Liam Fox has been on the news today blaming the latest round of compulsory redundancies on the previous Labour Government.
The responsibility for these redundancies lies with the incompetence of the last Labour government who left the nation’s finances broken and a £38 billion black hole in the defence budget
Fair enough to a point but it is THIS GOVERNMENT that is reducing the size of the armed forces and it is this government that continues to fund African Mercedes dealerships through the increasing Overseas Development budget.
There comes a point when saying them big boys over there made me do it is no longer an adequate defence and starts to look like a cowardly cop out
Let us not forget that it was this government that squandered all the money that had been spent on Nimrod by cancelling it just as it was about to enter service.
David Cameron has made it clear several times that he is hostile to the armed forces and he will continue to cut their budget to fund the lunatic welfare state the UK runs.
Absolutely, and many other things that have attracted write off charges as well
Plus, lets not forget the cost implications of switching to the F35C
The point is, its no good hiding behind the skirts of the last governments ginormous cock ups when you have plenty of your own
“The point is, its no good hiding behind the skirts of the last governments ginormous cock ups when you have plenty of your own”
Except of course when it is the fault of the previous government…..
Your argeument reads like these job losses, or equipment cuts equal to them, wouldnt have happened if Labour won.
Right or wrong, the tories made no promise to increase defence spending. They took it at face value that the spending the government said would be sufficient to meet planned expenditure, was so.
Its now clear (it always was of course) that Labours future defence plans were fantasy.
There comes a time when *you* are the previous government, I think its safe to say thats a few years away yet….
The problem is when you are
‘The hachet man from the bank’
Brought in to try and save something from the failing company, nobody loves you.
In my time I have been both Hatchetter and Hatchetee.
It’s not good crying over Nimrod and all that.
However near they were to service they would have cost money to run and man and maintain etc.
You posting is headed ‘The choices we make’
Exactly horrible unpalatable ones but choices have to be made.
I do not agree with some of them but can see they were made from some postition which makes them look the better of 2 evils.
Ther are always headline cancellation costs. But would they really come anywhere near (say in Nimrods case) the costs of say buildung the other planes and putting them into service manning them etc? I doubt it.
The MOD Gravy train hit the buffers.
I think it was TD who said the Army Maxed out it’s credit card UOR wise, that the planning (for want of a better word) meant car crash of expensive projects etc.
We are where we are. Tough and some ain’t gonna like what happens. It’s called reality.
In fact some of the programs in trouble got back the Major Govt!
It will get worse not better. I frankly doubt ANY major capital projects is safe or in some cases likely. I also do not think the manpower issue bottomed out either.
I ain’t happy about it either.
Neither do It think we are alone. Across the world this is going to happen. The US defence budget is either going to have to be cut by a big margin, or it will drag the US down, The international political fallout form that is potentialy massive.
On the DFID point.
It was a manafesto commitment (not one I liked by the way). It has the support/ acquesence of all who voted Tory.
Perhaps a few million less pissed of angry disenfranchised third worlders struggling with over poulation, just might mean a more stable and secure world?
“and he will continue to cut their budget to fund the lunatic welfare state the UK runs.”
The cuts in the armed forces are total peanuts compared to the monolithic budget of “social security”. And your assertion also ignores the fact that that budget is being massively cut as well.
I’d blame:
1. Firstly the bankers whose mess has decimated public finances for a generation
2. The Labour government for totally neglecting to properly manage Defence or have a coherent view of what it was expected of it, over many years
3. The service chiefs for a programme of gold-plated equipment purchases and failing to see the writing on the wall that the stuff they want to buy is, collectively, just unaffordable, good times or bad.
Okay it’s not good to see ungrateful foreigners getting our taxes, but the problems in defence are bigger than the increase in the aid budget.
It makes a welcome change to see that the government is attempting to put the house into order. Overseas aid or not we’re skint and the unsavoury consequences of that will not be avoided. More muddling along denying the fact will not help anything.
Phil
Exactly it is a big mikstake to think MOD is any worse becasue of ‘The Cuts’
With the exception of DFID everywhere is being cut, and the screems comming from them about the unfair short sighted waste of it all are just as peircing.
EMA will go. Tuition fees trippled
legal aid cuts
Police budget cuts
All have made the headlines and will have real painful knock on effects for everyday life in this country.
The MOD situation is worse because even without them, it had NO REALISTIC WAY, of getting half the kit it has ordered into service in meaningful numbers without a significant increase in budget.
