To think if the goverment want to cut benefits they should also stop cutting jobs?

[poshsinglemum]

No brainer really isn't it? MORE public sector jobs are needed;not less.

someone on here said it was probably cheaper to put people on benefits rather than some public sector jobs, which wouldn't surprise me one bit.

yes,makes me wonder too....what are people suppsed to do. and it makes it harder for those on benefits to get off them,more competition!

rather than CUT some public sector jobs

It's all basically f*cked up. I work in the field ( of helping people get off benefits as well as other stuff) - and basically our local authorities in general employ about 45% of the working population - they're going to cut jobs, so there will be even fewer jobs for people to go in to, so the dole queues will actually rise, not fall.

Why is anyone suprised, this is Tory policy, you show me a Tory MP and I will show you a selfish scumbag.

The party of the rich, for the rich and by the rich.

BTW Thatcher is an evil hag

Ah, but you see Cameron's big idea is his "big society" which means laying off thousands of female public sector workers and then getting them to volunteer instead.

yipee-do. Slave labour then! Big society? Big my arse more like!

Quite right, poshsingle. Not only that but every public sector job represents spending power that supports other jobs - from the local sandwich bar near the office to the private sector suppliers of services and supplies.

Hairy, friend of mine also works for the govt helping people get off benefits - she's losing her job. Would be funny if it wasn't so daft. Her clients who want to work will lose her support, and those who aren't so keen won't have anyone chasing them.

Big society is a pile of crap. If it was going to happen, it would have happened in society. You can't 'make' someone volunteer - volunterring is someone giving their time for free, willingly of their own accord.

No doubt a few "posh gels" will be out with the soup kitchens when the Tories revive the great depression as they seem to intend to

i read a fantastic article that pointed out that for people to volunteer they need to be grounded in a locality with a sense of place and of community, they need to have the time to volnteer and the finances to not be required to work every hour.

free market economics encourages 'flexible labour' which makes people move locality and offers financial instability and low pay (people are simply economic resources).

therefore the 'big society' is fundamentally incompatible with any party which supports free-market economics.

totally right fluffles

Big Society my arse, how would rich Tories like Cameron and Osborne have a clue about life at the bottom, just look at their pasts and you can see they are Tories red in tooth and claw, they dont give a flying f##k if an old lady dies of the cold in winter as long as the people at the top keep on racking in the cash.

I hated Thatcher but at least she didnt pretend she gave a toss about the poor and unemployed

thinking they should cut childcare costs, makes it not worth working for soo many

See this is where it all gets messy, they want to slash the welfare bill, yet throttle industry and cull sector jobs, thus ending up with a higher welfare bill.

They are fucking idiots, the lot of them.

Some areas of the public sector are just wasteful (eg quangos).

And some areas need more staff (eg TAX OFFICE) I do actually feel sorry for those in the tax office, especially the poor bods at the bottom. I know the management have been cutting, cutting, cutting for years, you could have almost seen this crisis coming.

So, at no extra cost, move people from useless non-jobs across to their local tax office. The newbees could do the generic office stuff, admin, data inlputting, whilt the more expericed tax staff could do the proper calculating.

Or is that too much like common sense?

No that would be far toooooo easy darts. Anyone can see there has been far too much waste in the ps, but it won't be the wasteful jobs that go, oh no it will be the remotely useful, lower paid ones as it culls more heads and looks better

Ah, but you see Cameron's big idea is his "big society" which means laying off thousands of female public sector workers and then getting them to volunteer instead.

Crackfox, you are soooo right.

And you, fluffles.

I had a hell of a time in my twenties, trying to get paid for what I could do (I have one of those odd CVs). I definitely resent the idea of working "for free", and am just not going to do it. Now that I am gone thirty, I don't feel I have to. Poor younguns, though; they are all pressure to "intern" work their bollocks off for years.

What a totally unproductive economy.

Working for free is also a disaster in terms of social equality. It's only the children of the relatively well-off who can afford to take internships.

poshsinglemum - the public sector is too big - we cannot afford it at its present size...therefore it is being cut back...which means public sector jobs must go...which will save money, reduce the deficit and go some way towards enabling out paying off the debt.

Simples.

emmyloulou - they want to cut the cost to the public purse...better to pay benefits than to pay someone to "coordinate smoking policies amongst teenage lesbian single mums [sic] etc" - so, hard as it is on those that lose their jobs...it's better all roaund that they stop costing the public purse ~£20k a year and start costing a lot less.

I'm concerned - I came very close to hurling abuse and so on...which means I must be becoming left-wing in my old age!

newwave - that little bit of masturbatory invective against Thatcher - made you feel better, did it? Bless.

Barmy, yes it made me feel better but it's not Thatcher I think about when I masturbate yeuch.

When she dies I am going to PARTY like there is no tommorrow because for her there wont be

No. They should cut public sector jobs heavily - though phased reductions over many years are better than one big bang.

A low tax, low public spending economy is more competitive and dynamic, and results in more inward investment, more productive private sector jobs, and ultimately, more sustainable jobs which aren't financed by the national credit card.

of course - they're reducing the benefits budget, so that when they lay everyone off they can look all good by increasing it again to cope with the influx of people that need to claim them............

LFN, good theory but wont private profit be put above the welfare of the needy as the tories and the bosses always do.

If the government jumped all over tax avoidance/evasion that would put a dent in the deficit.