I really, really, really don’t want to go there but I have too. I had decided to withold judgement, not to make rash decisons but have changed my mind. I was determined to give them the chance I felt they deserved. I knew it wasn’t going to be easy. I knew there would be a few hiccups and we would all have to adapt to a new way of life and I was fully prepared to be hurt. I accepted, albeit reluctantly, that I was one of the ‘bad’ guys who had grown complacent, I was someone who had got used to having it too good for too long. Admittedly it has never felt like that. I have always tried to do my best, and yes I have got things wrong on occasions, but I have never felt special or privileged. I had no idea I was a spoilt parasite who has had it their own way for far too long. But you live and learn.
I should feel contrite and I should be prepared to hold my hands up and shout ‘Yes….I am to blame….punish me’ but I fucking don’t! I have come to the conclusion that Mr Cameron’s smooth bland face is a mask and it hides the ugly countenance of Mrs Thatcher. And Mr Clegg? What is point?
Let’s look at today’s news –
School buildings scheme scrapped - by Hannah Richardson BBC News education reporter
Some schools have been revamped, others entirely rebuilt. Hundreds of school building projects are being scrapped as England's national school redevelopment scheme is axed by the government. Education Secretary Michael Gove said 719 school revamps already signed up to the scheme would not now go ahead. A further 123 academy schemes are to be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. His department has been reviewing Labour's Building Schools for the Future scheme since the election. It concluded that all local authority schemes that have not reached financial close would not go ahead, saving "billions" of pounds. Michael Gove: "The whole way we build schools needs radical reform". This means 706 schools in the existing BSF programme which have reached financial close will continue, but officials will see how savings can be made within them. Another 14 projects in local authorities further down the BSF priority list would be considered to see if a small number of revamps could be brought forward. Mr Gove said: "The Building Schools for the Future scheme has been responsible for about one third of all this department's capital spending. "But throughout its life it has been characterised by massive overspends, tragic delays, botched construction projects and needless bureaucracy."
'Dysfunctional'
He called the scheme "dysfunctional" and "unnecessarily bureaucratic", with nine "meta stages". He added: "It is perhaps no surprise that it can take almost three years to negotiate the bureaucratic process of BSF before a single builder is engaged or brick is laid." Some 180 schools have been rebuilt or revamped since the programme was introduced by Labour in 2004. And building is about to start in 231 schools. But 1,100 schools have already signed up to the scheme, investing time, energy and money into drawing up plans for redevelopment, but have not reached financial close. Originally all of England's 3,500 schools were to be revamped by 2023. The plan was to replace out-dated buildings with facilities that suit modern education. But Mr Gove said the national building scheme had been beset by red-tape and delays. A review is being set up to see how capital funds can be used to rebuild schools more effectively. This is being led by the operations director of the Dixons Store Group Sebastian James and includes Professor John Hood, former vice-chancellor of Oxford University.
'Woefully run down'
Shadow education secretary Ed Balls said the decision was a "tragedy" for teachers and parents who would have benefited from new facilities. He said: "Today is a black day for our country's schools." He added that he and his Labour colleagues would fight to "save our new schools". Christine Blower, the general secretary of the National Union of Teachers, said there was "no excuse for leaving schools which were promised new buildings swinging in the wind". "Poor learning environments have a negative impact on the education of children and young people. "School buildings were woefully run down prior to Labour coming to power in 1997 and while much has been done to improve them there is still a lot more to do."
Who'd have thought I'd find myself agreeing with something Mr Balls said?
More skulduggery:
Government announces cap on civil service redundancy payments Unions threaten strike action over new bill capping payments for compulsory redundancy at 12months' rather than six years' pay
The government was today accused of "bully boy tactics" over plans to reduce civil service compulsory redundancy payouts from a maximum of six years to one year's pay under a tough and "non-negotiable" new compensation scheme published by the Cabinet Office minister, Francis Maude.
Maude provoked an outcry from unions by announcing that a bill would be introduced to limit the cost of future payments by capping all compulsory redundancy payouts at 12 months' pay and limiting amounts for voluntary severance to 15 months' salary.
