Budget will cost 1.3m jobs - Treasury

[peasepud 59]

And so it begins.....

 

Child Benefits told to kill off anything thats not "essential frontline services". That sounds sensible until you hear about the amazing new project that was being implemented. This project was a quick win, easy implementation that was costed at £12k in its first year. As its not frontline services its been scrapped.

 

 

Projected year 1 savings that will now not be realised from this project? £4.1m

 

Now I dont for one minute believe that the likes of Cameron/ Osbourn etc have the slightest inkling about this project or its worth and I dont belive if they did, that this would have happened but its an example of the stupidity of the system. A statement is made by Whitehall and stupid people in finance follow it to the letter of the law regardless of the consequences.

[Christmas Tree 4438]

And so it begins.....

 

Child Benefits told to kill off anything thats not "essential frontline services". That sounds sensible until you hear about the amazing new project that was being implemented. This project was a quick win, easy implementation that was costed at £12k in its first year. As its not frontline services its been scrapped.

 

 

Projected year 1 savings that will now not be realised from this project? £4.1m

 

Now I dont for one minute believe that the likes of Cameron/ Osbourn etc have the slightest inkling about this project or its worth and I dont belive if they did, that this would have happened but its an example of the stupidity of the system. A statement is made by Whitehall and stupid people in finance follow it to the letter of the law regardless of the consequences.

 

 

Write to Dave

 

https://email.number10.gov.uk/

 

 

Sometimes you just goota make a stand. The country needs YOU

[Guest alex]

I'm not saying that at all - its the total NUMBER that's the problem

 

Councils stuffed with "Diversity Managers" and the like

 

and as for

 

"The simple fact of life is that you'll be hard pushed to find a private sector job that is essential to the running of this country yet almost every Public Sector job brings something either to people lives or for the good of the country overall"

 

Who the hell makes the money to pay for them aall man? Its Rolls Royce, it's the bankers, it's Dyson, its Nissan -The Public Sector doesn't exist in a vacume - it has to be paid for by someone

Not quite that clear cut though is it? It's not like public sector workers don't spend their earnings in the areas you've listed either, is it? Neither exist in a vacume (sic). It boils down to whether you believe drastic cuts now are for the long-term good or whether you think delaying the cuts/spreading them out over a period of time is the least detrimental way to sort out the economy. I also think there's a more fundamental philosophical schism at work, as Percy Street alludes to. Oh and public sector workers pay taxes too believe it or not. And no, I don't work in the public sector.

[Anth 94]

Rob, Ive worked for 3 local Authorities and I'm yet to meet a "Diversity Manager" or anything similar. Obviously Councils have "regeneration departments", But just because they dont empty bins or field customer services calls doesnt mean they aren't providing a service.

I honestly think alot of people read Tory propaganda like this:

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12...th-sickies.html

And swallow it whole!

[Rob W 0]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

[Guest alex]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

Name one person suggesting we should have that. Jesus, talk about straw man

[Happy Face 29]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

There's this thing called google that allows you to check outlandish claims before you make them.

 

http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/about/facts...ics/index.aspx#

 

The civil service has dropped from a peak of 1.1m employees to the 493,000 there currently are (Q1 2010).

 

1918, end of WW1 – 221,000

1939, start of WW11 – 347,000

1944, highest ever number – 1,160,000

1945, the number stood at – 1,100,000

1977, the highest number in the last 35 years – 746,000

First quarter 1999, the lowest recorded number post WW11 – 478,000

Second quarter 2005, Her Majesty’s Court Service (HMCS) transfer – 536,000

First Quarter 2010, current position – 493,000

 

It's 65% of the levels it was in the 70s.

Edited July 27, 2010 by Happy Face

[Anth 94]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

You see, I think this is a common misconception. Local Authorities are subject to both internal and External Audits on how they a run. Its easy for people to assume they are over staffed but I honestly dont think that is the case. Can you tell me which departments of which organisations you think are over staffed? I'm not disagreeing to have a go by the way.