IXION
I almost agree with you. There is a lot of fat in a lot of other budgets that needs to be trimmed. It should have been trimmed anyway, financial crisis or not. As it is we must not waste this crisis.
The difference with the MoD is that now relatively small cuts are making huge differences in capabilities, capabilities which are expensive to re-generate. Knocking similar sums from a lot of other budgets won’t have the same affect. But then in the MoD also there is a lot of inefficiency that needs driving out.
The key is to drive out the inefficiency before making cuts to capabilities. Unfortunately the nature of the real world means the reverse has happened. Hopefully if things get better they can be fixed.
But you are right, cuts across the board, especially in welfare. I agree with Cameron when he says financial stability is as much a national security concern as defence capabilities.
now i know you can take what’s printed in the papers with a pinch of salt, however. Daily express today says the army has been told ecconomic recovery not going as well as hoped stand by to lose another 12,000. Best case scenario pape got it wrong and that’s 12,000 over the 3 services not just army, but even so that’s a chuffing lot, being ex military i’ve gnashed my teeth and screwed my eyes up and very very reluclantly sort of agreed with the trimming down that’s happening (the nimrod decision was 5 years too late IMO) we are skint and the old “it’s a big firm it can afford it” mantra has to be stamped on. but i’d rather see those 12k kept and monies from elsewhere been used. It’s a false ecconomy anyhow as 12,000 blokes been released in 2 or 3 large batches will produce a strain on other resources costing money. It’s all bollocks and cameron is looking pathetic.
Ok
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/
First, we have to accept that public spending isnt being cut, its actualy going up.
Even Defence, is essentialy flat. The cuts too defence staffing and procurement are entirely because the costs of both were wrongly stated. Not because the budget for them has gone up.
The “crisis” is nothing to do with bankers.
The last government spent £2trillion more than the one that preceeded it.
Spent on operating costs, rather than capital investment.
That money came from somewhere, it came from business ivnestment.
DominicJ
You are of course correct about ‘The Cuts’ not really being cuts at all.
It is just reallity and it is not over by a long chalk
Paul G
Re cuts I expect that but.
We are heading for Denmark/ Holland status and capability landwise.
There are a lot of real terms cuts going on. It’s obvious to anyone who works in a job that is reliant on public funding. A lot of the increase in that website in overall public spending is from an increase in pensions and health – every other budget shows reductions in real terms.
There is less money flowing through a lot of departmental budgets, lot less money flowing through local authority coffers and less money flowing through the devolved coffers.
Now perhaps through some gee whiz accounting overall spending is going up, but departmentally and service wise, outside of Health – it just isn’t going up. It is being cut. And as mentioned, the rise is largely down to pension costs, and as we all know, these are being addressed aswel.
MoD included.
Phil
The only budget to actualy be cut is protection.
The others are all up, even defence. I’ve just checked.
Every single one is higher 2015 than 2010, and only one is lower than 2010 in a year before 2015.
Ignore the BBC, it speakeths not the truth.
The only reason we are seeing “cuts” is because departments have already spent money they dont have, or lied about the cost of future procurement.
Defence has a £40bn procurement black hole, at least, in that its expecting equipment to be much cheaper in future, or its budget to go up a lot.
If neither are those happens, something has got to be cut.
The other deparments, are far far worse.
Schools and Hospitals have been knocked down and rebuilt on PFI agreements.
I’ve seen some initiatives where the service charge goes up every year by RPI+2%. Thats probably going to average 7% over the next few years.
But department budgets are only going up 1 or 2% per year in that time, even if they got up 5%, there will still have to be a cut.
Blaming that on the current government is insanity.
Like I said, there are real term cuts. The total amount of money spent is going up, but in real terms there are cuts. The amount that can be accomplished with the resources allocated will be reduced in the future. This is true even if, it seems like more money is being spent. You haven’t stumbled upon some hidden truth or fudging – it’s a known fact.
Lets take the MoD Defence Spending page as an example.
The expenditure limit in 2014-15 is indeed higher than it is today. But as is clearly stated, “Over these years, the Defence budget will fall by around 8% in real terms.”. Same for all the other departments. They receive more money, but what can be done with that money will be less despite the higher absolute values.
Real term cuts are a bit dodgy for accuracy. Firstly, the measure of CPI/RPI/RPIX/GDP Deflator is usually completely inappropriate for specific government departments/corporations. Secondly, non of the above take into account a change in spending priorities. For example, only personnel earning less than £21,000 a year are getting a pay-rise for the next three year and that’s only £250 (I think), add to that allowance cuts and the purchasing power of the MoD is going up in terms of manpower.
Real vs. nominal is an impossible game
- even the Treasury works on GNP shares, when they forecast “possible” defence budget, say, to 2015
- then,depending on how it looks, they go to Bank of England and say, well – there is only x % real growth between now and then, assuming something about the rest of the world. We need this much (y) in inflation on top of it so that adjustment can actually happen (without the labour market erupting, everyone at barricades etc, instead of the grin-and-bear and try to make do in every sector, gvmnt & house holds included)
“For example, only personnel earning less than £21,000 a year are getting a pay-rise for the next three year and that’s only £250 (I think), add to that allowance cuts and the purchasing power of the MoD is going up in terms of manpower.”
How is it going up if the overall resources are going down? I’m no economist but it seems to me that a spade is a spade. Departments are cutting back, redundancies are being made, services are being cut back, local authorities are planning for and receiving actual cuts in their budgets, the MoD is loosing capabilities, welfare is being reformed, pensions are being reformed.
The Government is projected to spend less on almost everything in real terms up to 2015.
Not even HM Opposition as far as I know have accused the Government of pretending to cut spending. And I’d expect them to score some cheap points if there ever was the opportunity.
Well, when has it never been like this?
All SDSR’s/Gov’s have reduced, never expanded the armed forces – and it’ll be the same story until the next big and nasty thing comes along killing people, even then; after it it’d return to the usual.
Pointing at who to blame isn’t doing anything, nor wont do anything much more than waste time and attention.
No they haven’t. The Army was increased dramatically in the early 50s and the budget went up again in the late 80s.
To be frank, if the usual is the absence of any immediate regional threat, ie peace, then I’m all for it.
I tend to agree with the majority here. The “cuts” can be blamed on the previous government and the service chiefs. Labour had 13 years in power so they could have canceled the likes of Nimrod years ago. Also the fact that they only had one proper defence review, fought three significant conflicts (Kosovo, Iraq and Afghanistan) not ever increasing the defence budget is close to criminal IMHO.
What they left was armed forces badly out of balance, with paper thin capabilities and fantasy future procurement plans.
Now, where I do have issues with the Tories is not the cuts but the way they have gone about it. They have not shown any leadership or clear vision. The SDSR was a rushed disaster, with stupid decisions made right at the last minute. They have cut capabilities to save pennies, which we need in the long term and will cost tenfold to restore. There are things (especially mentioned on this forum) the government could do now which would not cost anything overall, but would improve things significantly.
The amount of money wasted on the Libya campaign (hotel / fuel bills and the like) could have kept key kit that has been scrapped going for years. And I read yesterday that with all that the RAF sortie rate was 10% of the total, less than Denmark’s contribution!
Come on Cameron / Fox get it sorted! Rant over…
I hope this
http://www.ukpublicspending.co.uk/downchart_ukgs.php?year=1985_2015&state=UK&view=1&expand=&units=p&fy=2011&chart=30-total&bar=1&stack=1&size=1280_638&color=c&title=&show=
brings up a graph I formatted on that website
- two steps down, in defence spending levels (Gorba/ Reagan, down to a new level; Fall of Berlin wall, again down to a new level)
- the only other change is the 4-year A-stan blib up (even with Labour, not quite what the comments have said!), before coming back to where we were. This is as close to “real” as one can get; there is no deflator that could capture the effects of technological change (the famous defence inflation).
The 2015 figure obviously does not have the “jam tomorrow” in it yet, but then again, in an election year the toast slices come buttered on both sides?
Yes Gordon Brown left the accounts in a state, but the coalition is giving an extra £4 billion a year to the easily defrauded aid budget. Quango chiefs have changed hats & doubled their pay, rather than be scrapped as the coalition first boasted.
Hundred of thousand households have nobody working as welfare pays more.
Dave said he would stand up to Europe then gave in & gave them an extra £400+ million a year.
Then Osborne bailed out Ireland & Greece with billions even though we are not in the Euro.
Dave lets the bankers give themselves billions in bonuses rather than pay back the taxpayer bail out.
The money is there for defence, its just the twisted priorities of a pampered Etonian PR luvvie.
There is never a polar bear when you need one.
And did anyone notice during the riots Ken Clarke could not been seen or heard? I think he was sobbing in a corner. On one hand he’s got to CUT his justice department budget and in another he has to find jail spaces for a bunch of yobos who could get convicted with ludicrous jail terms, while non rioters get less!