Maude said the decision had been taken "with reluctance", but it had become necessary because of the economic climate.
Unions attacked the move as "unlawful and undeserved" and raised the threat of legal and industrial action which could herald a summer of discontent.
In a speech in London today, Maude said the plans were part of a much broader reform of government that would see a smaller, more "modern and flexible" civil service. He also confirmed that sick pay would be reformed and that more would be done to weed out under-performing Whitehall staff.
Prospect, which represents over 120,000 civil servants, pledged to fight the planned changes to redundancy payouts in the courts and the House of Commons.
Dai Hudd, the union's deputy general secretary, said: "Around 600,000 staff are affected, of whom tens of thousands potentially face redundancy through no fault of their own. The government wants to rip up their rights in a way that would do justice to King John, but it will not work. These rights are protected by law and bully boy tactics will not get round that fact."
The bill will also amend a 1972 law that dictated that changes in conditions could only be implemented with union approval to force it through.
Mark Serwotka, the leader of the PCS, said his union would use "every means at its disposal to fight back".
He said: "Francis Maude's announcement today betrays a breathtaking arrogance and a contempt for his own workforce. We will be exploring the legal implications of what the announcement says.
"This is not just about our members' rights at work, it is about their ability to serve the public.
"If this so-called fair and progressive coalition government get away with this, it would lay waste to communities across the UK where people rely on the services that our members and other public servants provide."
Jonathan Baume, the FDA general secretary, said: "The way forward is for the government and all of the unions to get round the table in meaningful negotiations, without setting preconditions, so that we can end the uncertainty created when civil servants are reading headlines about cuts in government spending of up to 40%".
In a letter to the unions, Maude indicated that he would not negotiate on the compulsory redundancy terms, but was prepared to negotiate a new scheme that had improved terms for voluntary redundancies in a bid to avoid sacking people. He also suggested that he would negotiate a deal that would protect the lowest paid.
He wrote: "Our system of a permanent, politically impartial civil service is one of the jewels in our constitution and it is rightly admired throughout the world for the way it serves the elected government of the day. Sadly the huge deficit we inherited means there is a real urgency now for change. It is for this reason, and in the light of the current deadlock, that we have had to reluctantly start this process.
"Had the PCS [Public and Commercial Services Union] shown the same willingness to negotiate as the other five civil service unions then today's action might not have been necessary."
The current redundancy scheme gives maximum payouts of three years' salary though in rare instances - thought to have affected a few hundred of the 520,000 work force in the past year - people can get six and two-thirds years' their salary. Redundancy payments for civil servants in the UK cost the nation £1.8bn over the past three years. Labour attempted to change the laws to cap most payments at two years, a move approved by five of the six unions. The PCS, however, challenged it in the high court, arguing that under the 1972 act it could not be imposed without their consent. They won that challenge and the Labour scheme was thrown out. The coalition government's proposals are dramatically more stringent than the previous government's scheme. Other unions are furious that the PCS scuppered their chances of the more lenient scheme.
A written ministerial statement to parliament said: "This [current] scheme is prohibitively expensive – in some cases worth up to six and two-thirds years of salary. We believe swift action to curb its excesses is essential. We take this step without relish.
Maude added: Our ambition now is that a negotiated, sustainable and practical long-term successor to the existing scheme can be agreed – one that is flexible and appropriate for current economic climate and also fair for lower paid workers."
Tessa Jowell, the shadow Cabinet Office minister, backed the case for reforms but said this needed to be done in a way that strikes a fair balance between protecting those faced with job losses and making a contribution towards tackling the deficit.
Budget 2010: Public-sector cuts a 'declaration of war', say unions George Osborne's plan for 25% cut in departmental spending 'will decimate our public services', says Unite's Dave Prentis
No matter what your opinions are on the existing redundancy packages available for civil servants there is no escaping the fact that the package is part of their terms and conditions and it cannot be fair to, when attempts have been made by the previous and present govenments to change those conditions and been deemed illegal, to then decide to change the law to get the result you want. This is the real face of Conservatism. And indeed New fucking Labour.
