YES! No more public sector job ads in the Grauniad!

[longfingernails]

www.guardian.co.uk/media/greenslade/2010/jul/06/advertising-local-newspapers

Public sector vacancies should be on a .gov site. Of course if a private company runs the website more cheaply than the civil service, it is OK to contract out the operation of the website - but not to waste money paying for ads themselves.

Anyway, an excellent move. It will save money, and lead to more scrutiny of the hordes of non-jobs which abound so plentifully. Destroying just about the only income stream the Guardian has, given its tiny circulation, is just a pleasant side effect!

Well done Eric Pickles!

Well, extra money is being spent on Teach First.

In general spending priorities have to be balanced against each other. We don't have an infinite amount of tax money and we can't borrow an infinite amount, so by definition we can't get everything we would ideally like. Politics is about making choices - and our preferences for those choices are obviously different!

As it happens, the education department is being partially ringfenced - the cuts there will be much less than cuts to Transport or Justice or the Home Office.

Back on the thread topic:

I think the iPad could actually save newspapers.

The Times charging experiment seems to have been a total disaster - but people with iPads seem to love reading newspapers on it. And I seem to recall that the Guardian had a lucrative takeup of iPhone apps?

Those toys are too expensive for me, but I think they could really help newspapers.

As LFN says all the evidence is that the Schools for the Future program was badly managed.

I've visited one of these new schools recently. The school looked impressive (all gleaming chrome and glass) but the teacher's weren't so happy with it. The class rooms were too small, the acoustics poor, and the build went over budget before they finished the school.

If nothing else a rethink is in order. Some schools will still be built (though less than originally planned by Labour). More will be refurbished. But maybe massive, lucrative contracts and far fetched designs will have to wait (for the next Labour government?).

'This is just utter gibberish. I wonder what it's like in your head?'

I nominate for Quote of the Week.

LFN - the Guardian looks lovely on the ipad - tis true. I would like to see what Mumsnet looks like - but was too embarrased to open it up on the ipad in the crowded Apple store - which is pretty sad, I guess!

What an utterly stupid OP.

The main reason public sector jobs are going to be advertised on a .gov site is because there is an external recruitment freeze. Is that good news for all those people without a job? I don't think so.

And two other things 1) The Guardian supported the Lib Dems (does anybody remember them??) 2) 'tiny' readership - circa 350k newspaper circulation and 1.8m online readership - 2nd highest readership for an online newspaper (internationally).

Get a grip.

Probably due to recruitment freeze,I would imagine.

I don't see why this is a reason for celebration???

Mavis - It is seen as a cause for celebration because there is not an ounce of intellect there (the OP) - just spite.

Maybe the BBC and co will slowly adjust their left-wing bias, now that they can no longer exclusively recruit from that paper.

This is a nakedly politcal post but if the coalition parties want to finish Labour off for good they have to cut off their resources during the years in opposition.

In particlar public sector, quango and and charity jobs have to be slashed where Labour activists can sit being paid while passively resisting reform and taking part in political activities.

That means taking a hatchet to all former polytecnic universities, cutting off all public funding to quangos, arts bodies and charities. The BBC has to be cut by 75%. All funding for unions cut apart from member subscriptions. All local authority employees prevented from doing political work in work hours. Cutting off advertisng revenue for the Guardian is just the start.

These bodies are where the Labour fight back will begin using the physical and human resources those organisations afford them.

pocketmonster I prefer to call it schadenfreude - it sounds so much more satisfying, and tinged with a hint of nobility - but spite works too. Yes, I am happy to see the Guardian suffer!

As for the size of my brain, it is for others to judge. Equally, I will feel free to judge the content of your character for descending to personal insults on a politics forum.

Perhaps you work for the Guardian? Have I hit a raw nerve?

Funny how the Tories are all in favour of the market when it suits them. But it's a Bad Thing suddenly if it means someone they don't like is doing well. Presumably the Guardian has lots of public sector ads because advertisers in councils and NHS trusts and other public sector bodies find they get a good response from advertising there with a decent choice of applicants. Clearly non-Tories doing something well Does Not Count in some way.

Clearly people who aren't online Don't Count either. Nor do people who don't have time to trawl through every single council website in the country in case there's a job - so much for getting on your bike!

No I don't work for The Guardian - it doesn't suprise me that you would expect somebody to care only if it directly and personally impacted them though.

I do however live in the UK and care about the country I live in and the one my children will grow up in. For that reason I am incensed by the divides in our society that this government is already creating - by setting public against private, working against non working - as it destroys jobs and services and your post is just another example of peoples inability to see past their personal politics and look at the bigger picture.

BeenBeta

Excellent post.

I would personally prefer a Britain with no Labour party, a Tory government and a Lib Dem opposition. The coalition has to make that a long-term goal.

The 20th century was pretty much a Conservative one with occasional Labour interludes. Thanks to the coalition, the 21st century has a decent chance of being predominantly Conservative, with occasional Liberal interludes. The coalition needs to do everything it can, in both their parties' strategic interests, to make that happen.

Op - do you seriously think that the Lib Dems will survive this 'coalition'??

Most of the people I know who voted Lib Dem did so to keep the Tories out - most true in Sheffield Hallam, Cleggs seat - so what is happening now is not going to please them and I doubt they will use their vote so unwisely again.

(my hmm was a LFN not anyone else...)

edam I don't think seeing ads online rather than in the Guardian will make life harder for anybody applying for a public sector job! If anything, it makes life easier.

People without internet access are pretty unlikely to buy the Guardian anyway. Both the Guardian and internet access are available at libraries.

Ultimately the current arrangements are just poor value for money, if only on a small scale.

"The BBC has to be cut by 75%" - because otherwise all the rabid Lefties who use the BBC as some sort of nefarious cover will come crawling out under the cover of darkness and start making rational arguments?

The Labour Party has many, many things wrong with it (and I speak as a member), but insane paranoia at least isn't one of them. That has to be one of the most barking mad, offensive comments I've seen here.

Embarrassing duplication of the word "cover" there. Damn.

pocketmonster The VAT posters before the election were a big mistake, and the Lib Dems are paying the price in the polls at the moment.

But in 5 years time, if the economy is recovering, lots of private sector jobs have been created, and our deficit is under control, then I see no reason why the Lib Dems will suffer.

This is especially true if AV comes in. Under AV most Tory voters will give their second preferences to the Lib Dems. Similarly, most Lib Dem voters will presumably give their second preferences to the Tories. That will easily counterbalance losses from the left of the Lib Dems to Labour.

"Similarly, most Lib Dem voters will presumably give their second preferences to the Tories."

Arf.

LFN - you have some 'interesting' views.

Why are you so full of hatred for the Labour party and any other institution which might be associated with them, e.g. The Guardian?

It's almost as if you're taking this personally which is a bit worrying.

I'm a passionate believer in the Labour Party (and a member) which means that I oppose the Tories - and increasingly the Liberal Democrats - but it wouldn't occur to me to wish that various right wing papers/organisations disappear. They are an important part of a modern democracy, surely?

Hassled The BBC is rabidly left-wing - institutionally so.

Most of its presenters do try to be balanced but because of their own ideology they simply fail to see their own bias.

As a simple example: how often have you heard a BBC presenter say "take money out of the economy" when discussing government spending cuts? That in itself is a fundamentally left-wing notion - that the government is the economy. If they were balanced, then equally often, they would say something like "leaving you more of your own money for you to spend as you wish".