[Happy Face 29]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

You see, I think this is a common misconception. Local Authorities are subject to both internal and External Audits on how they a run. Its easy for people to assume they are over staffed but I honestly dont think that is the case. Can you tell me which departments of which organisations you think are over staffed? I'm not disagreeing to have a go by the way.

 

You should be disagreeing.

 

In '99 it was at it's lowest level in 60 years. It's still roughly around that level.

 

That's despite the population of the UK growing by a third in the last century, which you'd expect to produce a corresponding growth in administative employees, not a reduction.

[Renton 20421]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

You see, I think this is a common misconception. Local Authorities are subject to both internal and External Audits on how they a run. Its easy for people to assume they are over staffed but I honestly dont think that is the case. Can you tell me which departments of which organisations you think are over staffed? I'm not disagreeing to have a go by the way.

 

You should be disagreeing.

 

In '99 it was at it's lowest level in 60 years. It's still roughly around that level.

 

That's despite the population of the UK growing by a third in the last century, which you'd expect to produce a corresponding growth in administative employees, not a reduction.

 

 

It should drop though with advances in IT [\Devil's advocate].

[Happy Face 29]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

You see, I think this is a common misconception. Local Authorities are subject to both internal and External Audits on how they a run. Its easy for people to assume they are over staffed but I honestly dont think that is the case. Can you tell me which departments of which organisations you think are over staffed? I'm not disagreeing to have a go by the way.

 

You should be disagreeing.

 

In '99 it was at it's lowest level in 60 years. It's still roughly around that level.

 

That's despite the population of the UK growing by a third in the last century, which you'd expect to produce a corresponding growth in administative employees, not a reduction.

 

 

It should drop though with advances in IT [\Devil's advocate].

 

I was going to mention that myself.

 

It didn't make Rob less wrong though.

[peasepud 59]

The thing is most, if not all Government Departments havent done external recruitment for a good few years. Obviously ignoring the specialist jobs, nurses, firemen, police etc all admin type work has been covered by either shifting work around or recruitment of existing civil service staff from other departments.

 

I still believe that its time to do away with the boundaries of the departments and allow easier movement around the service. If you've got excess staff in one department then move them to another overworked one.

 

Stories like this little fucker though definitely dont help matters, egotistical, rude, smug little twat of a man that he was....

 

http://www.ifaonline.co.uk/ifaonline/news/...-gbp150k-months

 

Chief information officer Deepak Singh was paid £149,500 by HMRC to work three months beyond his leaving date.

 

Revenue & Customs paid senior official Singh the six figure sum for the period 19 June 2009 to 18 September 2009, accounts filed by the tax office show.

 

Singh had a three year contract at HMRC earning £160,000 per annum, ending in June last year.

 

However, for three months from 19 June to 18 September, HMRC paid Singh £149,500 through his company Orwell Consulting.

 

Listed under "Third party payments for services of a senior manager", HMRC's accounts show £149,500 was paid to Orwell Consulting Ltd "for the services of Deepak Singh (a director of that company) who held the position of Acting Chief Information Officer".

 

Singh said he informed the tax office of his daily rate and it was "willing" to pay it, according to reports.

 

HMRC's decision to allow Singh to be paid through his consultancy business would have substantially cut the former CIO's tax liabilities.

 

Singh is liable for corporation tax of up to 28%, significantly lower than the higher-rate of income tax of 40%.

 

HMRC is reported as saying it will ensure no tax is avoided as a result of the arrangement.

 

What makes it worse is that the consultancy didnt even exist until just before he left here, its not like it was some big existing company that was being used, he was leaving and set up the business in a rush just beforehand.

[Rob W 0]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

You see, I think this is a common misconception. Local Authorities are subject to both internal and External Audits on how they a run. Its easy for people to assume they are over staffed but I honestly dont think that is the case. Can you tell me which departments of which organisations you think are over staffed? I'm not disagreeing to have a go by the way.

