Ipswich Unemployed Action.

Campaigning for Unemployed Rights.

1,6 Million Jobs to Go in Shock Measures.

with 21 comments

The government’s spending cuts and the rise in VAT to 20% in January will result in more than 1.6 million job losses across the public and private sectors, research suggests.

The figure from the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (CIPD) is far higher than previous estimates.

It said the full impact of the government’s Spending Review had been “understated”.

The government has estimated around 500,000 public sector jobs will go.

The Treasury defended its spending cuts, saying: “The independent Office for Budget Responsibility has set out its forecast showing sustained economic growth in the years ahead, with employment rising and unemployment falling.”

Some business groups, including the CBI, have said that job creation in the private sector will be able to compensate for losses in the public sector.

However, the CIPD said that the private sector would be hit harder than the public sector.

An average of 320,000 private sector jobs a year would have to be created by 2015-16 just to keep unemployment steady at 2.5 million, it said.

“The full impact of the coalition government’s planned fiscal tightening has been understated,” said Dr John Philpott, chief economic adviser to the CIPD.

“The 490,000 public sector job losses cited in the Spending Review looks like an underestimate, given what most public sector managers are telling [us].”

He put the total number of jobs to be lost in the public sector between 2009-10 and 2015-16 at 725,000.

The number of jobs lost in the private sector due directly and indirectly from the cuts would be 650,000, with an additional 250,000 jobs to go due to the VAT increase, he estimated.

‘Tall order’

The CIPD said the private sector was “perfectly capable” of creating more than 300,000 jobs a year, but only if the economy grew faster than 2.5% on average a year.

This, it said, “looks like a tall order”.

Initial estimates show that the UK economy grew by 0.8% between July and September, and by 1.2% in the previous three months.

However, most economists expect growth to slow as a result of the spending cuts.

More from Here.

The Liebral-Tory Government has taken advantage of the Banking crises “shock” to impose a free-market plan. Selling off assets (from local government to forests), and slashing welfare are their first measures. They will  create a huge reserve army of unemployed which will drive down wages.  

With 1,6 million people losing their jobs the system will find it hard to cope. This  will have the effect of creating a near-Victorian underclass of the poor.

Anyone want to see the future?

Read Naomi Klein’s The Shock Doctrine.

Then watch Channel Four’s Street Kids – still available to see.


Written by Andrew Coates

November 2, 2010 at 9:50 am

21 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. On Street Kids, does anyone have any information on how the position is in Ipswich?

    I see obvious cases every day.

    Their numbers seem to increase every month.

    Andrew Coates

    November 3, 2010 at 9:52 am

  2. Dear Mr Coates,

    I have no numbers on this, but maybe a request could be made to the COUNTY COUNCIL social services department through the freedom of information act. I also have the number for the Social Services it is 0808 800 405 this is a Freephone number. I have also noticed that the Street Pastors are out and about by late afternoon in the Great Coleman St Old Foundry Road area. Maybe the resources centre on Old Foundry Road can help in this matter too.


    November 3, 2010 at 11:02 am

    • So sorry to hear that 🙂 I’ll be crying into my beer 🙂

      Old Lag

      November 3, 2010 at 6:14 pm

  3. One way of solving the housing crisis.

    Our old friend Freud is now arguing for a ‘new definition’ of homelessness.


    Andrew Coates

    November 4, 2010 at 11:37 am

    • Freud said it could be “quite valuable” to revise the current criteria in place, arguing: “We have found it very difficult to define homelessness in this country. The estimates [of homelessness] go from a few thousand to hundreds of thousands depending on who you are talking to.”

      In this day and age, you would expect something more than an “estimate”. Of course, like all Government statistics etc. there will be some people “under the radar” who aren’t included in the figures…. however, does he really believe that the issue is of so few (“a few thousand”) across the whole of the UK?

      I actually totally agree with what he has said. (Don’t pass judgement until you have finished reading)

      The plans regarding benefits and social housing etc. stick Councils in a difficult position. Most of these people will become AT RISK of becoming homeless and if they do not change the definition it will shift the responsibility and cost from the benefits directly to the Council. (Basically, a state has a responsibility to house people, but not one of which to give benefits as such)

      Therefore the difference between dealing with just the homeless (which is a f**king joke, let me tell you) and with millions (collectively throughout the UK) that could potentially be homeless … is one of sevenfold.

      I am rather shocked that they didn’t implement a change of definition PRIOR TO releasing details of such housing shake up.

      The truth is they overlooked this and some adviser had brought this to the attention of the Government (perhaps through reading correspondence from some organisation or member of the public).

      They have to end this “loop hole” ASAP to secure their ideas of an attack of the poor otherwise we would all get the last laugh.

