Public Sector Cuts that will affect all

[Kirstie55]

I'm just wondering how many parents out there are aware of the cuts that Local Authorities are making to frontline Childrens Services and how these are going to affect our children? In Hull 1369 jobs are being cut 650+ of those are vital services in the CYPS- teen parents, connexions, surestart, day centres, youth work- the list goes on!

What are your thoughts?

There are two issues. One is that there is a recession so less money coming in etc. Secondly Labour spent beyond its means so we now need to pay off that borrowing too - the structural problems.

We need a march for more cuts and deeper cuts really. Only 7% of people in the UK think we don't need cuts. Those marching today want no cuts (presumably now but I suppose they must mean they want cuts later - there have to be cuts big ones, all parties agree).

"Secondly Labour spent beyond its means so we now need to pay off that borrowing too - the structural problems."

The Tories were exactly the same, the spent beyond their means too. Tory spending was no more affordable than Labour spending was. As I've said earlier in this thread the Tories were actually worse on this than Labour were, they only managed to live within their means twice from 1979 to 1997, Labour managed it three times.

Believing the spin put out by the two main parties, Labour blaming the banks and the Tories blaming Labour, allows the politicians to dodge the real bullet of blame where they all were quite happy running up the debt and leaving it to future generations to sort up.

hasn't every government spent beyond their means for the last 500 years?

I thought we were worse hit because we were more reliant on the banking sector in the first place than almost everywhere else in the world?

We were worse hit because we were very reliant on revenue from the banking sector, that is true. But we were also worse hit because the money borrowed was used disproportionately to pay for current expenses rather than investment. Gordon Brown himself invoked the Golden Rule of fiscal policy to begin with which is to say that government borrowing over the economic cycle should be used principally to pay for infrastructure and other capital projects that contribute to future growth. Current or day-to-day expenditure... e.g public sector wages, debt servicing, welfare payments etc. should not be financed through credit but from the revenue available.

The 'Golden Rule' was finally but quietly abandoned by Alistair Darling in (I think) his 2008 budget. If Brown had adhered to it, the picture would have been very different, even with a credit crunch and global recession.

Yes, that's what I think they call the structural deficit. Lord Lawson has a useful simple summary of his views on the budget in today's Times.

"hasn't every government spent beyond their means for the last 500 years? "

No, not even in the UK.

Coming out of WW2 the Government of the time managed to run the country at a surplus and set up the NHS as the same time...

Look around Europe in the run up to the 2008 crash.

Finland was happily running with a surplus from 2000 up to 2008.

Germany was running a deficit but over several years running up to 2008 it was battling to reduce it. Just before the crash hit Germany's deficit 7 times smaller than ours. There's a graph here of deficit relative to GDP and there we are down at the bottom with only Ireland underneath us.

And that is why we've been hit so hard. Our economy was already unsustainable in what should have been the "good years".

I have just looked on the budget reductions decided by our local council.

Here are the 5 top casualties:

1. services for old people (over £1m cut)
2. safeguarding (children and vulnerable adults)
3. services for mental health
4. children's achievement and learning (I guess connexions will form a small part of this)
5. transport

In addition to this, there will be a 'restructuring' (read privatisation) of youth services. For example, school improvement partners can now be hired by schools at over £500 per day.

I don't think banging on about careers services really addresses the dire situation (particularly as many councils have lost money through poor investment and are embarking on ridiculous building projects, whilst having the audacity to cut lollipop crossing patrols and shopmobility schemes.)

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/13/budget-national-debt-will-hutton

www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/sep/13/budget-national-debt-will-hutton

sorry - will try again

tbh I can't say economics is my strongest point but it doesn't seem like anyone in power can agree on anything either so I try not to feel to bad about it

The OP has at least got the great good fortune to live somewhere holding NO royal wedding crap so not wasting money on that....off with their heads!

oldbatteryhen, that's a ruddy scary list.

Wonder how many directors at your council earn over £100k and how many of them are taking a pay cut?

