Budget will cost 1.3m jobs - Treasury

[Dr Gloom 19883]

Leaked government data concerning next five years shows hidden costs of austerity drive

 

George Osborne's austerity budget will result in the loss of up to 1.3m jobs across the economy over the next five years according to a private Treasury assessment of the planned spending cuts, the Guardian has learned.

 

Unpublished estimates of the impact of the biggest squeeze on public spending since the second world war show that the government is expecting between 500,000 and 600,000 jobs to go in the public sector and between 600,000 and 700,000 to disappear in the private sector by 2015.

 

The chancellor gave no hint last week about the likely effect of his emergency measures on the labour market, although he would have had access to the forecasts traditionally prepared for ministers and senior civil servants in the days leading up to a budget or pre-budget report.

 

A slide from the final version of a presentation for last week's budget, seen by the Guardian, says: "100-120,000 public sector jobs and 120-140,000 private sector jobs assumed to be lost per annum for five years through cuts."

 

The job losses in the public sector will result from the 25% inflation-adjusted reduction in Whitehall spending over the next five years, while the private sector will be affected both through the loss of government contracts and from the knock-on impact of lower public spending.

 

The Treasury is assuming that growth in the private sector will create 2.5m jobs in the next five years to compensate for the spending squeeze. Osborne said in last week's speech that tackling Britain's record peacetime budget deficit would help keep interest rates low and boost job creation. "Some have suggested that there is a choice between dealing with our debts and going for growth. That is a false choice." However, investors are increasingly nervous about the lack of growth in the world economy. The FTSE 100 fell more than 3% yesterday as fresh jitters hit confidence.

 

The opposition and trade unions said the unpublished Treasury forecasts backed up their argument that the unprecedented scale of the cuts in public spending would hamper Britain's recovery from the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression.

 

Alistair Darling, the shadow chancellor, said: "Far from being open and honest, as George Osborne put it, he failed to tell the country there would be very substantial job losses as a result of his budget.

 

"The Tories did not have to take these measures. They chose to take them. They are not only a real risk to the recovery, but hundreds of thousands of people will pay the price for the poor judgment of the Conservatives, fully supported by the Liberal Democrats. It shows the risks they are prepared to take. If they get it wrong, those people losing their jobs will not get back to work."

 

Osborne said last week that his newly appointed panel of outside experts – the Office for Budget Responsibility – believed the jobless rate would soon start to improve. "The unemployment rate is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to peak this year at 8.1% and then fall for each of the next four years, to reach 6.1% in 2015," he said. This forecast was fleshed out in the Treasury's Red Book, which says: "The decline in employment appears to be coming to an end and we expect a modest recovery in employment in the second half of 2010."

 

From next year, officials believe that stronger growth and a rising working population will lead to an acceleration in jobs growth. Over the five-year period from 2010 to 2015, the Treasury assumes that employment will rise from 28.8m this year to 30.1m in 2015, despite the loss of jobs caused by spending cuts.

 

The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "With Treasury figures revealing that spending cuts will hit private sector jobs harder than those in the public sector, it is absurd to think that the private sector will create 2.5m new jobs over the next five years."

 

"This is not so much wishful thinking as a complete refusal to engage with reality. Much more likely are dole queues comparable to the 1980s, a new deep north-south divide and widespread poverty as the budget's benefit cuts start to bite. Many will find that a frightening prospect."John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, said: "There is not a hope in hell's chance of this happening [the creation of 2.5m new jobs]. There would have to be extraordinarily strong private sector employment growth in a … much less conducive economic environment than it was during the boom."

 

The CIPD has estimated that there will be 725,000 jobs lost in the public sector alone by 2015, although Philpott said the number could be lower if the government succeeded in pushing through pay cuts.

 

He added that Osborne was expecting a similar rise in employment over the next five years to that seen during 13 years of the last Labour government, when around a third of the employment growth came from the public sector. "This is a slower growth environment and there will be no contribution from the public sector."

 

Last night David Miliband, one of the candidates for the Labour leadership, said: "This proves what we feared but the government kept secret. The budget will slash jobs not create them, and the least well-off will pay the highest price."

 

Andy Burnham, another of the Labour leadership candidates, said: " The human cost of Osborne's budget is now clear, despite his best efforts to hide it."

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/b...yment-austerity

[Christmas Tree 3997]

Leaked government data concerning next five years shows hidden costs of austerity drive

 

George Osborne's austerity budget will result in the loss of up to 1.3m jobs across the economy over the next five years according to a private Treasury assessment of the planned spending cuts, the Guardian has learned.

 

Unpublished estimates of the impact of the biggest squeeze on public spending since the second world war show that the government is expecting between 500,000 and 600,000 jobs to go in the public sector and between 600,000 and 700,000 to disappear in the private sector by 2015.