      Work Programme

      November 4, 2010 at 11:55 am

  4. I only hope that ‘Freud’ can give us a TRUE meaning of homelessness and not some old waffle. If he says that those in hostels or B/B are housed then he is very sick indeed. We shall wait and see

    Mr Middlesex

    November 4, 2010 at 11:49 am

    • Probably on the lines of:

      “A person is homeless if he does not reside in a dwelling and has been sleeping on the streets rough for over a month”

      Thus, adding a limitation as of length (excluding very temporarily homelessness) and excluding homeless people who seek temporary accommodation (friends house, hostel, B&B etc.) to get off the street; probably so much so that a homeless person of say 3 months who is offered a nights shelter would become exempt from help for another month on the basis of such temporary shelter.

      It would also probably directly exclude homeless people who are NOT living “rough”: that to mean, people without a home or shelter but with access to facilities for a wash etc.

      Of course this is all speculation for purpose of discussion. I have no idea what such definition would be.

      I feel that it would have to be very precise with perhaps a length factor due to the increased likelihood with such changes that more people will become homeless and ever so more people will be AT RISK of being homeless – coupled with the fact that Councils are downsizing in regards to staff resources AND many looking to outsource functions.

      The third sector is likely to be picking up the bill and responsibility for these people the state refuses to acknowledge.

      Work Programme

      November 4, 2010 at 12:16 pm

      • “A person is homeless if he does not reside in a dwelling and has been sleeping on the streets rough for over a month” – but under the new guidelines such a person would not be defined as “homeless”: they would fall within the proposed 120 month “transitional period”.

        Adviser to Lord Freud

        November 4, 2010 at 12:58 pm

  5. Maybe a definition of homelessness ought to be given under the direction and legally binding terms of the Human Rights Convention and The United Nations Charter that states that all are entitled to shelter. But they would just weadle their way out of it. We will soon found out though when the cold weather is here and people freeze on the pavement. {But That Saves Money – ?}.

    Mr Middlesex

    November 4, 2010 at 12:22 pm

    • Not entirely true.

      United Nations … is ignored in Europe for our own ECHR nonsense that is based on it.

      No court in Europe will take it seriously. If the ECHR doesn’t interfere with the UN stuff then it probably be allowed.

      Work Programme

      November 4, 2010 at 1:49 pm

  6. Hi everyone

    We are receiving reports of strange lights being spotted in the skies above Ipswich. If you or anyone you know have seen these then please get in touch with the news desk asap


    The Reporters at The Evening Star

    The Evening Star
    Archant Suffolk
    Press House
    Lower Brook Street
    IP4 1AN
    Telephone: 01473 230023

    The Evening Star

    November 4, 2010 at 3:58 pm

  7. The welfare scroungers taking us all for a ride

    It’s disgusting. People using welfare as a lifestyle choice. We work hard and pay our taxes while they use benefits programmes to cheat the system and live in luxury accommodation. Parasites.

    The spongers I am talking about are the handful of firms getting rich running workfare programmes. These corporations have signed on the dole except they get millions instead of £91.40 a week and nobody says they must live in single rooms or move to cheap areas.

    Emma Harrison is boss of a company called A4e and lives in a manor on 100 acres of land she describes as a “mini Versailles.” Like the original Versailles it is funded by taxes squeezed out of us peasants. A4e was paid £150 million last year by the Department of Work and Pensions to run workfare schemes.

    New Labour started the large-scale handover of unemployed job finding and coaching services to corporations and it has changed the businesses as much as the government. A4e is one of the leaders and it knows how to talk the trendy talk. A4e stands for action for employment but sounds more modern in text-speak. It masks its old-fashioned money grabbing behind a cutting-edge use of upper and lower cases and a social-sounding name, but A4e is far from alone.

    Reed, a high-street employment agency, spawned Reed In Partnership, a company that lives entirely off the public sector.

    There are even benefit tourists, foreign firms so attracted by the money that they can squeeze out of our welfare system that they have set up shop here. One such company is Ingeus, which was founded by Therese Rein. Her husband is former Australian prime minister Kevin Rudd and now her firm works in Britain on workfare contracts.

    Labour put its best brains into building this new industry. It hired widely recognised financial whiz David Freud to examine unemployment.

    Freud’s qualifications included time as an investment banker at UBS Warburg, where he helped put together the sale of Railtrack. Labour thought that his involvement in the worst privatisation of the Tory years was a recommendation.

    His new report called for the complete privatisation of workfare, although he cheerfully admitted that he did so without evidence. “There is no conclusive evidence that the private sector outperforms the public sector on current programmes,” he wrote, adding that companies should recruit Jobcentre staff anyway.