 

 

that's the Civil Service - not the Local authorities and all the other stuff

 

and tell me a case where the Auditors said that job cuts should be made and the council actually did it

[Guest alex]

Really addressing the points put to you there like

[Dr Kenneth Noisewater 0]

Redundancy notices going out to a few people at our place this week. The Noisewater sphincter has been twitching like a rabbits nose.

[Dr Gloom 21302]

Poor families bear brunt of coalition's austerity drive

 

Britain's leading independent tax experts today flatly rejected the coalition government's claims to have shielded poor families from five years of austerity when they described George Osborne's emergency budget as "clearly regressive".

 

In a direct challenge to Treasury claims that the package of spending cuts and tax increases announced in June was fair, the Institute for Fiscal Studies (IFS) said in a report that welfare cuts meant working families on the lowest incomes – particularly those with children – were the biggest losers.

 

The IFS said it had always been sceptical about Osborne's claim that the budget was "progressive" but added that this instant judgment had been reinforced by a study of proposed changes to housing benefit, disability allowances and tax credits due to come in between now and 2015.

 

Passing judgment that is likely to make uncomfortable reading for the Liberal Democrats, the IFS concluded: "Once all of the benefit cuts are considered, the tax and benefit changes announced in the emergency budget are clearly regressive as, on average, they hit the poorest households more than those in the upper middle of the income distribution in cash, let alone percentage, terms."

 

Nick Clegg, the Lib Dem leader, has argued that the budget represented "progressive austerity" by sparing the poorest families from the brunt of the attack on the UK's record peacetime deficit.

 

Alistair Darling, the shadow chancellor, said: "Just last week George Osborne told us that his budget was fair. But it's decisions, not warm words, that count. Today there's conclusive evidence that far from being fair the coalition has hit the poorest hardest, especially those with children.

 

"While Nick Clegg is in charge he would do well to ask himself what he thinks he's doing providing cover for this old-fashioned Tory budget."

 

An Osborne aide said: "We will take no lectures on fairness from a party that, for example, failed to meet its targets on child poverty and did not restore the pension-earnings link."

 

The Treasury said last night that it still considered the budget to be progressive despite the IFS assessment. "The government does not accept the IFS analysis," said a spokesman. "It is selective, ignoring the pro-growth and employment effects of budget measures such as helping households move from benefits into work, and reductions in corporation tax.

 

"It is essential that policy is informed by transparent analysis. That's why we stand full-square behind our budget analysis which is based on what can accurately and completely be measured."

 

The IFS said the poorest 10% of families would lose over 5% of their income as a result of the budget compared with a loss of less than 1% for non-pensioner households without children in the richest 10% of households. It added that the budget contrasted with the "progressive" plans for 2010-14 inherited from Labour, under which the richest 10% of households bore the brunt of the cuts.

 

Ed Balls, the shadow children's secretary, said: "So much for the Tory-Lib Dem coalition's promise to be a family-friendly government. It is hard to think of any government in the history of our welfare state that has hit children and poor families so heavily and so fast.

 

"While Labour's budgets saw hundreds of thousands of children lifted out of poverty, this Tory-Lib Dem budget will see the poorest families with children lose more than any other group. This report is the final nail in the coffin for George Osborne's claims to have delivered anything but the most regressive budget in a generation."

 

Fiona Weir, a spokeswoman for the End Child Poverty campaign, which commissioned the report, said: "The coalition has committed to ending child poverty by 2020, but its cuts are hitting the poorest families hardest. It's not fair that children should have to pay for the cuts and shocking that the poorest families are bearing the brunt.

 

"The coalition must reconsider its cuts, including changes to housing benefit and uprating benefits. The spending review will need to show clearly how the government will deliver on the commitment to ending child poverty, ensuring that cuts fall on those most able to pay."

