Hey, Brits

[SAUSAGEMAN]

Kill yourselves before your society collapses entirely, okay? You'll thank me later.

Cabinet ministers have been ordered by the Treasury to plan for unprecedented cuts of 40% in their departmental budgets as the coalition widens the scope of its four-year austerity drive.

The eye-watering demand from the chief secretary to the Treasury, Danny Alexander, was sent this weekend to cabinet colleagues ahead of a week in which ministers will step up emergency cost-cutting across the public sector.

The only departments not included in the Treasury trawl will be health and international development, which have been "ringfenced" for the current parliament. Education and defence will also escape lightly. Alexander has told the education secretary, Michael Gove, and the defence secretary, Liam Fox, to plan for two scenarios – cuts to budgets of 10% at best and 20% at worst over four years. All other departments – including the Home Office, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Department for Transport – have been ordered to produce plans showing the impact of cuts of 25%, and at worst 40%.

It is estimated that a 25% cut in the Home Office budget could mean a reduction in the number of police officers of almost 20,000.

In addition, all departments have been asked to show how they would slash day-to-day administration costs, excluding salaries, by 33% at the lower end and 50% at the higher end. A Treasury source said: "We are determined to tackle the record budget deficit in order to keep interest rates lower for longer, protect jobs and maintain the quality of essential public services. These planning assumptions are not final settlements, and do not commit the Treasury or departments to final settlements."

In the budget last month the chancellor, George Osborne, said that, with the exception of health and international development, departments faced average cuts of 25%. But it was expected the pain would be spread fairly evenly.

Alexander and Osborne briefed the full cabinet at a meeting last Tuesday. They stressed that asking ministers to look at the impact of 40% cuts did not mean they would be hit by such harsh settlements when final details were announced in the comprehensive spending review (CSR) on 20 October. Sources were at pains to point out that Labour had been planning cuts of 20% and that as a result the coalition's settlement would mean more for education, defence and health.

The announcement of a 40% outer limit could be seen as tactical – to prepare the public for the worst in the hope that when final details are announced they will come as less of a shock.

In a sign of how determined ministers are to act fast, the government is expected this week to halt the rebuilding of around 700 schools in order to save a further £1bn a year. And in a move that will cause bitterness among the Whitehall mandarins drawing up the cuts, ministers intend to announce plans soon to slash payoff terms for hundreds of thousands of civil servants, many of whom fear redundancy as a result of the austerity measures. Last week it emerged that at least 600,000 public service jobs could be lost.

The Observer understands that the Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude, wants to pass legislation to change the long-standing Civil Service Compensation Scheme, which he sees as too generous. In some cases civil servants can leave with a payoff of six times their salary, though insiders say these are rare exceptions. An attempt by the previous government to change the compensation scheme failed following a successful union challenge in the high court.

Sources told the Observer that an announcement – which could lead to union threats of strike action – had been pencilled in for last Thursday and is now expected this week or next. Representatives of the main civil service unions have been called to a meeting at the Cabinet Office tomorrow.

Mark Serwotka, general secretary of the Public and Commercial Services Union, reacted angrily when told that moves were imminent. "This would be an outrageous abuse by the government, simply because it failed to get the result it wanted in the high court. We are determined to resist any attempt by the government to ride roughshod over our members' rights."

Ministers were also warned last night that the number of people classed as homeless in Britain could more than double because of "unfair" benefit cuts. The National Housing Federation, the body representing England's 1,200 not-for-profit housing associations, predicts that impending cuts to housing benefit will put a further 200,000 people at grave risk of homelessness and lead to a concentration of social problems in the most deprived areas of the country. Currently 140,000 people are classified as homeless in Britain.

The new government has unveiled plans to cut housing benefit by 10% for people claiming jobseeker's allowance for 12 months or more from April 2013. The cuts would hit Britain's 200,000 single, childless claimants hardest. Someone in London with a weekly rent of £350 would see their benefit cut by £35. The NHF said tenants would be forced to make up the shortfall from their £65.45 weekly allowance, leaving just £30.45 for food, clothing and energy.