This government isn’t any better than the last they too are inventing black holes.
You really think the government will recoup all those student loans? Years down the line (along with PFI blackholes – which Tories are still doing and they invented PPP which came before PFI) someone will be going “shit shit shit shit shit shit” Because that money will not come back and would have gotten them sod all.
Then we’ve got the private fiascos of companies running government services like ATOS doing benefits, which strangely enough falls flat on there arse when cases go to tribunals.
This government isn’t any different than the last.
By the way, can anyone see that inquiry in to the lockbie bomber Cameron promised when in opposition. While you’re looking can you see any leadership from any other parties.
Nope can’t find that anywhere…
Oh and hasn’t the NHS budget got up in real terms of like 0.1%
I belong to a generation who political parties are incompetent and have the same old spots.
The two main causes of the economic crisis were firstly: Western governments sanctioning huge increases in public spending in order to retain electoral popularity and secondly: central banks turning a blind eye to excessive government borrowing. In the case of the first, the last UK government was among the worst of the offenders.
You simply cannot ignore one of the main rules of economics, i.e. that ultimately you cannot spend more than you earn. Many serious commentators were pointing out at least four years before the banking crisis that unbridled UK public expenditure would result in financial crisis. And it happened! What do you expect when you pump such vast amounts of liquidity into the system? The result was debt (personal, corporate and national) on a massive and unprecedented scale. We have been living on tick and shall be spending a long time getting rid of such debt.
Now, at least this government has started to tackle the problem and huge cuts are inevitable. Where I would query the present administration’s policy is in the fact that they seem to go time and time again for the armed forces as easy targets. Although Ixion, for instance, talks such good sense in most of his earlier post (“unpalatable ones but choices have to be made.” etc. etc.), I simply cannot go along with his last point: (“Perhaps a few million less pissed of angry disenfranchised third worlders struggling with over poulation, just might mean a more stable and secure world?” If you spent ten times as much on the Overseas Development Budget, the world would still remain a remarkably dangerous and volatile place. The only answer, as far as I can see, is a considerable increase in the defence budget, when we can afford it (by 2055 perhaps?)
Right,
The financial crisis was caused predominantly by two things;
1) US Mortgage Lenders,
2) Credit rating agencies
Basically cheap and free credit was the norm in the US during the early to mid 2000′s. There were a lot of people being given loans and mortgages in the US who would never have got them under more cautious years.
Now mortgages are valuable in the long term, but how do you make money in the short term, especially with the high amount of sub prime (increased risk of default mortgages)? The answer is Collateralized Debt Obligations (CDO).
Now normally you cant sell on an investment package built using sub-prime assets. Who’s going to invest in something that risky? The answer was to pool the good money with the bad and then sell that off in different risk “tranches” with investors in low interest tranches getting paid first, and so on down.
Unfortunately someone then figured out that if you invest in lots and lots of the risky tranches and pour that money into a new pool, you can then re-sell that off into a further set of tranches, using risky assets to create the impression of something more stable.
This was fed by;
a) US mortgage lenders approving ridiculous loans, that they would then sell on and not have to worry about,
b) Credit rating agencies who gave AAA ratings to securities that were in fact backed by nothing but bad/risky debts.
When the US housing market went pear shaped so did a lot of these investment packages. As people realised that their houses weren’t now worth the value of the mortgage, they simply opted for foreclosure instead of pouring money down the drain.
The supply of money trickling down the chain started to dry up, especially in the case of those second level CDO’s that were built using mulitple risky tranches from the first set of CDO’s.
Then – as always with the financial markets – panic set in, some share prices starting to bomb, and credit began drying up.
(this is the major problem with modern financial markets, investor confidence plays a huge role and the effect is often cumulative, e.g. panic creates losses which creates more panic etc)
Predictably it’s the people in the middle and the arse end who get shafted in such situations, e.g. the banks and the taxpayers.
Now the banks aren’t exactly blameless in this, investing money beyond that which they could guarantee etc. But fundamentally they often rely on credit rating agencies to – you know – do their jobs and properly check out the state of various funds before giving them any kind of rating.
But then explaining all that to the public takes time and time is never on any governments side. Especially not if your government just spent billions and billions bailing out banks. Blaming the banks is much easier. And also complete bullshit.
Now all you need do is tack on years of government over spending and you’re quids in for a serious fuck up.
