[Archived] Election

[thenodrog]

The ConDem govt revealed today that the cost of winding down Regional Development Agencies including paying off staff, decommissioning buildings and completing current projects etc etc will be £1 BILLION. The RDAs are to be replaced over the next few years by Local Enterprise Partnerships, another body that will do the same job of promoting regional development. The govt have also admitted they do not know how much money they will save by closing or merging the various quangos (if they will save any money at all), but throwing away £1 billion to replace one organisation with another that will perform the same function is an extraordinary waste of money at a time of supposed national austerity. RDAs were widely regarded as a sucess in helping the regions and this seems to me to be a case of change for the sake of change, and at a phenomenal cost.

Cut unecessary public spending and you moan ....

Increase unecessary public spending and you still moan!

Make your mind up.

[jim mk2]

BOARDROOM GREED MOCKS TORY CUTS FAIRNESS CLAIMS

As hundreds of thousands of public sector employees face redundancy and those that are left are forced to take wage cuts, research to be published tomorrow will show FTSE 100 directors saw their total earnings soar by an average of 55 PER CENT during the past year.

The findings from Incomes Data Services, the pay monitoring group, will show the average FTSE 100 chief executive took home £4.9m in total earnings in the year to June, according to IDS. That represented 88 times the average pay of all full-time workers – down slightly from a peak multiple of 94 in 2008, but sharply up on 10 years ago, when corporate chiefs earned just 47 times the average wage.

Basic salary grew by only 3.6 per cent for FTSE 100 chiefs last year, but their pay packages were boosted by a resurgence in bonus payments, the value of share option gains and their long-term incentive plans.

IDS warned that "the business as usual" approach of FTSE remuneration committees after such a short period of restraint, risked upsetting shareholders. Across the FTSE 350, total board pay went up by an average 45 per cent.

"It seems the days of earnings restraint by FTSE 350 directors were short-lived. It is as though the recession never happened," said Steve Tatton, editor of the IDS Directors' Pay Report. "It stands in stark contrast to the coalition government's concerns about pay fairness and calls for senior executives in the public sector to accept pay cuts."

Derek Simpson, joint general secretary of Unite, said that ordinary workers would be "angry" about the news given that they have suffered pay freezes, shorter hours or lost their jobs during recent months.

"It shows that David Cameron's phrase - 'we're all in it together' - is pretty shallow," he said. "It is grotesquely unfair that the directors are getting a 55 per cent increase when our members have only seen a rise of about 2 per cent this year."

Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said that directors were paying themselves "telephone number salaries" while the poor and middle-income families lost out from cuts and pay squeezes. "Don't they know this is meant to be austerity Britain?" he said. "It's time government and shareholders got together to identify how to address this wasteful spending and inefficiency in our biggest companies."

[BuckyRover]

The private sector recession was two years ago if you hadn't noticed. We are now starting to see signs of growth. It doesn't excuse these big salaries but the directors are accountable to the shareholders only.

Anyway, this is earnings until June so your ire on this matter should be directed at the previous Government (but you know that anyway)

As an aside, under Labour the maximum limit set on housing benefit was £2000 per week. I'm glad my tax money gets used so effectively.....

[jim mk2]

Another bad week for the embattled and increasingly disliked ConDem govt as the row over housing benefits escalates into a dispute between Cameron and Boris Johnson over the London mayor's "Kosovo cleansing" remarks.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/housing-and-planning/government-in-disarray-as-housing-benefit-row-continues

$21385198.htmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/borisjohnson/8094151/David-Cameron-scolds-Mayor-of-London-Boris-Johnson-over-Kosovo-comment.html

[tashor]

BOARDROOM GREED MOCKS TORY CUTS FAIRNESS CLAIMS

As hundreds of thousands of public sector employees face redundancy and those that are left are forced to take wage cuts, research to be published tomorrow will show FTSE 100 directors saw their total earnings soar by an average of 55 PER CENT during the past year.

The findings from Incomes Data Services, the pay monitoring group, will show the average FTSE 100 chief executive took home £4.9m in total earnings in the year to June, according to IDS. That represented 88 times the average pay of all full-time workers – down slightly from a peak multiple of 94 in 2008, but sharply up on 10 years ago, when corporate chiefs earned just 47 times the average wage.

Basic salary grew by only 3.6 per cent for FTSE 100 chiefs last year, but their pay packages were boosted by a resurgence in bonus payments, the value of share option gains and their long-term incentive plans.

IDS warned that "the business as usual" approach of FTSE remuneration committees after such a short period of restraint, risked upsetting shareholders. Across the FTSE 350, total board pay went up by an average 45 per cent.

"It seems the days of earnings restraint by FTSE 350 directors were short-lived. It is as though the recession never happened," said Steve Tatton, editor of the IDS Directors' Pay Report. "It stands in stark contrast to the coalition government's concerns about pay fairness and calls for senior executives in the public sector to accept pay cuts."