Spending cuts are harming everyone in some way or another. I'm a childminder and these cuts have meant that funding has gone for courses that OFTSED want us to do such as Child Protection, First Aid and Food Hygiene are having funding taken away and we will have to pay for it ourselves. The Early Years Quality Team members' jobs have been cut, these are people who give us lots of support in our jobs as we work alone alot of the time.

Labour has caused this by spending money they did not have like a huge credit card. Now the Coalition is having to cut back to pay back all this money and however painful it is, it has to be done. I'm not saying it is good but what choice would any voted in Government have? I am also a casual Dinner lady but schools are cutting down on using people like me by doing the work themselves thus taking away a wage I really need as we are constantly having money taken away in taxes and National Insurance, Tax credits are being cut and in 2013 Child benefit (the only benefit we get from the Government at a time we will need it most when our youngest starts senior school).

THANKS SO MUCH LABOUR!!!!!!!

Xenia: I am impressed by your touching faith that you & yours are miraculously immune from the unpleasant events that we lesser mortals suffer. Hope none of you develop long term health problems. You might want to consider what's going to be left of the threadbare safety-net after we've all been tested to within an inch of our lives to ensure the wheelchairs aren't just fashion accessories. In the unlikely event that you wondered: yes, it is humiliating to be challenged as to "genuine" need every time. Worth it to reassure you that your £105 isn't being squandered on the workshy, though.

This is an interesting read: johannhari.com/category/British%20Politics

Dear God, is it really necessary to engage in a nightly public sector/local government bashing exercise. Anyone who thinks that the deficit problem can be solved by cutting the pay of people in charge of council chief execs (who are in charge of millions of pounds of public money) or the cancellation of the odd Councillors' party (not that I condone Councillors wasting money) has got to be pretty darned stupid. The public sector (civil service excluded) has already been cut to the bone - there are very few "efficiency savings" left to be made. It is inevitable that council cuts will affect essential services - why can't people understand this?

Mumsnet I want an edit button! "Cutting the pay of council chief execs" is what I meant.

Just a thought, but why exactly do people think that council chief executives deserve to be paid less? They already earn about a tenth the salary of your average investment banker, or so it seems. I'm wondering who'd be willing to be personally accountable to hundreds of thousands of local people for less than £100k? I wouldn't!

gaelic - how can you justify a council chief exec earning more than the PM? Especially as the highest-paid exec is Birmingham, which has very serious problems with social services. And then there's that daft mare in Sussex who is paid more than £200k but spent more than £20k on 'leadership coaching'.

Well I think with the PM you kind of have to take into account free accommodation at a desirable London address, a second home in the country and all the other accompanying perks of the job. As for the examples you mention I can only comment on what I know, which is neither of those two particular councils. But what I do know is that you cannot trust a word you read in the press about council expenditure - talk about grabbing the wrong end of the stick most of the time. I'm not sure if it is laziness or incompetence on the part of the so-called journalists.

I learned a long time ago that if you work in local government you simply cannot win - people will always find something to complain about.

Plus, exactly how much money do people think would be saved by slashing the pay of senior council staff? I can tell you not a great deal - certainly not enough to save any of the services people are concerned about. Unless of course the pay cuts filter down through all the staff. I suppose that would make you lot happy. After all, all we do is sit on our arses all day earning money for all rope.

Funny how nobody cares too hoots about hard-working council staff until they see the services those staff run being targeted for cuts.

Two hoots even. (I read that several times before posting )

Executive pay in councils (and other public sector bodies) has drifted upwards at an alarming rate over the past decade. Bears no relation to trends in pay for council employees as a whole, or the public sector in general.

And actually if we cut the pay of the six directors at my county council who earn over £150k we COULD afford to save some of the dozens of TAs who are going to be losing their jobs.

(And I'm completely up for debating the drift in executive pay in the private sector, too - entirely corrupt system of 'you scratch my back' which bears no relation to profit, or value, or any other marker.)

I guess it depends on the council then. I think the directors at our council get about two thirds of that figure. Even the chief exec gets less. I used to totally agree that they should all get pay cuts, but actually when I consider their responsibilities I think their pay (in our council) is probably fair. I wouldn't want their jobs for any amount. FWIW I think it is middle to senior management that is more blatantly overpaid compared with their public accountability.