 

The chancellor gave no hint last week about the likely effect of his emergency measures on the labour market, although he would have had access to the forecasts traditionally prepared for ministers and senior civil servants in the days leading up to a budget or pre-budget report.

 

A slide from the final version of a presentation for last week's budget, seen by the Guardian, says: "100-120,000 public sector jobs and 120-140,000 private sector jobs assumed to be lost per annum for five years through cuts."

 

The job losses in the public sector will result from the 25% inflation-adjusted reduction in Whitehall spending over the next five years, while the private sector will be affected both through the loss of government contracts and from the knock-on impact of lower public spending.

 

The Treasury is assuming that growth in the private sector will create 2.5m jobs in the next five years to compensate for the spending squeeze. Osborne said in last week's speech that tackling Britain's record peacetime budget deficit would help keep interest rates low and boost job creation. "Some have suggested that there is a choice between dealing with our debts and going for growth. That is a false choice." However, investors are increasingly nervous about the lack of growth in the world economy. The FTSE 100 fell more than 3% yesterday as fresh jitters hit confidence.

 

The opposition and trade unions said the unpublished Treasury forecasts backed up their argument that the unprecedented scale of the cuts in public spending would hamper Britain's recovery from the deepest and longest recession since the Great Depression.

 

Alistair Darling, the shadow chancellor, said: "Far from being open and honest, as George Osborne put it, he failed to tell the country there would be very substantial job losses as a result of his budget.

 

"The Tories did not have to take these measures. They chose to take them. They are not only a real risk to the recovery, but hundreds of thousands of people will pay the price for the poor judgment of the Conservatives, fully supported by the Liberal Democrats. It shows the risks they are prepared to take. If they get it wrong, those people losing their jobs will not get back to work."

 

Osborne said last week that his newly appointed panel of outside experts – the Office for Budget Responsibility – believed the jobless rate would soon start to improve. "The unemployment rate is forecast by the Office for Budget Responsibility to peak this year at 8.1% and then fall for each of the next four years, to reach 6.1% in 2015," he said. This forecast was fleshed out in the Treasury's Red Book, which says: "The decline in employment appears to be coming to an end and we expect a modest recovery in employment in the second half of 2010."

 

From next year, officials believe that stronger growth and a rising working population will lead to an acceleration in jobs growth. Over the five-year period from 2010 to 2015, the Treasury assumes that employment will rise from 28.8m this year to 30.1m in 2015, despite the loss of jobs caused by spending cuts.

 

The TUC general secretary, Brendan Barber, said: "With Treasury figures revealing that spending cuts will hit private sector jobs harder than those in the public sector, it is absurd to think that the private sector will create 2.5m new jobs over the next five years."

 

"This is not so much wishful thinking as a complete refusal to engage with reality. Much more likely are dole queues comparable to the 1980s, a new deep north-south divide and widespread poverty as the budget's benefit cuts start to bite. Many will find that a frightening prospect."John Philpott, chief economist at the Chartered Institute for Personnel and Development, said: "There is not a hope in hell's chance of this happening [the creation of 2.5m new jobs]. There would have to be extraordinarily strong private sector employment growth in a … much less conducive economic environment than it was during the boom."

 

The CIPD has estimated that there will be 725,000 jobs lost in the public sector alone by 2015, although Philpott said the number could be lower if the government succeeded in pushing through pay cuts.

 

He added that Osborne was expecting a similar rise in employment over the next five years to that seen during 13 years of the last Labour government, when around a third of the employment growth came from the public sector. "This is a slower growth environment and there will be no contribution from the public sector."

 

Last night David Miliband, one of the candidates for the Labour leadership, said: "This proves what we feared but the government kept secret. The budget will slash jobs not create them, and the least well-off will pay the highest price."

 

Andy Burnham, another of the Labour leadership candidates, said: " The human cost of Osborne's budget is now clear, despite his best efforts to hide it."

 

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/jun/29/b...yment-austerity

 

 

I take it then that the actual story should read budget will create 1.2 million jobs

 

Guardian.....What a shit rag

[Guest alex]

I think the job cuts were inevitable. I reckon the job creation forecast is a tad optimistic as well like.

[NJS 3989]

That growth in private sector is a massive assumption. Businesses aren't investing at the moment and austerity budgets in trading partners won't change that.

[Geordieracer 0]

That growth in private sector is a massive assumption. Businesses aren't investing at the moment and austerity budgets in trading partners won't change that.

 

This depends on what industry you're talking in the private sector.

 

A cull in the public sector is way overdue and should have been performed prior to any deficit reduction plan. Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

[Renton 17876]

That growth in private sector is a massive assumption. Businesses aren't investing at the moment and austerity budgets in trading partners won't change that.

 

Yes they will. For the worse.

