you know its so easy to focus on specific groups of people to explain away a macro problem. You get people involved at a different level and the papers do it all the time. But the fact is that the Public Sector is out of control and needs cutting back.

 

What did grow very strongly, however, was government consumption — current spending on public services. From 18 per cent of GDP in 1998 this rose to 22 per cent a decade later and, with nominal GDP falling last year, to 24 per cent at the end of 2009 (Chart 3). Converted at underlying (PPP) exchange rates, per capita current spending on public services is now 17 per cent higher than in the main economies in the Eurozone.

The report says that, on an hourly basis, the typical public-sector worker is paid 30 per cent more than their private-sector counterpart.

 

Another finding is that the chance of being made compulsorily redundant in the civil service is just 0.00007 per cent.

On any measure, public sector workers are now, on average, better paid than private sector workers. The median salary in the public sector is 12% higher, or 30% higher on an hourly basis.

The average public sector organisation loses an average of 9.7 days per employee per year through absence compared to just 6.4 days in the private sector – around 50 per cent more. Also, since 1996 a public worker has been on strike twenty two times more than a private worker has.

 

The above are all separate independent articles/ reports. Im not projecting blame on the public sector im saying it needs to be cut back.

The above are all separate independent articles/ reports. Im not projecting blame on the public sector im saying it needs to be cut back.

 

What's the "Private Sector" counterpart for Doctor then...? Or Teacher..? Or Police Officer..? Or Fireman...? Well, okay, I guess you have the Harley Street specialists in Private medicine, all of whom earn a damn sight more than a local GP or a Locum working in an NHS hospital, similarly, BUPA, etc, nurses earn considerably more from what I've been told (mainly from friends of mine who've worked both as NHS and Private nurses).

 

Are you seriously trying to compare a teacher to an unskilled, untrained Asda/Tesco shelf-stacker...??? Oh, please, come on... There's not even a comparison there.... You dont exactly need to go to University or do a year's teacher training or FOUR TO SIX years medical training to become a shelf-stacker or a waitress in a Cafe FFS...... You're comparing unskilled work to people who train for YEARS to become a teacher, nurse, doctor, etc, or people who have to train to become a Policeman or Fireman... THERE IS NO COMPARISON.....

 

But, I guess if you really want to compare, here's a fact for you, a good plumber or electrician or a skilled craftsman these days can actually earn more than a Doctor or a Teacher... FACT..... But again, this is skilled work.... Here's another fact for you, the majority of "London" Firemen and emergency staff have to live in the outlying suburbs (beyond Zone 6 in most cases) because they cant afford a property in the city itself.... God forbid a 9/11 ever happens in the centre of London, off-duty firemen and emergency staff would take about an hour and a half to actually get to "ground zero" cos of transport....

you missed the following:

 

Converted at underlying (PPP) exchange rates, per capita current spending on public services is now 17 per cent higher than in the main economies in the Eurozone.

 

So to simplify the discussion we are 17% higher than the main economies in the Eurozone. Not to mention spending on the Public Sector has increased from 18% to 24% of GDP since 1998. Suddenly fires got bigger and more frequent? This increase and the current state of the finances is inexcusable.

So, Phil, why so keen to denigrate the public sector eh... Oh, hang on, dont you work in The City or something....? Well, I guess that explains it, trying to deflect responsibility when it was maggots in YOUR Industry sector (banking and Finance) like Goodwin and Applegarth who believed in "Greed is Good", and fukked us all over so they could make short-term gains and feather their own nests, yeah, Phil, that's right, we're in a hole because of the modest incomes of teachers, nurses, uni lecturers, firemen and police officers who actually work to make this country a better place, and it's nothing to do with the ludicrous sums of money demanded by the greedy few who still expect to be paid these ludicrous sums even when their plans fail....

 

Exactly, I'm absolutely STUNNED that the Coalition and their apologists are trying to rewrite history by putting the blame on the public sector growth, when we all know it was the PRIVATE SECTOR that caused the economic crash!! The crisis clearly showed it was over-reliance on the PRIVATE sector that was a bad thing.