Not least among these problems are the high amount of social welfare paid to people that don’t actually need it. This is what a lot of people don’t understand. The papers pick on the little people because it sounds good and sells lots of newspapers.
But the real problem is people like my slightly older sister and her husband, who have fairly good jobs and a decent house, yet still get reasonably good child benefits from the government that they absolutely don’t need in any way, shape or form.
But then who’s going to vote for a party that says “vote for us and we’ll take away your added benefits”? THAT is where the real drain on social welfare is.
It’s officially called ‘social protection’ for a reason, because it’s supposed to support people in the bad times, not families with combined wages in excess of £40,000 per year.
However, yes, there are lots of people at the bottom end of the system who shouldn’t be getting it, such as the many incapacity benefit cheats.
The second problem is the amount of money the governement spends on unneccessary staff, creating a class of people who are effectively tied to the state for their jobs.
The most obvious example is jobcentre staff, which in an age of high unemployment seems odd. But having been out of work myself in the past, I can confidently tell you that about 95% of the staff working in jobcentres don’t need to be there. They do nothing, zero, to help people find work. And even if they could, they can’t sit in interviews for people. They are a complete waste of time.
Road works is another example. I once stood at a bus stop and watched 9 men off load from a truck and two vans, who then proceeded to spend ten minutes doing bugger all. They were still there when I came back and had successfully managed, in the last 8 hours, to dig up and then repair a piece of tarmac all of about 8 feet long by 3 feet wide. Three fucking men could have done that in the same amount of time.
And then there is the inevitable issue of asylum seekers. I’m yet to hear a coherent reason as to why we accept asylum seekers. It is virtually impossible to reach our country without travelling through or close around another free, democratic nation that accepts asylum seekers.
Thus my question is, “if you really desperately need asylum, why didn’t you just seek it in France? Or Italy?”
Repulse
Oh dont get me wrong, the SDRSR was a joke, I’ve said as much, and I bullied my ward branch into censuring the government over it (which we technically have no right to do, but thats the fun of politics).
JH
“Dave lets the bankers give themselves billions in bonuses rather than pay back the taxpayer bail out.”
Dave does no such thing.
Again, it was the previous government, who handed over the cash without first extracting concessions.
Before, the money is handed over, is the time to get your list of demands agreed to, because afterwards, they becomes pleas.
ChrisB
I must have missed Northern Rocks US adventures.
US banks are in a better position than UK banks, German and French babnks are in a far far far worse position.
The resons are the same, all thats different is the honesty.
“But then who’s going to vote for a party that says “vote for us and we’ll take away your added benefits”? THAT is where the real drain on social welfare is.”
Lots of that is ending. The levels of benefits and those entitled to them is being stripped down. Lots of steps in the right direction being made here. It takes a long time though.
As for Jobcentre Staff, a lot of them are shit not because they are mongs but because of the organisational culture they have to work in. Management obsessed with targets and processes and not managing people is the biggest failing. All the good people leave jobs like that and it’s only the shit ones they promote from since Benefits is such a complex system that it is effectively a closed shop. You have to pick your managers from people with experience and all the good ones left along time ago because they were sick of being treated like a process and putting up with abuse from the public all for a slaves wage considering what they are meant to be able to do.
“increasing Overseas Development budget.”
Of which most is spent in this country, buying products. Made in the UK and exporting them abroad. You take the GAVI program to help vaccinate the world’s poorest children. We will give £814 million . Most will be spent in the UK, going to UK vaccine manufacturer’s. To supply the program.
DomJ
Gordon Brown was a disaster as Chancellor & PM.
However, the coalition has been in charge for over a year.
There is nothing to stop Dave bringing in legislation to stop banker bonuses until every last penny of taxpayer bail out cash has been returned, plus interest & fees.
Except it would scupper his post PM million a year non job with a bank. Plus Clegg comes from a rich banking family.
Dave
£814 million in vaccines. So these kids live to grow up. Where will Africa get the food, jobs,water,roads & electricity for these extra adults. So instead of dying as kids, they starve to death as adults. How does this help?
“Where will Africa get the food, jobs,water,roads & electricity for these extra adults”
If you give them an education, as well. Then leave them to sort out themselfs. You leave it as it is we well spend the rest of our life’s letting them ponce of us.
Dave
These days probably the chinese will be picking up the tab..
However I would like to point out I was not in favour of the DFID budget protection. Africa is (for it africa we are mostly talking about), Is and will remain a basket case, until it has proper governance. Money spent there will be wasted, with the 1 step forward 2 steps back, fate of that place and the DFID budget is a drop in the ocean of sand.