 

Agree the Guardian is a shit rag like after who they backed in the election. A pox on all their houses.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

That growth in private sector is a massive assumption. Businesses aren't investing at the moment and austerity budgets in trading partners won't change that.

 

 

 

The bottom line is both estimates come from the same people at the treasury. I wonder why the Guardian wants overplay one and underplay the other.

[Renton 17876]

Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

 

How do you know this?

[Guest alex]

That growth in private sector is a massive assumption. Businesses aren't investing at the moment and austerity budgets in trading partners won't change that.

 

 

 

The bottom line is both estimates come from the same people at the treasury. I wonder why the Guardian wants overplay one and underplay the other.

The Guardian obviously has its agenda but I'm sure it's clear even to you which set of figures the government has a hell of a lot more control over.

[NJS 3989]

That growth in private sector is a massive assumption. Businesses aren't investing at the moment and austerity budgets in trading partners won't change that.

 

This depends on what industry you're talking in the private sector.

 

A cull in the public sector is way overdue and should have been performed prior to any deficit reduction plan. Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

 

The proportion of public sectors jobs in the total did not change significantly under Labour. There may be "cullable" jobs in all departments but having mates who've been civil servants since before Labour from what they say things haven't ballooned or anything like that. I think the "managers in the NHS" pov is generally a media driven agenda.

 

As I and others have argued, culling any waste during a recession is doubly dangerous because it cuts demand and lessens the chances of those losing their jobs being able to find another.

[Renton 17876]

That growth in private sector is a massive assumption. Businesses aren't investing at the moment and austerity budgets in trading partners won't change that.

 

This depends on what industry you're talking in the private sector.

 

A cull in the public sector is way overdue and should have been performed prior to any deficit reduction plan. Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

 

The proportion of public sectors jobs in the total did not change significantly under Labour. There may be "cullable" jobs in all departments but having mates who've been civil servants since before Labour from what they say things haven't ballooned or anything like that. I think the "managers in the NHS" pov is generally a media driven agenda.

 

As I and others have argued, culling any waste during a recession is doubly dangerous because it cuts demand and lessens the chances of those losing their jobs being able to find another.

 

I want to see some evidence the NHS is overmanaged compared to:

Other public healthcare systems abroad.

Similar private companies - maybe BUPA for example.

 

The NHS is without doubt one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the World.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Renton

[NJS 3989]

I think "too many managers, not enough doctors and nurses" is very much a Mail line similar to the "Asylum seekers get free cars" with the added high regard for the frontline staff used as a sweetener.

[LeazesMag 0]

I think "too many managers, not enough doctors and nurses" is very much a Mail line similar to the "Asylum seekers get free cars" with the added high regard for the frontline staff used as a sweetener.

 

so you approve of asylum seekers getting things for free then ?

[Christmas Tree 3997]

On a personal note, my wife works as a community midwife for the NHS and the ammount of courses, meetings and various managers she has to have dealings with is rediculous.

 

Each of these trusts / pcts have massive "head offices" were a lot of empire building goes on which results in managers constantly having to come up with great new ideas to justify their positions. These then get rolled out all over through trainers so staff are constantly dragged away from the frontline to learn the new big thing.

 

Then, another manager decides they havent really got the time to implement the new big thing and it gets put on the scrap heap.

 

This process continues and continues and continues.

 

An example is Baby massage. A great idea and very useful for new mums in lots of ways. Millions spent training the trainers, training the staff, advertising it to the public etc etc only for someone else to say, " very nice but we aint got the time / money".

 

This is just one story that I remember relating to one person. Times this across the whole of the NHS / Public sector and you have massive waste.

 

Lets also not forget the 3000 or so that Peaspus said were sitting at the revenue with basically fuck all to do.

[Renton 17876]

I think "too many managers, not enough doctors and nurses" is very much a Mail line similar to the "Asylum seekers get free cars" with the added high regard for the frontline staff used as a sweetener.

 

so you approve of asylum seekers getting things for free then ?

 

How can you so spectacularly miss the point time and time again Leazes?

[Meenzer 14112]

I think "too many managers, not enough doctors and nurses" is very much a Mail line similar to the "Asylum seekers get free cars" with the added high regard for the frontline staff used as a sweetener.

 

so you approve of asylum seekers getting things for free then ?

 

How can you so spectacularly miss the point time and time again Leazes?

 

Because he wants to! Because he wants to!

[NJS 3989]

This is just one story that I remember relating to one person. Times this across the whole of the NHS / Public sector and you have massive waste.

 

I would guess that's part of any business - I've certainly seen it wherever I've worked.

 

If you could come up with ideas to get rid of management bollocks in the NHS you'd be able to (and probably would) name your price to work in the private sector.

 

One of the biggest Tory myths is that the private sector is inherently more efficient that the public.