 

No offence Phil, but you must be EXTREMELY arrogant if you think you're better-versed in economics than the Institute for Fiscal Studies, Robert Peston and David Blanchflower. One question: if we were talking three years ago, would you have honestly been able to predict the global banking sector would melt down? If you didn't, then you certainly aren't in a position to try and counter the opinions of those credible economists who DID, and who now funnily enough agree with the "lefties" as you call it.

the banking crisis exposed HUGE flaws in our banking system and capital reserves. There is a global review of this currently, including in the US today. This has far reaching consequences and will mean banks are unable to be so highly leveraged and exposed in their books. So we know this will be looked into and actioned on. But this wont solve our budget deficit or national debt im afraid. We have been spending beyond out means for over 6 years now! Labour spent on the hope that we would never hit a drop in demand while continuing to expand the public sector. If a rational person sits down as the Chancellor did and looks at their books they will look for areas where they are overpaying. Public sector benefits and pay is by far the biggest, it is huge, 17% higher than any counterpart in Europe and 6% higher than it was in 1998... How do you expect a budget deficit to be cut without cutting the one thing that is massively out of control? I show papers, articles/ documents and they are called biased; stats show unequivocally that like for like we have public sector spending 17% higher than the Euro Zone and yet still the Public Sector growth is not the problem (again reverting to focus on the private sector).

 

Also Economists always disagree and have differing opinions, that is because the choices are far reaching and complex. Even on interest rates the MPC often disagree, just because of this they are all inferior? The fact is that the public sector needs to be cut and cut deeply to fit in with the current economy.

I have stayed out of this debate so far, to see peoples comments, and no one can accuse me of being right of centre, because I am not. I have never voted tory in my life, an endangered species up here. But it is quite clear the left minded of the posters are quick to jump on anyone who dares says anything away from the left wing manifesto which is quite apparent. By all means argue the point, but no need to get personal. Its only a forum.

 

In answer to the question re the Budget deficit, how do you who are criticising the Government, propose what we should do to resolve not only the budget deficit but also the total borrowing. This is now running at over £900 billion and rising, by approx £140b this year, and by 2015 will be about £1.3 trillion, the interest will be a staggering £70b per year. This has to be paid regardless of income or expenditure. This is the interest on gilts, which have been issued to cover all the debt.

 

It has been stated these borrowings are not short term, like Greece, this may be true, but they will have to be paid in the near future. How on earth will we find the cash to pay any repayments? Look down the back of the sofa at Number 10 for some spare cash?

 

Do you suggest we should default? If we do then no one will lend another penny to UK plc. They will have to call in the bailiffs.

 

If you believe we can go on borrowing forever, with no limits you are seriously deluded. At some point we have to start repaying the debt. Even all these cuts don’t reduce the total debt by one penny, it is still increasing at an alarming rate.

 

So once again, what would you do, postpone cuts by 1 year? OK, then what.

 

It is easy to lambast those who can appreciate the huge problem, but you don’t come up with any alternatives to solve the problem. No use sticking your head in the sand, sticking pencils in your ears and going “wibble wibble”.

 

Now before you all jump on my throat, bear in mind Nu Labour were going to introduce, in their words “ cuts deeper than Thatcher”, so Alistair Darling knew we had to even if Broon failed to grasp it.

 

Am I happy with all the proposed cuts? No, not all them, but when your faced with a reduced income, you don’t go out and buy a new car, do you. Well that is what Labour were doing in the last few years. They were spending vast sums, even before the downturn in 2008, they had no idea how they were going to pay for it. I feel like Labour should have been re-elected, so they could fix the problem they created.

 

The banks do have a lot to answer for, they made a bad situation even worse. I have stated on many occasions that they should be paid no bonuses, again, until they have repaid every penny they got in the bailout. Plus I would levy the banks a “windfall tax” of sorts to claw back cash to hit them where it hurts.

 

Plus, not all the private sector is responsible for the financial mess, lots of companies up and down the Country have suffered greatly because of the banks stopping lending, forcing many to go bust. If a private company runs out of cash, it goes bust. Employees in many organisations have taken pay cuts and pay freezes, so that they can hold onto their jobs. They have no choice. They have accepted it, they don’t like it, but they understand the economics behind it.

 

The public sector have had a good run for their money in the last 10 years. I don’t object to doctors, nurses, police & fireman getting paid a decent salary, but the huge increase in the sheer numbers of people employed in back offices, doing non jobs (we have all had a go at them in the past), there are thousands and thousands of them up and down the Country, whereby if they lost their job it wouldn’t have any impact on front line services. We managed reasonably well before , with less, we will again, a slight increase in productivity will cover the staff reduction. Private companies manage it every day of the year.