    Even when Freud wrote his report in 2007 there was evidence. It pointed in exactly the opposite direction. The government’s 2006 research report on the Action Team For Jobs programme found that Jobcentres were almost twice as effective as workfare companies at getting the unemployed into work.

    Jobcentre staff were especially good at helping the more difficult groups – the long-term unemployed, older people and those suffering from illness. The private sector found it more cost effective to focus on younger people who were out of work for less time, including those not on benefits at all.

    Freud’s review was subtitled “reducing dependency,” but its publication led to more dependency. It made the workfare companies more dependent on state handouts.

    The Tories made Freud a minister and adopted his programme just in time for a new set of terrible results.

    It turns out the benefit-busting firms are also benefit cheats. They promise their proactive, no-nonsense private-sector attitude means they are better than the public Jobcentre staff at getting people off the dole. But a recent National Audit Office report shows this to be untrue.

    The report covers the Pathways to Work programme, which was launched in 2005 to get incapacity benefit claimants into work. It uses early medical assessments followed by training, coaching and so on.

    Contractors deliver 60 per cent of the Pathways programme. The auditors found that “contractors have universally failed by considerable margins to meet their contractual targets for helping claimants who are required to go through Pathways to Work. They have performed worse than Jobcentre Plus areas.”

    The contractors – A4e and Reed in Partnership – were paid £100m in 2008-9. They were doing so badly that they asked for another £24m in emergency funds. The auditors found the government’s unilateral concessions to the contractors on this emergency bailout was “questionable given the large size of some of the organisations involved.”

    These millionaire firms came with their begging bowls and the government filled them up. The auditors said this may “risk rewarding failure.” Next time you find it hard to live on your weekly giro ask for some emergency funds and see if you get a unilateral concession.

    The auditors found that Reed and A4e have achieved on average less than half what they promised in the contracts they signed with the department. A4e likes to boast about the “incredible journey” it has made. It is incredible, but we are the ones being taken for a ride.

    The workfare firms have found some people jobs. A4e’s slogan is “improving people’s lives.” One person whose life they have improved is former Labour minister David Blunkett who now earns £30,000 per year as an A4e consultant.

    Now he is a Tory minister Lord Freud has responded to what the auditors called the “universally poor” performance by workfare firms by completely privatising unemployment services. The Tories’ proposed work programme is 100 per cent contractor delivered.

    Freud is demanding that the companies fund the scheme and get paid in arrears out of benefit savings. He thinks he is squeezing the firms, but they are using this to squeeze him.

    First the workfare firms and their banking backers are being asked to invest capital. Capital always demands a cost and these companies are likely to demand investment costs of over 10 per cent. Second the banks are refusing to invest in workfare unless Freud softens the conditions. Workfare firms want to get some of the unemployed merely “job-ready” instead of actually into work.

    Because Freud does not have a public-sector option he is very vulnerable to a strike by the workfare firms.

    It looks like the next round of benefit-busting contracts are going to see a big increase in benefits paid to A4e, Reed, Vertex, Ingeus and the other corporations at the same time as the unemployed have their benefits cut.


    Crystal Balls

    November 4, 2010 at 6:56 pm

    • +1

      Work Programme

      November 4, 2010 at 9:58 pm

    • Thanks for posting this, ‘The welfare scroungers taking us all for a ride.’ (aka A4E etc)

      A truly excellent article.

      Andrew Coates

      November 5, 2010 at 12:35 pm

  8. I went to see one of these arseholes speak at the Policy Exchange event last week and he described compulsory work programmes for the unemployed as the “final solution” for worklessness. I e-mailed him afterwards to suggest that borrowing a phrase from the Nazis was extremely insensitive, to which he responded that it was a “shame” that governments weren’t free to be authoritarian because of the Nazi past.

    In other words, this is a man with quite dangerous ideas – he should certainly not be advising the Government

    Danni Sage

    November 4, 2010 at 11:36 pm

  9. I lay a curse upon the whole welfare-to work industry. May all that who work with the Devil suffer the most horrible of fates.

    Witch Doctor

    November 4, 2010 at 11:57 pm

  10. I should have been recalled to Reed in Partnership / A4E in May this year. Despite contacting the job centre and reed nearly every week and them contacting A4E. I still have not had my recall. I will be 1 year gtime expired on 13 December this year. Nobody seems to know anything or want to do anything. What do I do


    November 5, 2010 at 10:19 am

  11. These parasitic companies should be replaced by the big society.


    November 5, 2010 at 3:57 pm

  12. […] 1,6 Million Jobs to Go in Shock Measures. […]

  13. […] 1,6 Million Jobs to Go in Shock Measures. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: