This is from another forum I run, and it might be of interest here. The main text is from a chartered accountant, who owns their own business. The quotes come from a Language academic.
So if the private sector is contracting (which is basically what you're saying) where are those jobs going to come from?
You must consider how business works. The contraction in private industry happened in the credit crunch, some 18 months ago. Business reacts very quickly. It looked at its place in the market and, by doing what they did, consolidated their position at the time. They paid less during a difficult time for profits and, more importantly in the short-term, improved cash flow but maintained their experienced workforce. Some businesses will still fail (although if they have a good business model they are more likely to merge or be acquired) but most businesses will have put themselves in a great position to jump when the market recovers.
It is the Government that say the growth which they predict will lead to the required number of jobs being created. I have never said they will or that they won’t. However, I do have confidence in surviving businesses being in a position to embrace growth if and when it happens. There are some glimmers – BT are taking on again but only in numbers which I would, currently, be prepared to describe as a glimmer.
And you can't sack an office worker aged maybe 50 and expect him or her to take a job as a bricklayer. Or are we talking out-sourcing? We've all seen what that led to in hospitals. And that still has to be paid for by the public.
You cannot sack people nowadays. They could be made compulsorily redundant but, even then, unless a whole business or business area is being closed, only after the management have been through voluntary procedures. If people accept voluntary redundancy then they are likely to have the ability to do something else, or maybe have another source of income or early pension.
But quite apart from that, why should the public sector not be growing relative to the private? Surely it's exactly what you'd expect in a modern society.
But it hasn’t grown relative to it. It has outstripped it. That is not a modern society; it is a socialist society. Where one stands on that (or on a capitalist society) is purely a matter of political bent. I have a personal view on which I consider more modern but that is all it is, a personal opinion.
Indeed I would argue that we could do with more public employees, not fewer. Look at hygiene in hospitals; look at the ill-kempt state of most public parks; come and have a look at our road and even more our pavement - both in a disgraceful state. We need more social workers, not fewer; possibly more police; and, according to David, more tax-collecting staff. And I believe him. Industry can manage with fewer workers today and as long as productivity stays high, there is no inherent reason why those workers should not be released to serve society in other ways. Serving society is the basic definition of a public worker as far as I can see.
No, we do not need less public service workers at the coalface (all those above and more). Indeed, HMRC need more and should never have got rid of their qualified staff.
What our public sector needs to lose is the money it consistently leaks.
Examples:
The people involved in the decisions which take endless meetings and years to approve. Meetings are time and time is money.
The procurement of services from set lists of private sector providers who know the system and work it to their advantage.
The need for so many risk assessments to be undertaken before a service is provided, the delays and extra costs of this actually causes a greater likelihood of failure of service. (I know this exists in the Government supported voluntary sector – Coastguards – and suspect it also exists in social services and the health sector.)
The difficulty of implementing capability procedures and the fact that often all that happens is the incapable are sidelined somewhere and not too much expected from them (and their colleagues have to work harder and are subject to greater stress to cover their inadequate output) or they are moved on quietly because it is easier to do so, leading to them being inefficient elsewhere.
The public sector leadership which has caught a private sector rot known as the gravy train. Thinking it needs to pay it’s top leadership to get the best when, in fact, the best is just a pool of people who move from leadership job to leadership job. There is a glass ceiling making it extremely difficult to move from below to above it and into the pool, even though many would be able to do the work. Those in the pool are supported by each other, unwelcome newcomers are not. The pool have improved their positions immensely by making them seem restricted in quantity.
The acceptance (in some areas) that sickness means a guaranteed x number of days off per year in addition to their annual holiday allowance.
The endless red tape that lead you to being able to count more clip board holders in (for example) hospitals than active care staff.
Exceptional increases in paperwork in policing and social work which sees millions of hours spent not on the coalface. We should accept that we are all human and allow sensible levels of recording to take place and that’s where duty of care should end. This would free these workers up to do, probably, what they thought they were employed to do and where their skills lie without the constant stress ad worry of not recording every moment.
The overburdening red tape and policy requirements, leading even very small Secondary Schools employing a non-teaching Head and three full-time Deputies on very low teaching hours.
Implementation of software of such poor quality (no doubt at huge cost and after endless meetings) they – probably - end up causing employees twice as much work. (e.g HMRC coding notice system)
I could go on but I think that is enough for me to illustrate my point. I have no argument with the coalface workers. In fact, I am sure they work extremely hard.
My position:
I am a capitalist - socialist. lol. . I believe in protecting and increasing our state pensions and maintaining the state retirement age as low as possible, lower taxes for the lower paid, fairer taxes (i.e: the use of two basic rate bands for a married couple where only one works) and no child tax credit or benefit for the higher paid (but done on a fair married couple total income basis). I believe our benefits system needs a complete overhaul as it is unwieldy beyond compare but it must look after those who are the poorest and most ill and those who have paid well into the system and fallen on temporary or permanent hard times. I also believe we should cut the deficit because we have time bombs ticking – in PFI and public sector pensions which is going to take a much greater % of our tax take in the next generation.
However, to achieve the above, I do not agree with further higher taxes (we are paying 1/3 of the deficit reduction though greater taxes) while the public sector (as a body) is so incredibly inefficient. Once inefficiencies have really been sorted, then I would support tax increases to support my initial paragraph.
I do have worries that the cuts will not be correctly administered. David Cameron said he tasked the leaders to make cuts without reducing services. I expect him to follow it through if they do not. I also expect him to allow sense to return in terms of unburdening bureaucracy because it is necessary.