 

Not all private employers are as big as Tesco, they cannot pay huge salaries, because they cannot increase their sales prices in a recession, because no one will buy their products, and the company will go bust. They either have to cut costs, or increase sales. No one will buy more of an item if you put up the price of it. Now that is pure economics.

 

 

On the subject of public service pensions, I read this article recently:

 

The average age at which Police officers retire – on a full, final-salary pension – is 49. In Tayside (where I live), the average retirement age is just 48. In the UK as a whole, it is 51. The figures do not include police officers that retire on health grounds, or because of injuries in the line of duty.

 

The average police officer will now live for 34 years after retirement, meaning they will spend longer drawing a police pension than they spent drawing a police salary. Tayside, and several other forces, already have more pensioners on their payroll than they have serving officers.

 

This is roughly similar across the UK. No system can survive people being able to draw pensions for longer than they worked.

 

The police, who do demanding jobs and pay quite high pension contributions, have traditionally been seen as a special case. But other public servants in rather less front line employment stop work surprisingly early, too. Foreign Office officials retire, on average, at 55. For bureaucrats of the Welsh Assembly Government, the retirement age is actually lower, at 50, than the average police officer.

 

The promise made to public-sector workers – a guaranteed pension, index-linked for life, based on two-thirds of whatever salary they might be earning on the day they retire – was drawn up at a time when most such workers lived only a few years after collecting the leaving card and the gold watch. That has changed dramatically. At the same time, the absolute number of public-sector workers has ballooned – and their pay, on which the pensions are based, has risen above inflation. The result is what the think-tank Policy Exchange calls "a second National Debt."

 

Last week's report by the newly-created Office of Budget Responsibility estimated that public sector pension costs would more than double, to £9.4 billion a year, by 2015 – with even steeper rises kicking in after 2015. But even this is, quite literally, only half the problem.

 

The vast majority of public sector pension schemes – including those for the police, civil servants, teachers and the armed forces – are "unfunded." This means that unlike in the private sector, the contributions paid by employees and employers have not been invested in, say, the stock market to produce returns that might pay for the pensions. No money at all has been set aside; the pensions are simply paid out of general taxation.

 

Even if the pension contributions had been invested, however, there would still – as the private sector has found – be a gap between the returns the stock market can raise and the amounts needed to pay "gold-plated" final-salary pensions to increasingly long-lived pensioners. The private sector has dealt with this problem by largely scrapping final-salary pensions. The public sector has dealt with it by providing a further, hidden subsidy from general taxation – at least another £10 billion a year.

"It is a huge subsidy to about 20 per cent of the working population at the expense of everyone else," says Neil Record, of Policy Exchange. Over the last few years, not only has the average private-sector worker seen his own future retirement income dramatically reduced, but he may well also be paying more – via his taxes – to the pensions of public-sector workers than he is paying towards his own pension.

 

In essence, the Treasury has been using contributions received for the next generation's pensions to pay the current generation of pensioners," says Mr Record. "That is exactly how a Ponzi scheme works. British public sector pensions are the biggest Ponzi scheme in the world. No other country's public pensions even come close.

 

We cannot have a two tier pension system, we have to have one for all, all for one system, where we all retire at the same age. Not 65+ for private sector and 60 or less for the public sector. Otherwise in the near future their will be a revolt, not by Unison calling strikes, but the private sector taxpayer waking up and smelling a rat.

 

The days of huge Government spending is dead for a very very long time.

 

I have stayed out of this debate so far, to see peoples comments, and no one can accuse me of being right of centre, because I am not. I have never voted tory in my life, an endangered species up here. But it is quite clear the left minded of the posters are quick to jump on anyone who dares says anything away from the left wing manifesto which is quite apparent. By all means argue the point, but no need to get personal. Its only a forum.

 

In answer to the question re the Budget deficit, how do you who are criticising the Government, propose what we should do to resolve not only the budget deficit but also the total borrowing. This is now running at over £900 billion and rising, by approx £140b this year, and by 2015 will be about £1.3 trillion, the interest will be a staggering £70b per year. This has to be paid regardless of income or expenditure. This is the interest on gilts, which have been issued to cover all the debt.

 

What do you think is going to happen if we don't cut the deficit? What exactly are you afraid will happen? Japan has had a HUGE budget deficit for about 20 years, and they still have the second biggest economy in the world. Otoh, Japan's economy contains another important lesson for us - whenever they tried to start cutting their deficit when economic growth was sluggish (like it is in the UK now), they always made the situation worse.