As for the rest
Chris B
100% behind you on this.
However I am always mindful of the fact that there are very few real solid jobs around. We have about 5 million people (adding the various benefits together) who need jobs as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Thes are people who arent very bright not posessed of the abilities to show foresight in there choices etc.
This is not actually their fault! Once apon upon a time they left school at 14 on a Friday and started in the local Pit or tripe works or whatever the next Monday. These jobs have gone enmass from the UK and regardless of the tides of financial fortune untill they return we will be stuck with an unemployed underclass or 3 million plus requiring benefits.
Cut these benefits and you will have a crime rate and a lack of order and safety which will make the recent riots look like an average saturday night.
(BTW I am no socialist)
As for job centre staff etc govt is stupidly over manned but many of the people in it aren’t fit
for private sector work either!
OK Ok I know this is ‘world according to Ixion’, But it should be remembered that ‘the cuts’ would be unnescessary if we addressed (somehow) this issue.
A group of Africans said aid can be the problem, not the help. For example, food aid just bankrupts the local farmers. They wanted infrastructure (roads, reservoirs, irrigation, electrification) so Africa could support itself.
Late reply…
Purchasing power in terms of manpower (in general) will go up, as the average cost a soldier/sailor/airman will reduce through allowance cuts and a pay freeze. Not by much, granted, but not having to give Cpl. X a pay-rise while cutting his allowances makes him cheaper.
——————–
I should state that I believe the majority of the brown stuff in defence came from the previous government’s (particularly the one-eyed monster’s) distrust/dislike of the armed forces, along with the good dose of jingoism from Teflon Tony. However, I’d also say public opinion wouldn’t have begrudged no cut to defence, certainly no more than they have the increase in foreign aid, and the current government isn’t exactly riding a peace-dividend.
Finally, if we spent what we had on sensible things, and could run a bath, then I doubt many of these problems would have come along.
“However I would like to point out I was not in favour of the DFID budget protection”
Nor am i, the point being that most is spent within the UK.
“until it has proper governance”
Through education?
“chinese will be picking up the tab”
I have a problem with this, as they will be sitting on our doorstep. So to speak?
Dave
@ DomJ
Northern Rock was doing good business borrowing money and using that to finance its mortgage operations. Most of these mortgages were then bundled together in packs and sold as something called a Residential Mortgage Backed Security (RMBS), which would be split into risk tranches, the lower tanches of which could be used by other companies to make Collateralized Debt Obligations. Sound familiar?
Except in 2006-07 the arse was falling out of the US housing market, as people started to realise just how much bad debt and poor documentation was floating about. As a result, market lenders around the world started to become vary wary of making new loans to banks that dealt heavily in the mortgage sector; like Northern Rock.
Thus they couldn’t generate additional funding that they needed and had to seek help from the Bank of England. When word of that got out, depositers started flocking to Northern Rock to remove their capital, prompting the run.
So even though Northern Rock probably had very little exposure on its books, if any, to US mortgages the simple fact is that the US sub prime mortgage crisis cost Northern Rock, which was an otherwise healthy bank that was doing good business.
Such is the nature of the global economy and the importance of confidence.
@ IXION
Not all the unemployed are thickos! I remember meeting a guy during my time who used to work at the London Stock Exchange as a computer engineer and then went on to do technology training courses for big companies like British Telecom etc. His work history was quite exceptional, but it was into his late 40′s by that point and he was far too qualified for most of the jobs in that area.
You’d be surprised. A lot of the people filling up Jobcentres now are professionals and managers. Of course there’s the trash, but you’re forever seeing people on the news who are very experienced, very employable people… in the good times. But with jobs drying up and mostly menial work on offer, the market is not right for a lot of these people.
As for aid to Africa, the whole thing needs a complete shake up, top to bottom. There seems to be more agencies now then bloody people living in Africa.
Chris B
Sorry did not mean to emply the unemployed were all thikos.
many are exactly what the system was designed for originally the unlicky who fell on hard times (and boy from my job do I know those, most people are about a year from prosperity to abject poverty)
I meant there is a base load of often blaimless types for whom or modern economy no longer caters, and it’s not there fault maybe as high as 3-4 million of the,
No worries mate
What the unemployed need, and this made sound stupid, is jobs. I remember in 2005-ish I was looking for a new job and the local rags job section was about 8 pages cover to cover full of jobs. Last time I checked it had about a half page’s worth.