[LeazesMag 0]

I think "too many managers, not enough doctors and nurses" is very much a Mail line similar to the "Asylum seekers get free cars" with the added high regard for the frontline staff used as a sweetener.

 

so you approve of asylum seekers getting things for free then ?

 

How can you so spectacularly miss the point time and time again Leazes?

 

I'm not. I thought about making a remark about him quoting the Mail, why the Mail and not the rag Guardian ? But couldn't be arsed.

 

Far too much given away for free to people who should be getting fuck all in this country, and that is a fact that left wing loonies may disagree with but they can basically fuck themselves.

[LeazesMag 0]

This is just one story that I remember relating to one person. Times this across the whole of the NHS / Public sector and you have massive waste.

 

I would guess that's part of any business - I've certainly seen it wherever I've worked.

 

If you could come up with ideas to get rid of management bollocks in the NHS you'd be able to (and probably would) name your price to work in the private sector.

 

One of the biggest Tory myths is that the private sector is inherently more efficient that the public.

 

now that is probably correct.

[Geordieracer 0]

Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

 

How do you know this?

 

I started my banking career managing public sector clients and in particular NHS Trusts (heavy deposits to be had) and the level of middle management they had (even at small trusts) was absurd. I was often sat in a meeting with their finance teams and they'd have more managers than you could poke a stick at and often I would have trouble understanding what they actually did. Their non medical pay rolls were often phenomenal and oustripped the medical staff.

Edited June 30, 2010 by Geordieracer

[Geordieracer 0]

That growth in private sector is a massive assumption. Businesses aren't investing at the moment and austerity budgets in trading partners won't change that.

 

This depends on what industry you're talking in the private sector.

 

A cull in the public sector is way overdue and should have been performed prior to any deficit reduction plan. Social services, the NHS, etc etc are so top heavy with middle/upper management it's untrue.

 

The proportion of public sectors jobs in the total did not change significantly under Labour. There may be "cullable" jobs in all departments but having mates who've been civil servants since before Labour from what they say things haven't ballooned or anything like that. I think the "managers in the NHS" pov is generally a media driven agenda.

 

As I and others have argued, culling any waste during a recession is doubly dangerous because it cuts demand and lessens the chances of those losing their jobs being able to find another.

 

I want to see some evidence the NHS is overmanaged compared to:

Other public healthcare systems abroad.

Similar private companies - maybe BUPA for example.

 

The NHS is without doubt one of the most efficient healthcare systems in the World.

 

My personal experience with the NHS is that it's far from efficient. Thank Christ for BUPA.

[Christmas Tree 3997]

to be fair I think the layabouts that reap much much more from the system aren't asylum seekers, i can safely say the vast majority of the polish for example i've met who have arrived to work in Northern Ireland are doing just that, working their balls off to try and get by and might need a bit of a hand which is fair enough in my book.

 

As opposed to people as an example along this road linked below, (some people i know who lived around these areas and do fuck all). If you travel up you'll go through dodgy areas of Belfast both protestant and catholic, mainly council housing with a safe estimate of the majority of them being on other benefits of some description also, the amount of fucking sky dishes and massive flatscreen tellys you can see through the windows of these "poor/badly off" people dominating the living/bedrooms is insane.

 

http://maps.google.com/maps?f=q&source...2,338.49,,0,4.7

 

there should be some fucking home visit for people claiming unemployment and other benefits and saying they badly need the help but they have a 42" hdtv and sky+.

 

Sickening like, i've a well paid job but the chances of me getting a mortgage for a decent place on my own would be slim to none, let alone saving up a 25k deposit which would take donkies, yet if i went to a any of the housing schemes i'd be told to beat it.

 

 

Reduce the benefits and get the scroungers doing the jobs that we supposedly "need" low paid immigrants to do".

 

This will save on benefits to scroungers and immigrants and get more through the coffers in tax.

 

And before anyone says this doesnt effect our region, I went through the Sunderland McDonalds the other day and encountered 3 immigrants working their. Those jobs could easily be done by the work shy if the benefit system didnt make it worth while to sit at home.

[Guest alex]

Actually agree with a lot of those points but it's not that simple, unfortunately. From what I've seen, which is admittedly only anecdotal evidence employers would go for the EU immigrants because they're actually prepared to work a lot harder too. So you'd still see them getting the jobs in question.

[Geordieracer 0]

The immigrants on benefits argument doesn't hold much water down here in London. The food service industry would collapse without their labour as would many other industries that rely on an un skilled workforce. Meanwhile cut to the dingy pubs of Bermondsey and the white british dole wallers are pissing their job seekers allowance up against the wall in the Albion.

[NJS 3989]

Thank Christ for BUPA.

 

It's easy to run a profitable business when some other mug pays for all your staff's training.

 

If they had to fund it themselves, their policies would be beyond almost everybody and it certainly wouldn't be provided en masse by Employers.