cuts - Wednesday's Spending Review

(1003 Posts)
mrsbaldwin Tue 19-Oct-10 23:02:36

Brace yourself ladies - these cuts are big, there will be tens of thousands of public sector redundancies and it's said (by the Fawcett Society amongst others) that they will disproportionately affect women.

Some workers will get some sort of payoff, and some will be pleased to go. Some will find new jobs.

But I reckon the overall effect (licks finger and holds it in the wind) will be to drive down women's wages, meaning that once you are made redundant from your public sector post you may find more work but it will be at a lower rate and the extra competition for jobs across the board will drive wages down across the board. This may be true for men as well but I think it will affect women - mums - more.

If you are watching the press coverage on Weds, what do you think the effects of the cuts and the job losses for women (and mums) will be?

vixel Tue 19-Oct-10 23:38:10

I'm a single mother so will probably be hurt by these cuts but I don't think its fair to say they are targetting and attacking women.

Chil1234 Wed 20-Oct-10 07:52:00

As somone that is not employed in the public sector and not, as far as I know, a big user of public services I don't think I'll notice any significant changes to my life as a woman and single mother as a result of the spending review. The changes to CB and CTC are much more tangible - but not life-shattering.

The job losses - if we are to believe the document being held by Danny Alexander yesterday - will amount to 500,000 spread over four or five years. Given that many of those will be covered by retirement, job-changes and voluntary redundancy, perhaps the net increase in people actively seeking work will not be as cataclysmic as you suggest?

Wages have been frozen or increasing very slowly in the private sector for several years. Brown's stealth taxes impacted negatively on disposable income at the same time. I think this next phase won't 'drive wages down' but is more likely to level things out.

Meglet Wed 20-Oct-10 07:59:08

I'm almost glad I'm at work today so I can't watch the carnage unfolding on the news.

Jcee Wed 20-Oct-10 08:15:14

I'm employed in the public sector and if the rumoured cuts to my sector are true I am likely to lose my job over the coming months

As Vixel said it's not fair to say they are targetting and attacking women as plenty of men are likely to lose their jobs too.

IMO it depends on the nature of the cuts and how these are translated into policy and then practice at a local level by councils.

I think women may be disproportionately affected as they tend to be the ones who take on carer responsibilities for children or elderly relatives and will therefore be affected by benefit and frontline service cuts. Women also tend to be employed in the lower paid frontline service jobs which are likely to end up going.

I'll be watching today....

HalloweeseG Wed 20-Oct-10 08:20:42

Why will womens jobs in the public sector be any more at risk than mens?

The thing is, even if you don't work in the public sector, you can't avoid your life being affected. Where do you think all those people who are being made redundant will hav to find jobs? The private sector - so you will have more people in the pool to compete for your job (or the one you've got your eye on next), driving wages lower as people will be willing to work for anything.
Plus you might not think you use public services but when councils start cutting back hard, you will feel the knock on effects - from fewer road repairs and bin collections to increased anti social behaviour as "non essential" police or PCSOs are removed from the streets.
Of course those who work in the public sector will feel it hardest and most immediately, but it's naive to think you'll emerge totally unscathed. Plus think general strikes etc...

DuelingFanjo Wed 20-Oct-10 08:45:00

I feel like this is completely the wrong time for me to be taking maternity leave

popelle Wed 20-Oct-10 08:47:17

Everyone will be affected by the cuts and its not true to say that the coalition is singling out women when mens jobs are just as at risk as womens. Although everyone should remember who is really responsible for todays cuts: the Labour Party

dertitude Wed 20-Oct-10 09:05:11

Agree with popelle, we'll finally learn what Gordon Brown has inflicted on the country today.

LaydeeBlahBlah Wed 20-Oct-10 09:06:17

oh Popelle - yadayadayada

One more time, the Labour Party are not responsible for the cuts - they were the incumbent party when the crisis hit which has brought about the needs for the cuts.

The financial sector is responsible for the crisis - worldwide.

If cuts are necessary (and all are in agreement that they are) then they could be done in different ways - I, for one, would rather pay more tax and ensure services are retained. But then I am self interested as I have an autistic child and am shit scared for his future with the, seemingly, majority of the population only concerned about themselves and not the broader community and the lasting damage that this shower of gobshites are about to unleash on us - broken britain eh Dave?