Derek Simpson, joint general secretary of Unite, said that ordinary workers would be "angry" about the news given that they have suffered pay freezes, shorter hours or lost their jobs during recent months.

"It shows that David Cameron's phrase - 'we're all in it together' - is pretty shallow," he said. "It is grotesquely unfair that the directors are getting a 55 per cent increase when our members have only seen a rise of about 2 per cent this year."

Brendan Barber, general secretary of the TUC, said that directors were paying themselves "telephone number salaries" while the poor and middle-income families lost out from cuts and pay squeezes. "Don't they know this is meant to be austerity Britain?" he said. "It's time government and shareholders got together to identify how to address this wasteful spending and inefficiency in our biggest companies."

Another bad week for the embattled and increasingly disliked ConDem govt as the row over housing benefits escalates into a dispute between Cameron and Boris Johnson over the London mayor's "Kosovo cleansing" remarks.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/housing-and-planning/government-in-disarray-as-housing-benefit-row-continues

$21385198.htmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/borisjohnson/8094151/David-Cameron-scolds-Mayor-of-London-Boris-Johnson-over-Kosovo-comment.html

[RibbleValleyRover]

Boris being a complete prat as usual. Better of just ignoring him, today was a good example of why.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Boris being a complete prat as usual. Better of just ignoring him, today was a good example of why.

Even a stopped clock is right twice a day.

[JAL]

Another bad week for the embattled and increasingly disliked ConDem govt as the row over housing benefits escalates into a dispute between Cameron and Boris Johnson over the London mayor's "Kosovo cleansing" remarks.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/housing-and-planning/government-in-disarray-as-housing-benefit-row-continues

$21385198.htmhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/borisjohnson/8094151/David-Cameron-scolds-Mayor-of-London-Boris-Johnson-over-Kosovo-comment.html

This is probably the first thing I've agreed with from the ConDem's, but then on second thoughts is it designed to kick the unfortunates out of wealthy areas in London.

[thenodrog]

This is probably the first thing I've agreed with from the ConDem's, but then on second thoughts is it designed to kick the unfortunates out of wealthy areas in London.

I think Boris has become somewhat detached from reallity.

This brings some perspective on the situation... especially the final paragraph where a comparision of worker bees and drones springs to mind.

The penultimate paragraph also gives lie to continual bleating about the low paid workers in the Health service, along with Jims long term conviction that sales reps with company cars are the scourge of mankind.

http://www.statistics.gov.uk/cci/nugget.asp?id=285

[jim mk2]

Iwith Jims long term conviction that sales reps with company cars are the scourge of mankind.

Typical of you to get your facts wrong. I have never mentioned sales reps. My complaint about company cars is they are an anachronism from the 1970s and a tax break that is unfair to the private motorist and is unaffordable with the need to repair the public finances owing to the stupidity and greed of the private sector that led to the 2007-9 worldwide recession.

More bad news for the ConDems and their ill-thought out economic policies as it was revealed today that job losses at private companies are likely to exceed those in the public sector following the government's spending cuts, according to research by the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development.

The institute's research suggests that job losses in the public sector will rise to 725,000, John Philpott, the CIPD's chief economic adviser, will tell the Treasury select committee on Tuesday. This is far higher than the 495,000 estimated by the Office for Budget Responsibility.

On top of this, the CIPD is forecasting that job losses in the private sector – which will also be hit hard by the rise in value added tax in January from 17.5 to 20 per cent – will total about 900,000. Employment will suffer as reduced demand for many goods and services hits company revenues and profits.

Up to 500,000 of the private-sector job losses will reflect spending cuts hitting companies dependent on government contracts or other employers within their supply chains, says the CIPD.

"The rest of the losses are in the form of reduced demand," said Mr Philpott.

The public sector pay freeze for workers earning £18,000 or more a year will mean cuts in real pay, while the increase in VAT will also reduce discretionary income as some basic goods and services will cost more, he added.

In all, the CIPD estimates that the private sector will need to create 1.6m extra jobs by 2015-16 to offset the full impact of the coalition's spending cuts and the rise in VAT.

This means that policies aimed at increasing economic growth need to boost net private-sector job creation overall by an average of 320,000 a year, simply to keep unemployment at its current level of about 2.5m.

Mr Philpott said the OBR's estimate of job losses in the public sector "itself looks like an under­estimate, given what most public-sector managers are telling the CIPD".

"My forecast is that we will get growth consider­ably below trend for a few years," added Mr Philpott. "Five years from now, we will probably be where we are today in unemployment."

[BuckyRover]

"My forecast is that we will get growth considerably below trend for a few years," added Mr Philpott. "Five years from now, we will probably be where we are today in unemployment."

