“Completely agree about "use it or lose it", always seemed an excuse for public sector organisations to waste money on fripperies at the end of the year. And as far as my comments about consultants etc are concerned, I was being ironic and just trying to demonstrate that using statements like "non-jobs" can be stereotypical and not at all helpful.........obviously hit a raw nerve on that one though!”

“@GuySM: You have a point on the 'use it or lose it' matter I agree. I never did get that one.

Surely if it is unspent then it can be piled into new projects or saved for a departmental emergency? Hey-ho.”

“@purleymag

The difference between a private sector job and a public sector one is that in the private sector every job uses up resource and has to be justified as necessary to generate revenue and profit.

The public sector is under no such control and just eats it's way through more and more tax revenue. In fact I know for example that local council budgets and some in the NHS are under a "use it or lose it" mandate i.e. there is no reward for being under budget as you are simply penalised the next financial year.

Probably why there are so few "diversity officers" and their like in the private sector.

Every public sect job is dependent on the trust of the taxpayer that the money is being spent wisely. Hundreds of thousands of public sector jobs that are not needed will go and rightly so. I would rather my tax stays in my pocket, not wasted on non-jobs.

By the way, the fact you don't understand the value of consultants says a lot.”

“Aaah, the good old non-job debate. When is a job not a job? I think we could look at any sector and point out non-jobs. So just to balance things up, what does a management consultant produce for example? Apart from rather large invoices for giving a bit of advice some of which is common sense, the rest bulls**t? And what do merchant bankers do apart from sitting at a 'phone and a screen, drinking lots of coffee and gambling other peoples' money (badly in some cases)? And how about receptionists? Surely all they do is sit around and file their nails all day? And how about MPs who never communicate with their constituents until the next election (and not even then because they're so complacent)? Aren't stereoptypes of the sort that The Daily Mail and others peddle wonderful things?”

“@GuySM: I think you'll find many people will get fed up with high unemployment, and will grow to accept that you have to spend a little to earn a little.

The perpetual motion machine does exist. Well, kinda. This govt could not create jobs for all 3 million unemployed. But, as Labour happily proved, it can get numbers down to a more acceptable level.

As for this Private Sector dream the right wing insist on selling I think you'll find it hasn't happened so far simply because the Private Sector is waiting for the next free ride to come along.

Hence why The State is the only one left able to do something. Like training people up so they can apply for better jobs etc etc. Or even create their own jobs.

When Labour left power there was growth. When the Torys cut the Public Sector projects, the colleges, and the affordable housing projects, they crushed that growth. We've had pretty much zero recovery since. Even Italy is beating us on growth at present.

I get the distinct impression the left is right on this one. And this is why I back them. That and their more humane approach to a number of subjects.

As for your 'low tax creates high effect' state desire? It's a Holy Grail. No-one has found it yet. And I very much doubt they will.”

“@Chris Wilcox

I don't accept your "math".

There is no way the average person on benefits is getting the equivalent of near £20,000 pa (the total cost of employment for someone on around £15,000 pa)

Allowing for £60 per week unemployment benefit that means each person is on over £300 per week housing benefit. That's £1,300 per month per person, not including the fact many will be in shared properties.

THe perpetual motion machine does not exist and neither does the notion that it is as cheap to provide low level jobs for all as it is to pay benefit. Further not all out of work will want to work for £15,000 pa. To many that is way way below their previous income rates.

And what jobs would you have all these people do exactly? Mop them all up in public sector non jobs? Pushing meaningless bits of paper about or sweeping streets?

You cant drop non trained people into teach in schools...we ahve bad enough teachers and schools in places anyway. Carrying bags for old people???? £15,000 pa to carry bags?

The public expenditure is too large, end of discussion. We can not run with a deficit and national debt the likes that we have and it has to be culled back. The public sector is too big, too inefficient and needs reducing.

I like many others am not prepared to pay the level of taxation you would need for your socialist dreams, so you are stuck with either the private sector grow real jobs or some people stay unemployed.”

“@GuySM:

So once again you're ignoring the real figures and just getting abusive. Is there any point in even talking to you? It's all you seem to know how to do. You ignore the math every time. I'm guessing you refuse to believe that The Unemployed claim Housing Benefit ( or Local Housing Allowance ) and Council Tax benefit when unemployed.

Where do you think they actually live? Or do you want them thrown out on the street? Or do you want The Poor killed?

You've said in the past you're fed up with paying for The NHS and the like so...

Quite frankly you sound like an utter psychopath.


@nicecityboy:

I agree that non-jobs are pointless. But when you have Schools in need of repair, classes too big to allow effective teaching, OAP's too old to be able to carry their shopping home, and the like there are also plenty of places where jobs can be created if this Govt simply chose to spend a bit more money on the Public Sector. Rather than leaving big chunks of the populace to rot and then having to shell out a fortune on welfare ( and eventually retraining as their skills have gone off or are out of date ).”

“@Chris Wilcox

There is a lot in it.

The cost of a bit of paper work and some low paid Job Centre staff spread across a few thousand claimants is minimal. Further, the systems and staff have to be there anyway, so keeping people in non jobs in the public sector is a waste of money.

But if you really are equating £60 per week benefits with a £14,000 per annum salary then it's no wonder some sit on their ****s all day long in benefit families.

In the end though, I don't want to pay jhigher taxes to employ council "diversity officers" etc. I'd sooner keep my taxes down than help finance non jobs.

You need to keep up to date, that the private sector is sick to death with the legions of poorly educated and trained numpties shoved in public sector non jobs around the country. I'm happy to see those jobs getting culled back.”

“GuySM also forgets that those employed in public sector jobs not only don't claim free handouts (benefits), they also pay a % of their salary back through income taxes.

Still I agree the public sector has become too inflated and many were/are being paid to do pointless, uneccessary jobs.”

“Ok, now factor in the cost of administering the unemployed. All those staff and offices you need. Your JSA paperwork, training courses, the discount bus-pass you get.

As I have said there is not much in it.

Speaking personally I'd rather the Govt borrow to employ than borrow just to administer a massive pile of unemployed people. At least then CV's & skills will be kept alive.

Or do you think the Tory 'pro-active' employment agencies they've rolled out ( new, so a new biil to add to existing JobCentre 'employment costs' ) are all volunteers using their own equipment ( so a free service for the tax payer )? You'll find they're not.

Yeah, you need to read up more mate. Managing the unemployed is a VERY expensive business for The State.”