That’s the trouble. There are no jobs. And figures being released tell us that most (as many as 90% in some places) new jobs created are going to people born outside of the UK.
It’s a lose-lose situation at the minute for the unemployed and frankly there isn’t a huge amount that can be done.
The Far East copied us, now we should copy them. So uth Korea wanted a few national champions, so soft loans & grants to the Chaebols. Why do you think LG & Samsung came from nowhere to be huge?
Infrastructure. In 1989 China had 147 km of Expressway/motorway. In 2010 it had 74,000km of Expressway. Yes 74,000 km , I did not sneeze & add a few noughts.
The extra 4 billion a year the coalition is giving to foreign aid would be better spent in the UK on defence, transport & energy infrastructure, plus tax breaks & grants to UK industrial champions.
“There are no jobs”
I’ll grant you there are not as many jobs, but I know for a fact there are ALWAYS vacancies to be had and a lot of them are going to “immigrants” because many people in this country are unwilling to do them and lots more lack the skills even to do call centre work.
The trouble is people at the moment have the luxury of still being able to draw benefits and not go for these vacancies. Change the law you say? The law already stipulates that after a certain number of weeks drawing benefit you are no longer supposed to be allowed to pick and choose jobs you try for – but it doesn’t work that way in practice.
Unemployed people should be made to have some sort of job, I don’t think that they should be full time jobs as some people will need to look for better work, but working, volunteering or training and looking for a job should be a full-time 40 hour a week process for those drawing the dole. And more people need to swallow their pride and get not so great jobs – it is much better for the economy as a whole, probably better for their mental health and well-being and it would shake the labour market up a bit.
And yes I know that at the moment (and all the time really) we have some very skilled workers who were earning big bucks before they got laid off who don’t want to clean or work in a call centre or labour or do reception / security work. Which is fine, but stop drawing benefits then. I know a lot of people who have been successful who at some point in their life hit the rocks a bit and had to do things they found unsavoury like “menial” jobs.
Personally I think the dole needs massive reform but as ever, changes in benefit take years and years to come to fruition.
There is a lot that the unemployed can do. But the other trouble is the organisational culture of the Jobcentre – as I said people are treated like a process because that is how Government targets insist they should be treated. The hardcore jobless or those who move to job to job a lot via the Jobcentre are desensitised to that treatment but a lot of people being laid off for the first time and going into the Jobcentre feel a massive stigma and are scandalised by the petty and condescending attitude of the staff there who see looser after looser after looser all the time and who never get a job or look for one despite it being a condition of their ongoing entitlement. Even a monkey can wield a mop. But they won’t do it. And so the newly jobless, fresh to the system, confront an attitude built on targets and processes and dealing with hardcore anti-social and frankly vile human beings with no intention or desire to ever be weaned off their dole even though its a pittance.
Phil
I am in the ‘state subsidised job are generally good idea’ Camp Because in part of the benefits you outline.
But I experinced the ‘There are always vacanies for people that want them’ bollocks when I was 18 looking for a job in 1981.
No there weren’t then, and from what I see there aren’t now.
But there are mate, you can see it in the labour market information and you can see it in your local paper because even in my arse end of nowhere local paper there is still a page of jobs every week and then there are the word of mouth vacancies and the casual work and the Jobcentre stuff.
The trouble is either people aren’t trained for them (and the Jobcentre offers training courses that would cover the skill-set needed to do most of the jobs you see in the local paper) or won’t do them. And then you have people that go longer and longer without work and thus, despite being eminently employable at their redundancy, become less and less so and more and more likely to have to accept reality and start from the bottom again because they have a year or two’s gap in their CV where they did sod all. It’s shit, don’t get me wrong, but life is often shit. And yes, there but for the Grace of God I go. I did plenty of shit jobs when I graduated like cleaning caravans and bar work and cleaning and truth be told, although my present employment is in an office it is still a shit job and one I certainly don’t need anything like a degree to be doing – it blows, but I am spending a lot of hard saved money to hopefully change that.
So yes mate, there is always vacancies available if people swallow their pride, take on a part time job, do some volunteering, take some courses and hunt for better things. Far better to have something on your CV for the time you’re unemployed then nothing – you can at least argue in your interviews that you’re not afraid to get your hands dirty and you have some gusto about you.