Do you even read what you post? The net effect of all these job cuts is no increase in unemployment?

If that happens, it will have been successful because all those made unemployed by the cuts will have found jobs in the private sector.

Happy days

[ABBEY]

1/2 MILLION PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO FIND SIMILAR WORK FOR SIMILAR PAY.

[BuckyRover]

You get paid what you are worth.

[ABBEY]

oh

[jim mk2]

Do you even read what you post? The net effect of all these job cuts is no increase in unemployment?

If that happens, it will have been successful because all those made unemployed by the cuts will have found jobs in the private sector.

Happy days

The aim of most governments, even this hapless and woeful coalition government, is to increase employment for its citizens which is why the CIPD is lamenting that the coalition's policies are unlikely to see a reduction in the current unemployment figure of around 2.5m or nearly 8 per cent of the workforce.

Unemployment under Labour in 2006 before the worldwide recession was 1.4m so if you think 2.5m on the dole over the next five years is a happy state of affairs you are just as evil and heartless as the Tory backbenchers who cheered Osborne's CSR speech in which he condemned another 500,000 workers to the scrapheap.

But then I would not have expected anything less of a Tory voter.

[berkshireblue]

The aim of most governments, even this hapless and woeful coalition government, is to increase employment for its citizens which is why the CIPD is lamenting that the coalition's policies are unlikely to see a reduction in the current unemployment figure of around 2.5m or nearly 8 per cent of the workforce.

Unemployment under Labour in 2006 before the worldwide recession was 1.4m so if you think 2.5m on the dole over the next five years is a happy state of affairs you are just as evil and heartless as the Tory backbenchers who cheered Osborne's CSR speech in which he condemned another 500,000 workers to the scrapheap.

But then I would not have expected anything less of a Tory voter.

Jim

George Orwell once wrote in 1984 - ignorance is bliss - unfortunately you are a great example of this

Most of the cuts will actually come from private sector outsourcing and natural wastage within the Public Sector, meaning retirement and not filling leavers vacancies

The media love to hype a story and this is yet again a classic example

The public sector has waste oozing out of its eyeballs

The deficit left by your mates Gordo and Tony mean with these savings we will only just about pay off the interest payments

Every pound paid is curretly 25% interest on the debt

So your comment hapless govt is way off the mark, 2 parties together sorting out the legacy of the 3rd party

Its amazing how after a few months in the opposition the labour party are now experts at what should be done

They had their chance and blew it

Lets judge in a few years who was right, who was wrong, an oil tanker takes a few years to turn!

[jim mk2]

The media love to hype a story and this is yet again a classic example

Its amazing how after a few months in the opposition the labour party are now experts at what should be done

They had their chance and blew it

This is a report from the CIPD, not a "hyped" media story.

With regards to the deficit, it has been pointed out many times before but I'll repeat it again: the black hole in the public finances was not caused by Labour "spending" but the £850bn pumped in to rescue the banks and keep the economy going in the wake of the worst worldwide recession since the 1930s. Labour nursed the economy through the recession with policies backed by Cameron and Osborne when in opposition and Labour left office this year with the economy recovering and starting to grow again. The right-wing media and ConDem govt ministers love to pin the blame for the deficit on Labour "spending" but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through their rhetoric and lies.

[BuckyRover]

This is a report from the CIPD, not a "hyped" media story.

With regards to the deficit, it has been pointed out many times before but I'll repeat it again: the black hole in the public finances was not caused by Labour "spending" but the £850bn pumped in to rescue the banks and keep the economy going in the wake of the worst worldwide recession since the 1930s. Labour nursed the economy through the recession with policies backed by Cameron and Osborne when in opposition and Labour left office this year with the economy recovering and starting to grow again. The right-wing media and ConDem govt ministers love to pin the blame for the deficit on Labour "spending" but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through their rhetoric and lies.

Wrong. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. The deficit is structural. It is the difference between tax take and tax liability. When we sell the banks it will still be there, increasing the debt each and every day. The argument isn't cuts or no cuts. It's cuts now or cuts later (more severe due to the fact the debt interest will be even higher).

I know that you already know this, just making it clear for people who may be taken in by your spin.

[ABBEY]

and now we have just signed a treaty making us frances bitch with our defence,my grandads will be spinning!!!

and on top of that voting rights have been give to people in jail,there ya go mr sutcliffe put your moniker there alongside mr wests and mr brady's ,god it makes proud to belong here.

[thenodrog]

The aim of most governments, even this hapless and woeful coalition government, is to increase employment for its citizens which is why the CIPD is lamenting that the coalition's policies are unlikely to see a reduction in the current unemployment figure of around 2.5m or nearly 8 per cent of the workforce.