BoffinMum Wed 20-Oct-10 09:06:55

60% of public sector employees are women (I understand) and that is why the cuts will feel disproportionate.

However the main thing is to get more women into public life to stop a repeat of the financial fiasco in a few years' time. A broader skill base out there and better representation will mean more moderate, considered approaches to risk and expenditure. So every woman shoud make sure she is sitting on a committee or board of some kind, whether it's organising a children's group, being a representative of the residents for the Housing Association she rents from, being an elected representative of a voluntary group she is involved with, or if she has the time, joining political organisations and lobbying groups. Only then can we improve our lot.

<waves flag>

bigchris Wed 20-Oct-10 09:07:43

What time will all this kick off on BBC news do you think?

BoffinMum Wed 20-Oct-10 09:08:03

I would add that we should shy away from bun baking and bum wiping as a form of particiaption in the Big Society, and aim for the more influential roles instead. We need to run things, not have other people tell us what to do.

BoffinMum Wed 20-Oct-10 09:08:55

<feels a bit scared however, despite talk bigging up women>

I feel like I'm waiting for the axe to fall.
DuellingFanjo, do you work for the public sector? If so I'd say this is the BEST time to be going on ML!
Why can't we just pay more tax????????????

daddywillbehomesoon Wed 20-Oct-10 09:12:12

just marking my place. We moved to SA in january so I am completely out of the loop - rely on sky news for coverage here...

hubblybubblytoilntrouble Wed 20-Oct-10 09:14:09

The coalition might like to blame the last government for the cuts but, with respect, that is total shite.

Firstly, the banks caused this international crisis, not the last government.

Secondly, there is genuine debate as to whether we need to cut this hard and fast. This is a lib con decision, one that the lib dems were dead against before they got into bed with Dave and Georgie.

Thirdly, even if, for the sake of argument, we accept that the deficit needs to be dealt within now then the proposed cuts are not the only way to achieve that aim. I'm no economist, but even I know they've got the option of sticking a few pence on income tax.

Don't kid yourself these cuts are anything other than ideological. It's a great excuse to beat the poor and attack public services and you're buying it. Ha!

MollysChambers Wed 20-Oct-10 09:15:29

Well said Laydee.

The cuts are a tory party activists wet dream. A fantastic excuse to return to form.

Was announced yesterday that RAF Kinloss is to close. A devastating blow for the North East of Scotland. And we didn't bloody vote for them. Get tae fuck Dave.

longfingernails Wed 20-Oct-10 09:18:20

MollyChambers I'm not happy about the defence cuts - I would prefer more welfare cuts.

However, if I heard the speech yesterday correctly, RAF Kinloss isn't going to close - it's going to be re-deployed as an army base instead of an RAF one when the army come home from Germany.

hubblybubblytoilntrouble Wed 20-Oct-10 09:21:51

Oh and I'll be amazed if the lib cons don't manage to turn this econmic crisis around before the next GE. Just in time for a nice little tax giveaway sweetener.

BoffinMum Wed 20-Oct-10 09:21:53

Just out of interest ... what would happen if we got rid of Government for a year or two, to save money? Do we actually need them, or could we tick over for a while?

<rubs hands with glee>

daddywillbehomesoon Wed 20-Oct-10 09:23:25

if we ran it from MN I think we'd all manage very nicely, thank you very much. We'd certainly get things done a bit quicker grin

MaMoTTaT Wed 20-Oct-10 09:24:28

I'm just waiting to see if there's going to be any point in continuing with my current degree choice with the OU or whether to change to something else.

If the axe falls heavily on Sure Start centres and the like there may be no jobs as a Family Support Worker to be had sad

MollysChambers Wed 20-Oct-10 09:24:53

It is possible that it may be used as military barracks but that wouldn't be until 2015 at the earliest. RAF Lossiemouth just down the road is also under threat. According to the Beeb the two RAF bases contribute more than £150m to the local economy annually and support about 5,700 jobs.

Pretty sure this, plus the anticipated welfare cuts that you are so pleased about, will have a devastating effect on the community.

I'll say again - Get tae fuck Dave.

This thread is not accepting new messages.