So yeah, people on the dole should be doing something. There is a hardcore that do nothing and they are a big problem. And then you have the very unfortunate souls made redundant from their good jobs who look for something similar, and look, and look, and before they know it they’ve been signing on for a year and are less employable in their old role but still, they look, and they look…
@ Phil
I’m not sure how things are where you live but in my broad area there are apparently hundreds of people out of work. Just a month ago some business went under (something to do with paint?) and dumped another 50 odd people onto the unemployment line.
Looking at the latest job section in the local paper I can see a job for a training assistant at the university, an RGN at the hospital, four jobs in caring for qualified carers, and two part time cleaning jobs. I can’t imagine those factory fellas are qualified for much more than the cleaning jobs.
That’s two out of the 50 sorted. Now what do we do with the other 48?
I’ve heard about the type of training courses that job centres send people on. Given that 3rd parties get paid for putting people through them, I’m sure you can imagine the quality.
Then just quickly, looking at the government website, job seekers currently receive £65 per week. I find that hard to tally with Camerons calls about a benefits “lifestyle”. Surely after food there isn’t a lot of that £65 left?
When I was on it years ago I was about 17, not a care in the world etc. If I’m honest, living on benefits now sounds pretty sh!t.
Yes there are some areas better than others but also your 48 unfortunates do not just have that weeks job offerings in the local paper. We both know there are more options then that including moving if needs be. I suppose it depends on the person, lots of people wouldn’t think twice about moving to look for work, others wouldn’t want to move at all. But anyway, the situation is different shades of grim but for most people prepared to do most things there’s still opportunities. Even volunteering is better than nothing, in fact it is often a very good way to get experience of a level of responsibilty you might not have had in previous employment. My broadpoint is though that there are more often than not some jobs going around even if people might think they are below them. Lots of people are too proud to clean shitters so the Pole cleans them instead.
As for the dole. It is a pittance but some people seem happy to stay on it indefinitely. Most are probably hobbling because it’s not a lot of money to live on and theyll work for a mate when they feel like it. A lot are just bone idle and can’t even be bothered to sign on.
As for courses yeah some are probably every colour of shite but you’ve nothing to lose except Jeremy Kyle in doing some and maybe finding a good one or two.
I just think it’s not as easy as Cameron and his lot make out. I think they’re doing the usual politicians trick of riding the headlines without actually having a coherent plan.
I’m convinced that even in a recession there are more jobs available than there are native British people willing to get off their arses to do them.
I came out of prison in 2010. Despite punitive probation restrictions that ruled out any possibility of work for six months, as soon as I had my two hour curfew lifted I started looking for work. It only took me four days to get myself a cleaning job that I am over-qualified for.
I had to get up at 2am, cycle into and across town – because though the work site was five minutes from my home I was required to stay overnight in an out of town probation hostel. My route was longer than it needed to be, as I was banned from a 1.5km long narrow strip of land running north/south through the town – applied simply to cause me a nuisance while crossing town.
It was a crap job that I’ve since packed in; but it was a job, and I had no problem getting it despite having a criminal record and despite nuisance restrictions on my movements. I had no problem getting a job to replace it either.
There are many people that don’t want to do any work and are able to support themselves indefinitely on out of work benefits. They’re the same people that complain about Poles coming over and stealing their jobs – but you can’t steal a job from someone who has no intention of working.
———
As for trying to stop chronic poverty in Africa. That is a bottomless pit to throw money into. Look at the projections for population growth in African countries; compare with the rate of desertification and lack of fresh water in the same countries. They are problems which we can’t solve no matter how much cash we throw at them.
I’ve worked in both defence and international aid, most recently in Libya. Overseas development assistance is a critical component of our soft-power and very closely integrated with our security and defence architecture – many aid officials now attend command and staff college for example. In a world where we depend upon a globalized economy for our wealth and well-being, we need a balance of both hard and soft power to secure our interests. The Department for International Development (DFID) helps maintain our influence globally and has proven a highly successful and core component of our security infrastructure, whether we like it or not.
You guys should read John Redwoods’ blog. Government expenditure is scheduled to rise every year till 2015 – that is both in adjusted and cash terms. And the rises planned depend on achieving a suitable rate of growth. Which they are not at present.
Treasury guesstimate for 2015 is bang on the same number as this year’s (military defence, without the fluffy add-ons):
year/ GDP/ Defence
2010 1453.62 32.43 a
2011 1526.5 32.79 a
2012 1602.8 33.06 g
2013 1693.7 33.67 g
2014 1789 33.46 g
2015 1889.1 32.82
a=data; g= they guess within the overall frame (GDP, tax take etc)