 

I'll ask you what I've asked Phil: do you expect Britain's export industry to undergo a miracle within the next 2-3 years? Because EVERYONE agrees that that will be needed if Osborne's plans are to work.

The police, who do demanding jobs and pay quite high pension contributions, have traditionally been seen as a special case. But other public servants in rather less front line employment stop work surprisingly early, too. Foreign Office officials retire, on average, at 55. For bureaucrats of the Welsh Assembly Government, the retirement age is actually lower, at 50, than the average police officer.

 

The promise made to public-sector workers – a guaranteed pension, index-linked for life, based on two-thirds of whatever salary they might be earning on the day they retire – was drawn up at a time when most such workers lived only a few years after collecting the leaving card and the gold watch. That has changed dramatically. At the same time, the absolute number of public-sector workers has ballooned – and their pay, on which the pensions are based, has risen above inflation. The result is what the think-tank Policy Exchange calls "a second National Debt."

 

Last week's report by the newly-created Office of Budget Responsibility estimated that public sector pension costs would more than double, to £9.4 billion a year, by 2015 – with even steeper rises kicking in after 2015. But even this is, quite literally, only half the problem.

 

The vast majority of public sector pension schemes – including those for the police, civil servants, teachers and the armed forces – are "unfunded." This means that unlike in the private sector, the contributions paid by employees and employers have not been invested in, say, the stock market to produce returns that might pay for the pensions. No money at all has been set aside; the pensions are simply paid out of general taxation.

 

Even if the pension contributions had been invested, however, there would still – as the private sector has found – be a gap between the returns the stock market can raise and the amounts needed to pay "gold-plated" final-salary pensions to increasingly long-lived pensioners. The private sector has dealt with this problem by largely scrapping final-salary pensions. The public sector has dealt with it by providing a further, hidden subsidy from general taxation – at least another £10 billion a year.

"It is a huge subsidy to about 20 per cent of the working population at the expense of everyone else," says Neil Record, of Policy Exchange. Over the last few years, not only has the average private-sector worker seen his own future retirement income dramatically reduced, but he may well also be paying more – via his taxes – to the pensions of public-sector workers than he is paying towards his own pension.

 

Well, you said it yourself, the Police and the other examples you use are special cases... The facts remain the average Public sector worker is not getting anything like a final salary pension, unless you think that 5k a year is an actual salary of course.....

 

Okay, fair enough if there is a problem with public sector pension schemes then make it a rule that workers have to pay more into them (maybe twice what people pay now) to receive the same benefit, seems perfectly reasonable to me, if the reasons are explained properly, or else stop them altogether, but this option can only be for new employees signing new contracts.. What you cant do is start messing around with the existing arrangements which people signed up for years ago in many cases, that's called bad faith; it would be a little bit like me signing up for mobile phone contract two years ago which stated "unlimited internet" and 600 minutes a month and then all of a sudden 02 turning round and saying to me "oh, sorry, we're gonna cap you at 1 gig a month now and 500 minutes a month", they CANT DO THAT, so neither should employers be allowed to... At least not without some sort of collective bargaining and actual employee consultation procedures, which happens in Germany, Japan and Scandinavia, but not here; here the bosses just dictate terms and treat employees appallingly, that simply has to stop....

 

There were other options Osborne could have taken - scrapping Trident, a proper "Robin Hood" Tax on the banks to get back the money they owe us within the next couple of years, bringing to an end the fukked-up wars in Afghanistan and Iraq NOW, never mind in bloody 2015, which is costing us billions every year... Frankly, I could fukkin' care less about Afghanistan, the people who are in power now are every bit as corrupt and nasty as the people we got rid of, so, err, the point of the exercise WAS exactly....? And Iraq is an illegal occupation anyway, so anymore public funds spent on it is a fukkin' travesty... The US did by far the most of the structural damage during "Shock and Awe", let them pay the compensation to the Iraqi people instead of stealing their oil so fat fukkin Americans can keep on running their SUVs down to the local shops.....

 

Nah, the decisions the Tories made are deliberate and politically motivated decisions.. Just as they destroyed the manufacturing industries, shipping, coal, etc to break the Unions, now they're destroying the Public sector to....err, break the Unions like Unison..... As Ben Elton said, "It's a little bit of politics..." as well as being economics.... Just watch when you see a new North/South divide happens when these cuts really start to bite Bri.....