Wednesday, December 01, 2010
On Monday we were informed of the good news that
UK will lose fewer public sector jobs, says OBRWell isn't that nice. Mr Osborne thinks so, so do his LudDim allies, so obviously does the BBC & the Labour party have nothing specific to say against it apart from it not protecting enough jobs.
The OBR now expects a far smaller number of public sector workers to lose their jobs. The independent Office for Budget Responsibility (OBR) says public sector job losses will not be as high as previously thought.
The OBR now expects 330,000 public sector workers to lose their jobs over the next four years, far fewer than the 490,000 it forecast in its June report.
So how has this wonderful saving of the jobs of government workers been achieved?
The OBR said it had changed its public sector job forecast because the government had put more emphasis on benefit cuts and less on departmental spending cuts than it had expected at the time of its earlier forecastSo there we go. None of this "protecting the most vulnerable in society" which has become the latest buzz phrase. Not even any suggestion that of the 8 million workers of whom, as Martin Durkin pointed out only about 2 million do anything of importance, any large share of them should be dispensed with. A cut of 330,000 is less than 1% a year which, with 5% normal turnover, means no involuntary cuts.
All paid for by cutting benefits.
The whole point about a welfare state is that it provides welfare for those who need it. I don't doubt that much of it does little good, encouraging dependency culture, & that cuts can be made. But they should not be the only ones.
I have no doubt that we could clear the deficit without any welfare cuts, though I think some would still be worth it. Indeed if cuts were targeted on the most destructive parts of government (nuclear regulatory, housing planning, the H&S inspectors) that alone would get the economy growing at close to Asian levels.
Government jobs which have no effect should be cut before welfare. Worse than useless ones or regulatory ones - "But what are the benefits of regulation? The study found ‘no quality benefits’. We all know that government is costly, but a 75-country study found that regulations usually cost a country twenty times more than they cost the government". Yet neither the Conservatives & LDs, claiming to be in favour of market freedom, nor Labour, claiming to be protectors of the poor are anything less than happy to see the poor impoverished to protect government parasitism.
Could there be stronger proof that our "welfare state" is simply a con to provide cover for the parasites & that THE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT IS TO PAY GOVERNMENT WORKERS AND THEIR ALLIES. Parasitism in which all major parties are deeply involved whatever their ideological claims.