 

The IFS said: "Low-income households of working age lose the most as a proportion of income from the tax and benefit reforms announced in the emergency budget. Those who lose the least are households of working age without children in the upper half of the income distribution. They do not lose out from cuts in welfare spending, and they are the biggest beneficiaries from the increase in the income tax personal allowance."

 

On the Today programme this morning Mark Hoban, the financial secretary to the Treasury, rejected the IFS claims and insisted that the budget was progressive.

 

"Some of this analysis is quite selective," Hoban said. "They've made some fairly challenging assumptions about the impact of some of the welfare reforms."

 

With housing benefit cut, some claimants would choose to move into cheaper accommodation, Hoban said.

 

Osborne's budget is also facing a legal challenge over claims it may break equalities laws.

 

The Guardian has learned that the government has so far failed to answer whether it carried out an assessment as required by law, showing it had considered whether women, ethnic minorities, the disabled and the elderly would be disproportionately affected by the cuts.

 

The Fawcett Society has filed a legal challenge and the government was supposed to respond by Monday. It has asked for more time before lawyers acting on its behalf send a reply. Sources say that an equality impact assessment, as required by the Sex Discrimination Act, has not yet been carried out.

 

In his Today programme interview, Hoban was asked at least four times whether the Treasury had carried out the distributional analysis as required under legislation. He said the Treasury had done a "very detailed distributional analysis", but he refused to say whether this included the equality impact assessment.

 

Earlier this month a leaked letter from Theresa May, the home secretary and equalities minister, revealed she had warned Osborne that cuts in the budget could widen inequality in Britain and ran a "real risk" of breaking the law.

 

May wrote "there are real risks" that people ranging from ethnic minorities to women, to the disabled and the old, would be "disproportionately affected".

 

Anna Bird, the head of policy and campaigns at the Fawcett Society said: "Under equality laws, the government should have assessed whether its budget proposals would increase or reduce inequality between women and men.

 

"It is our belief that the Treasury did not do this, and so did not follow the law when drawing up their plans. Their continued failure to produce any evidence showing they considered the gender equality impact of the budget only adds weight to this concern."

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/aug/25/p...austerity-drive

[Lazarus 0]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

You see, I think this is a common misconception. Local Authorities are subject to both internal and External Audits on how they a run. Its easy for people to assume they are over staffed but I honestly dont think that is the case. Can you tell me which departments of which organisations you think are over staffed? I'm not disagreeing to have a go by the way.

 

You should be disagreeing.

 

In '99 it was at it's lowest level in 60 years. It's still roughly around that level.

 

That's despite the population of the UK growing by a third in the last century, which you'd expect to produce a corresponding growth in administative employees, not a reduction.

 

 

It should drop though with advances in IT [\Devil's advocate].

 

ill bite (being a civil servant)

 

that would be the case if the reliability of our IT also advanced.

 

weve just been informed today that theres a new fault with the NIRS that affects anyone registered to pay uk national insurance after 06/04/75. basically - nirs is removing EVERYBODIES pre-16 credits which gives a person 1 less qualifying year towards their pension.

 

thats means a clerical calculation to determine the correct entitlement. thats extra time and effort we cant afford.

 

so weve got to do another workaround. other IT faults and issues have workarounds for workarounds. its a pain in the arse.

 

Also:

 

its been announced that there are voluntary redundancies at aa grade.

[LeazesMag 0]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

 

spoken like a true Civil Servant wannabee

[LeazesMag 0]

the problem is that the Public sector just doesn't seem to realise that cuts mean cuts

 

when the brown stuff hits the fan and jobs are lost in car factories, call centres, shops and even banks it happens

 

but the public sector always claim they are esssential and should be saved - and who pays for them - the poor sods in the private sector that's who

 

Oh no you're right I mean who needs a Public sector anyway?

 

Theyre only the people who empty your bins or ensure you have streets clean enough to walk in but we can do without that, nothing to stop you delivering your own rubbish to the dump and having a bit of a clean up once a week outside the house.