There's more:
The government was tonight set on a collision course with the public sector after union leaders accused George Osborne of issuing a "declaration of war" by ruling that public-sector spending should be reduced by £83bn by 2014.
The cuts will slash an average of 25% from all department budgets – save for the NHS and overseas aid, which the coalition has protected – and that average figure will only be reduced if more than the target of £11bn can be cut from the welfare bill.
All affected public services now face a nervous summer awaiting the outcome of the comprehensive spending review, on 20 October, which will dictate the precise cuts in each area. The chancellor indicated that schools and military spending would be the first to be protected after the NHS and aid but that means that higher and adult education, the police and prisons are now even more in the firing line.
Local government also faces the triple whammy of having to cut more after already having had several years of cuts, and they have also been told they should not increase council tax next year.
Dave Prentis, general secretary of Unison, said: "This is the most draconian budget in decades. This budget signals that the battle for Britain's public services has begun, with the government declaring war. Public-sector workers will be shocked and angry that they are the innocent victims of job cuts and pay freezes.
"A 25% cut in departmental public spending will decimate our public services. The budget will do nothing to restore confidence or kick-start the recovery, but will push local economies into the ground, raising the spectre of breadline Britain."
He said that for six million public-sector workers the pay freeze implemented by the chancellor would in fact feel like a cut once inflation, now running at 5.1%, and the rise in VAT was taken into account.
"Nurses, social workers, midwives, paramedics, police community support officers, housing and environmental officers who provide vital public services, are amongst those who will be hit hardest by the two-year pay freeze, and for local government workers this comes on top of this year's freeze," Prentis said.
The spending cuts will mean redundancies, which on top of the pay freeze and a review of public-sector pensions, are likely to lead to a new era of strikes and unrest in the public sector.
Some experts said that there was a lack of detail in the chancellor's speech to give the public sector any indication of the way they will be expected to make cuts.
Alan Downey, head of public sector at the accountants KPMG, said: "These are definitely the deepest cuts in modern history and certainly since the second world war. It's a different scale to the Thatcher cuts of the 1980s or the 1976 cuts. It is unprecedented and a very big deal. It was overwhelming; I can't remember a budget that had so many big and painful things in it. In that, it is a reflection of the times.
"One thing that was disappointing was that we didn't see more vision of how the cuts will be made. There was no mention of the 'Big Society' stuff that the Conservatives are so keen on. This could just mean depression and demoralisation for the public sector rather than a vision for eliminating the public-sector deficit. If local authorities could just spend only 40% of their budgets on overheads instead of 60%, that would cover most of the savings they need to make."
He said public services needed a strategy to avoid mass redundancies, which are costly to implement once compensation is taken into account. A freeze on hiring new staff and a retraining programme to redeploy existing staff was one way to avoid the worst union opposition as well mass redundancies, he suggested.
Some senior civil servants have called for a major reform of the way public services are organised, arguing that if cuts are applied to the current system its flaws will be exposed.
Lord Bichard, director of the Institute for Government, said today: "Those who run public services can do one of two things: carry on trying to run services as they do now and wait for the fallout from the budget, knowing that current flaws in their services will only become more obvious and more entrenched.
"Alternatively, ask serious questions about how a service is functioning and radically rethink its design. It will take imagination and innovation and it won't be pain-free, but doing it could help people get even better services than before and cut waste," he said.
However, the cuts were however welcomed by figures in the private sector as a way of avoiding further tax rises. Miles Templeman, director general of the Institute of Directors, said: "The economy needed faster and deeper deficit reduction and that's exactly what the chancellor has delivered.
"Equally important to the scale of deficit reduction is the way it is done. Here again the chancellor has chosen the right route, by concentrating overwhelmingly on closing the fiscal gap by lower spending instead of higher taxation."
The boys emailed me and my fellow public service workers and asked if we had any ideas that would help them save money. This was de ja vue moment as the organisation I work for asked us exactly the same thing before ignoring everything we suggested and went off and did what they wanted to do anyway. I am not going to play their games anymore. I always lose.
No comments:
Post a Comment