Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

Politics

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

cuts - Wednesday's Spending Review

1002 replies

mrsbaldwin · 19/10/2010 23:02

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?

OP posts:
yangymac · 20/10/2010 11:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

SkippyjonJones · 20/10/2010 11:19

www.guardian.co.uk/education love the eybrows in this video. I actually feel sick with worry today.

PlentyOfPockets · 20/10/2010 11:28

alicatte said: "I have become increasingly worried about the idea that there was actually another workable way and that this method of dealing with the deficit might be an 'ideological' choice in that it is intended to return to a 'Thatcherite' agenda (i.e. wealth 'should' only be created in the 'private' sector). I am confused confused.

Guess we will just have to wait and see.

Would a government (any government) really do something like this out of choice?"

Laugs said: "One thing women might be concerned about: Simon Hughes (I think) on BBC Breakfast this morning was talking about how business would pick up the slack and be able to replace the 500,000 lost public sector jobs. He said something like 'government just needs to get out of the way and let the private sector get on with it'

What did he mean by this? To me government 'getting out of the way' sounds like a loosening of regulations on employees rights, things like maternity pay, minimum wage and so on. I don't think we should only be concerned about job losses, but the quality of the jobs we get to keep."
-------

This is what's worrying me. I'm half-way through Naomi Klein's Shock Doctrine at the moment and a lot of what I'm hearing about these cuts sounds alarmingly familiar. Here she is, for example, on Canada in 1993:

'The phrase "debt wall" suddenly entered the vocabulary. What it meant was that, although life seemed comfortable and peaceful now, Canada was spending so far beyond its means that, very soon, powerful Wall Street firms ... would downgrade our national credit rating from its perfect Triple A status to something much lower... The only solution, we were told, was to radically cut spending on such programs as unemployment insurance and health care ... Two years after the deficit hysteria peaked, the investigative journalist Linda McQuaig definitively exposed that a sense of crisis had been carefully stoked and manipulated by a handful of think tanks funded by the largest banks and corporations in Canada ... By the time Canadians learned that the "deficit crisis" had been grossly manipulated by the corporate-funded think tanks, it hardly mattered - the budget cuts had already been made and locked in ... the crisis strategy was used again and again in this period. In September 1995, a video was leaked to the Canadian press of John Snobelen, Ontario's minister of education, telling a closed-door meeting of civil servants that before cuts to education and other unpopular reforms could be announced, a climate of panic needed to be created by leaking information that painted a more dire picture than he "would be inclined to talk about." He called it "creating a useful crisis"'

I suspect we are being given a dose of economic "shock" therapy for ideological reasons. Whether the current crisis is real or artificially manufactured, it's certainly very useful to a neoliberal/Thatcherite agenda - it's a great opportunity to dismantle government "interference" with the free market on a grand scale.

Simbacat · 20/10/2010 11:35

There won't be all the answers today as local authorities don't find out their figures but also they have to decide what to spend it on.

For example David c said that early years was important however if the funding continues but is not ring fenced then a council may cut early years and use the money for adult social care or highways etc

The gvt is quite committed to removing ring fencing and letting each area decide what their priorities are. So some areas may appear to be protected at a national level but may then be cut at a local level.

alicatte · 20/10/2010 12:01

Plenty - this is exactly what I am worried about, I was unaware of the Canadian parallels. Did SIMON HUGHES of all people really say that?

Surely the best course of action is to let the state get on with what they are good at providing and let the private sector get on with what they are good at providing. Moreover sudden change is not usually a good thing - ideas and processes need time to bed down - natural change is generally gradual like evolution, When it is sudden we generally label it 'natural disaster'. Therein lies my concern - is this going to be a 'disaster' on account of the speed of its onset?

What did the Daily Mail say recently about child benefit? [It was] 'Worryingly ill thought through!'

Confidence and decisiveness are (in my opinion) admirable qualities in a person. But this is a whole country - don't we need consensus?

alicatte · 20/10/2010 12:13

Not only between the members of the coalition that is.

AlpinePony · 20/10/2010 12:14

Riven But you are lucky because with your husband's qualifications and visa you could move back to the US and turn your lives around.

LadyBlaBlah · 20/10/2010 12:15

Just watching PMQ's. David Cameron really has no idea. He was so childish and pathetic when dealing with Ed Milliband - it means nothing to him apart from the pursuit of power and legacy. Looked very very bad laughing and joking about the cuts. Not good

alicatte · 20/10/2010 12:18

Hmmm AP - emigration as a solution.

Will the last person in Britain turn the lights out please.

Sorry - just couldn't resist that.

LadyBlaBlah · 20/10/2010 12:24

I don't understand why Dave denies this is not ideological lead. Tories have always wanted to shrink the state - people vote for them because of this?

yangymac · 20/10/2010 12:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn

AlpinePony · 20/10/2010 12:26

alicatte - not quite sure as to why you're being so sarcastic - when someone (e.g., Riven ) have a chance to improve their life and I don't understand why they wouldn't embrace it. Who wouldn't try to improve their life?

LadyBlaBlah · 20/10/2010 12:27

Did you hear the Tories laughing at the labour MP asking about Tony Dunn?

What a load of twats they are

seb1 · 20/10/2010 12:27

Here is a suggestion to cut waste, could MPs please stop wasting their time bickering like toddlers saying "he said this" and get on with running the country.

alicatte · 20/10/2010 12:29

ironic

not at all a reference to Riven - who I have the greatest of respect for.

LadyBlaBlah · 20/10/2010 12:31

Err I just got a little bit of sick in my mouth

PlentyOfPockets · 20/10/2010 12:32

Ah, but if you were a neoliberal economist, you'd see "disaster" as a good thing because it allows governments to push through lots of painful structural reforms (cuts, privatisation, deregulation) while everybody's still in too much shock to do anything about it.

I don't know about the Simon Hughes quote - I was quoting Laugs.

Lotofdamnationandhellfire · 20/10/2010 12:33

Dc doing really good impression of nodding dog

LadyBlaBlah · 20/10/2010 12:33

"we have decided to cut the waste

Let's see who exactly the wasters are

LadyBlaBlah · 20/10/2010 12:35

"the action since we have taken since May has brought us back from the brink"

What utter crap

caramelwaffle · 20/10/2010 12:35

Does anyone wonder WHO the "foreign creditors to Great Britain" actually are? To whom are we paying all this money/interest to?

Just a thought.

MaMoTTaT · 20/10/2010 12:36

the most important things apparently don't involve the sick or the vulnerable (ie the welfare and social services)........

alicatte · 20/10/2010 12:36

But I'm not a neoliberal economist (is that the same as a neoconservative? I really need to read that Naomi Klein) - call me an old romantic but I don't think many people are neoliberal economists, or am I just not noticing?

Eleison · 20/10/2010 12:36

Why haven't Labour and the media been screaming "It wasn't a decade of debt it was bailing out the bankers that made the deficit problem and the Tories said at the time that Brown was right to do this." Why have Labour let the lie go so little challenged?

alicatte · 20/10/2010 12:37

Yes Caramelwaffle - I really would like to know.

Please create an account

To comment on this thread you need to create a Mumsnet account.

This thread is not accepting new messages.
Swipe left for the next trending thread