Ease the cost of living crisis by making more people unemployed ?

bumptious
Great description AGAA4!

If there are to be redundancies - as opposed to contracts ending - then if there are suitable alternative jobs available within the CS they have to be considered as part of the redundancy process.

JRM such a bumptious man. He really cares about people?

I just wish that when Rees-Mogg makes his daily anti-Work from home comments there could be a little fact checking type box out underneath letting people know that he has a vested personal financial interest in it dispute to the commercial and office space investments in his personal family trust fund.

DiamondLily

Unemployment has a ripple effect.

It means less tax and NI coming into the Treasury.

More paid out in benefits,

Problems with housing with mortgage/rent unaffordability.

Less spent in local communities.

Possible family breakdown and mental health issues.

Not good. .

It seems oddly incompatible with Johnson's fantasy of 'growing our way' out of this crisis...

I am not an expert on the Civil Service, or the management of Equity Funds.

I have run (alongside DH) a successful SME which is now in it’s 42nd year.

*ShropshireLass^ I do hope you make money out of your expertise in investing it would be a shame to waste it, I certainly would if I had the time and your knowledge.

Either 91,000 people have been made redundant or there are plans to streamline the workforce, possibly to that tune.

I don't think you read my last post, GSM. Apart from announcing cuts to the civil service there is no plan.

Not even any justification for the cuts apart from the extreme tory 'small state' beliefs and the anecdotes of random people on internet forums.

Just checked on civil service jobs websitee. There are 2280 job adverts. However many of these job adverts will be for multiple posts, for example one of these 2280 job adverts was for 30 posts. Do Rees-Mogg and Boris know what they are doing?

Unemployment has a ripple effect.

It means less tax and NI coming into the Treasury.

More paid out in benefits,

Problems with housing with mortgage/rent unaffordability.

Less spent in local communities.

Possible family breakdown and mental health issues.

Not good. .

If 90,000 jobs are axed at an average cost of £38k each (with on costs) and 90,000 new jobs don't appear somewhere in the economy, those people will become unemployed. Some of them will be able to claim benefits, which will cost the (mythical) taxpayer. The logical outcome will be that some people will be paid (admittedly a pitiful amount) to be not economically active, at the same time there's work to be done in the DWP, Passport Office and elsewhere. Some of that work will be outsourced to private companies, which will cost more. It's nuts!

I think you should stick to the day job.

Germanshepherdsmum

*Zonne*, my son and daughter in law had covid a couple of weeks ago, not mildly either, but both worked from home throughout. No change in delivery of service to clients.

Yes but a) they wouldn’t have been able to if they were in an office (more bonus points for WFH), and b) I am glad they had it mildly. My young fit daughter in law was confined to bed for ten days, she was so ill.

Which proves nothing more than the plural of anecdote is not data.

The other 90% would be in a mix of UK equities, global equities, government bonds, company bonds.
Also property doesn’t have to just be office property. It could be invested in companies that provide big box storage for online shopping, or companies that provide student housing, or companies that provide residential housing apartment blocks in France and Germany.

Either 91,000 people have been made redundant or there are plans to streamline the workforce, possibly to that tune. Which? At least it’s a reasonable assumption that the CEO of P&O Ferries won’t be involved in the process. A large number who were employed on temporary contracts have left or will be doing so over the coming months as their contracts expire.

MissA, you have clearly come across people like my erstwhile colleagues who nobody recognises.

ShropshireMiss

No one should be investing more than say 10% maximum in commercial/office property otherwise they aren’t running a diversified portfolio.

I assume you’re not a professional fund manager. Where does the other 90% go?

In reality I expect a lot of this 91,000 will come from natural wastage as people retire or move jobs. There do seem to be a lot of experienced people of executive officer grade due for retirement over the next few years, so they probably just won’t be replaced when they retire. So if you are dependant on help from the DWP you better be expecting longer delays in the future.

The staff numbers in front line services were run down from 2010 to 2016 as part of the austerity drive after the 2008 crash. The civil service recruitment since 2016 hasn’t been in front line services, it’s been in preparing for Brexit doing the things the EU previously did. So expect waiting times etc to get longer with 91,000 jobs going.

MaizieD

Germanshepherdsmum

If 91,000 people have been made redundant then there were 91,000 people who had become surplus to requirements. Why should the taxpayer have to fund the salaries, pensions and other incidental costs of people who have become surplus to requirements? You wouldn’t expect stakeholders in the private sector to do that.

Oh, GSM. Just keep drinking the Kool Aid.

Do you seriously think that any sort of proper analysis has gone into this Boris Johnson soundbite?

Oh look. I'm right. No 'plan'.

From a comment yesterday on Richard Murphy's blog site:

As an HMRC employee, this is what our Departmental Head put out today:

“Colleagues

You may have seen media reports this morning about the government’s decision to reduce the size of the Civil Service over the next 3 years. I am sorry that you have learned this from the media rather than from me or Civil Service leaders.

The Cabinet Secretary and Head of the Civil Service, Simon Case, wrote to all Permanent Secretaries yesterday saying that the Prime Minister has asked for a plan to return Civil Service workforce numbers to 2016 levels over the next 3 years. This means reducing the current workforce by around 91,000 over that timeframe, from across all departments and arm’s length bodies.

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2022/05/13/the-government-might-be-paying-up-to-40-billion-a-year-in-unearned-money-to-banks-very-soon-and-will-cut-jobs-and-benefits-to-pay-for-it/

What we need is a GE as soon as possible.

All parties can lay put their wares in their manifestos and the electorate can decide with their X

No one should be investing more than say 10% maximum in commercial/office property otherwise they aren’t running a diversified portfolio.

I wasn't aware that any of these departments ever answered the phone immediately and dealt with issues promptly before the pandemic.

MaizieD I am aware of Government Bonds, the point I was trying to get over, somewhat clumsily is that many folks with an occupational pension have no choice where the money is invested.

There are some caring employers who do their own research and invest accordingly, whereas others just outsource to Independent Advisors who look for the best at the tine of opening the plan. I think this was the case several years ago when employers were compelled to offer all employees the chance of joining a pension scheme.

My understanding is that the 91,000 figure was picked out of thin air. They took the current number of civil servants, then took the number of civil servants employed at some point around 2015 or 2916, and subtracted one from the other to produce 91,000. No research or analyse has gone into it, snd Boris has said he isn’t telling departments how to make the cuts, he wants the departments to come to him. Civil Service numbers had been run down between 2010 to 2015 as part of the Lib Con government’s ‘austerity’ drive (remember that?) after the 2008 crash.

I’m sure you’re well aware of the legal hoops that have to be jumped through before declaring someone redundant growstuff.