"Cutting housing benefit could have a catastrophic impact on the lives of thousands of people who – despite their best efforts – have failed to find work after 12 months," said the federation's chief executive, David Orr. "These changes mean that up to 200,000 people could end up homeless. Quite frankly, the proposals are disturbing and unfair."

Critics also say plans to cap payments to private tenants and to reduce the level at which housing benefit is paid from 50% of local rent levels to 30% could force hundreds of thousands of families out of their homes.

0 cuts to health and foreign aid.
10-20% cuts to Defence and Education (EDUCATION!)
25-40% cuts to everything else.
It's kinda hilarious how completely transparently terrible an idea this is.


(I am, however, genuinely worried about Gagh )

 

[FBI parte due]

VOTE ALVIN GREENE FOR US SENATE IN 2010

 

[Gagh]

Our department started these austerity measures long before any others. When IR merged with Customs in 2005, it left the new department with just over 97,500 employees & a massive budget demand. Today that number stands at around 60,000, if not less following 5 years of intensive cuts. Natural 'wastage' strips more jobs every year, and those posts simply aren't being filled.

I'm relatively confident that our department has lost so many people in 5 years, and that as it is already under straining point to cope with what it has, that further reductions of staff would not be beneficial in running the business. How can we reduce 59-60,000 employees by another 40% when it's already lost close to that percentage over the last 5 years, yet is doing more work at a clear & obvious loss of quality?

There are other things holding up job losses in our department. The Labour Government decided they would revise the terms of redundancy payments from three years wages to two years wages without consulting the Union first - this was overturned in high court last month. The new Government must now look long and hard at how that agreement made about 15 years ago can be revised legally.

It would currently cost the department more money to make X amount of people redundant than keeping them employed. We have already made savings toward the 25% in the last month by stopping advertising and the like - but then you would have know this, Joffré if you had actually researched this story instead of cutting and pasting it here with your usual weak jibe (i.e. "Kill yourselves" blah blah gloat gloat blah blah).

And how is this sign of society collapsing? There is no doubt that public sector spending has long been out of hand. The number of Quangos that spiralled out of all control under Labour still has yet to be addressed. No doubt the Conservatives will go about it in the usual headless way like they did in the 1980's - chop the jobs of those people working on the floor, and keep all the pointless Whitehall stiffs in place. The figure is much more likely to stay at 25% cuts - they're evidently asking for 40% because some departments are to be protected against such huge cuts, so it's obvious that other departments will need to make greater cuts to compensate. The article fails to mention the ring-fencing NHS and International Aid. Your incredulous "EDUCATION!" in response to the more protected 10-20% predicted cuts is also relatively unwarranted since Universities knew of this long before other departments, and if you'd read more than this shitty Guardian article, you'd have known that (note that no fewer than 3 hacks cobbled that together!).

Making people redundant is also not a fiscally viable solution when you're attempting national 'recovery' - most of these budget cuts will target other areas of expense first before going to the last resort of job losses - that is obvious despite what all these alarmist reports say.

 

[Fuddlemiff]

Ring-fencing the NHS seems quite short-sighted on the surface, but I believe Labour just completed something crazy like 15 billion (I'm fuzzy on this - could've been 15% or something, in any case it was big) of reductions as they left power, so it may be the case that there just wasn't much more pocket change to squeeze out of the system. I do think they should have at least tried, though, instead of just blindly promising to protect it as a PR move. As stretched as the NHS is, you're often hearing of huge wastage. The Cons already raised VAT when they said over and over that they'd avoid it, so they may as well backtrack on their promise of ring-fencing the NHS as well. The Lib Dems supported cuts in the NHS, so they could've just said they were following Nick's suggestion, but I guess Dave would've felt that was a compromise too far.