher.

As for the economics of this - I did the subject for A level many years ago, but I can remember leerning about the 1930s Depression. In Britain huge cuts were made leading to v high unemployment - people had little so spend so companies went bust as no-one was buying their goods. However, inthe USA they had a huge spending programme (the New Deal) and they recovered far quicker - people in work spend more money than those out of work, increasing demand and so businesses grew. Thisis why I think these cuts will not work and even take us into a double dip recession (like in ireland).

I agree that where there is waste there should be economies, but I feel these sweeping cuts are not the way to go.

BTW I really feel for those of you with DDs and DSs who will want to go to higher eduaction in the next few years - it is tough now, I know that it wil be even worse in the future.