 

We can get rid of libraries eh after all kids dont need to read, swimming pools? sports centres? pah they're not important for health after all you can swim in the lakes and rivers (just as long as you dont need to be rescued of course).

 

All those flights you take Rob, who do you think controls the skies and more importantly ensures that lunatics dont slit your throat when you run out of ice for their drink?

 

Think the country is overrun by immigrants now? just wait until theres no Border Patrol or Immigration service. The thought of all those immigrants running round giving you a heart attack? Lets hope not mate after all you dont want to be driving yourself to hospital with the smell of almonds wafting through your nostrils.....oh wait hospital yeah, better get on the phone while driving there to organise a loan to pay for your care.

 

Got a nice view from your house? Just wait until theres no planning rules and Tesco build a superstore outside your front door or they decide to run a motorway through your back garden.

 

Still, you wont have to worry about that should you accidentally drop a match or forget you've left the chip pan on, its difficult to put out a house fire with a bucket of water.

 

Sometimes they may get it wrong and shoot an innocent bloke on the tube but lets see a country without a police force eh?

 

Once you've got rid of all those then theres no reason for HMRC and we can all live tax free eh, what a happy day.

 

The simple fact of life is that you'll be hard pushed to find a private sector job that is essential to the running of this country yet almost every Public Sector job brings something either to people lives or for the good of the country overall.

 

As Percy Street said, the loss of these jobs and reductions in budgets has a major knock on effect across the Private sector.

 

Decimating travel budgets may seem like a a good thing but it in turn has a knock on effect to local business. Id estimate that there must be at least 30 or 40 taxi rides taken in Newcastle by HMRC staff each day to/ from airport and train station. Over the last few years these journeys have been rightly whittled down to the essential trips only. Video conferencing and the like have replaced non essential trips. SO these 40% cuts are going to have to come from essential trips.

 

So what we have now is 40% less essential work being completed and a reduction in the amount of money being made by local taxi firms, bus companies, shops, restaurants, hotels etc.

 

Cutting the Public Service cuts everyone else in one way or another, be it in the services we receive for our taxes or money made indirectly.

 

Well said, and quite amazing it needed to be !!!!

[Renton 20421]

But we can't have a country that is fully staffed by Govt employees can we?

 

It'll be like the Space Ship in Hitchhikers Guide full of the non-productive members of society

 

It's not that I'm totally against Govt services - but they've grown and grown (partly to keep people off the streets) to a ridiculous extent and now it's time for a readjustment - a BIG readjustment

 

You see, I think this is a common misconception. Local Authorities are subject to both internal and External Audits on how they a run. Its easy for people to assume they are over staffed but I honestly dont think that is the case. Can you tell me which departments of which organisations you think are over staffed? I'm not disagreeing to have a go by the way.

 

You should be disagreeing.

 

In '99 it was at it's lowest level in 60 years. It's still roughly around that level.

 

That's despite the population of the UK growing by a third in the last century, which you'd expect to produce a corresponding growth in administative employees, not a reduction.

 

 

It should drop though with advances in IT [\Devil's advocate].

 

ill bite (being a civil servant)

 

that would be the case if the reliability of our IT also advanced.

 

weve just been informed today that theres a new fault with the NIRS that affects anyone registered to pay uk national insurance after 06/04/75. basically - nirs is removing EVERYBODIES pre-16 credits which gives a person 1 less qualifying year towards their pension.

 

thats means a clerical calculation to determine the correct entitlement. thats extra time and effort we cant afford.

 

so weve got to do another workaround. other IT faults and issues have workarounds for workarounds. its a pain in the arse.

 

Also:

 

its been announced that there are voluntary redundancies at aa grade.

 

Don't bite on my account, I was fishing for Mr Happy Face and largely agree. I'm well aware that technology just makes things different - not simpler or more efficient. I still prefer reading from paper as well.