Unemployment under Labour in 2006 before the worldwide recession was 1.4m so if you think 2.5m on the dole over the next five years is a happy state of affairs you are just as evil and heartless as the Tory backbenchers who cheered Osborne's CSR speech in which he condemned another 500,000 workers to the scrapheap. But then I would not have expected anything less of a Tory voter.

Labour inherited a very strong economy in 97 which allowed them during their term in office to create approx 800,000 jobs out of thin air in the public sector. This largely validates your figures Jim. Well done. However when the economy is as devastated as the one that Labour left behind it cannot support those jobs. It's not difficult to understand when one doesn't attempt to add any silly and agenda'd spin to it is it?

Have you forgotten btw that Labour had pledged to make cuts that would halve the deficit in four years anyway? How tf do you think that was that going to happen then?

[Mattyblue]

This is a report from the CIPD, not a "hyped" media story.

With regards to the deficit, it has been pointed out many times before but I'll repeat it again: the black hole in the public finances was not caused by Labour "spending" but the £850bn pumped in to rescue the banks and keep the economy going in the wake of the worst worldwide recession since the 1930s. Labour nursed the economy through the recession with policies backed by Cameron and Osborne when in opposition and Labour left office this year with the economy recovering and starting to grow again. The right-wing media and ConDem govt ministers love to pin the blame for the deficit on Labour "spending" but anyone with an ounce of common sense can see through their rhetoric and lies.

But, as Brown in his hubris had declared he had conquered 'boom and bust' (makes me wince when I look back), Labour spent wildely regardless as he did not believe the economic cycle would turn.

Best chancellor we ever had? The most irresponsible more like, no wonder he has been too ashamed to return to Parliament.

[thenodrog]

and now we have just signed a treaty making us frances bitch with our defence,my grandads will be spinning!!!

and on top of that voting rights have been give to people in jail,there ya go mr sutcliffe put your moniker there alongside mr wests and mr brady's ,god it makes proud to belong here.

Two issues which I do agree with Abbey. France has been a treacherous and self centred neighbour for a thousand years. Leopards and spots. They are not to be trusted with the defence of our realm. Jim let me tell you... if I see David Cameron around you can be sure that I'll give it him large over that! If your old grandad is spinning think what Winnie will be doing down there.

As for prisoners voting... it's simple they shouldn't. they forgoe such 'luxuries' on the day they are sent down. To be honest I'd imagine that 99.9% of em don't even care, and I'd imagine at least 50% of em didn't bother to vote last time they had the chance. We must remember that 40% of the electorate can't be arsed anyway and I'd guess that most common scroats fir into that sector. Only someone terminally stupid could have dreamed this waste of time and money up in the first place. If it's a public servant then I hope he/she is first for the chop!

[Mattyblue]

Two issues which I do agree with Abbey. France has been a treacherous and self centred neighbour for a thousand years. Leopards and spots. They are not to be trusted with the defence of our realm. Jim let me tell you... if I see David Cameron around you can be sure that I'll give it him large over that!

As for prisoners voting... it's simple they shouldn't. they forgoe such 'luxuries' on the day they are sent down. To be honest I'd imagine that 99.9% of em don't even care, and I'd imagine at least 50% of em didn't bother to vote last time they had the chance. We must remember that 40% of the electorate can't be arsed anyway and I'd guess that most common scroats fir into that sector. Only someone terminally stupid could have dreamed this waste of time and money up in the first place. If it's a public servant then I hope he/she is first for the chop!

It is a Lib Dem policy, is it not?

[thenodrog]

It is a Lib Dem policy, is it not?

That certainly makes sense.

[jim mk2]

Wrong. Just because you keep repeating it doesn't make it true. The deficit is structural. It is the difference between tax take and tax liability. When we sell the banks it will still be there, increasing the debt each and every day. The argument isn't cuts or no cuts. It's cuts now or cuts later (more severe due to the fact the debt interest will be even higher).

Wrong again. The entire economic debate is a mass of spin and nowhere more than in the way Osborne has made the reduction in the structural deficit the core aim of government policy. In his Budget speech he said: 'Because the structural deficit is worse than we were told, my Budget today implies further reductions in departmental spending of £17bn by 2014-15.'

The structural deficit is an artificial concept. Its size depends on the assumptions that underpin it, the central one being the assumption about how much productive capacity in the economy will be permanently destroyed by recession. This is guesswork - guess high and the prediction goes up; guess low and it comes down.

Note the structural deficit bears no relation to the actual deficit. In fact the coalition inherited an economic situation that was better than predicted in Alistair Darling's last Budget - the actual deficit was lower and growth has been higher. But by focusing on the 'structural' deficit, the ConDems can ignore this good news and paint the picture as darkly as it wants.

Why? Because its main desire is to cut government spending driven by Tory ideology. The more alarming the structural deficit can be made to appear, the easier it is to justify the cuts.

This is not difficult to understand but apparently beyond your comprehension.