Nearly half of adults in Britain dependent on the state
Discussion
Labour only needs 36-40% of the vote to stay in power.
We have seen a dramatic expansion of the 'payroll' vote.
We have seen a dramatic expansion of the 'payroll' vote.
name said:
Labour's bulging client state now employs 44pc of people
By Brendan Carlin and Toby Helm
(Filed: 23/02/2006)
Nearly one in two adults in Britain is now receiving at least half their income from the State, a study of Britain's burgeoning public sector shows today.
Forty four per cent of people now work directly or indirectly for the public sector or depend on state benefits for much of their livelihood, according to figures obtained by The Spectator.
The results prompted the Conservatives to warn that Labour's huge expansion of the public sector could undermine economic prosperity.
In a speech today, George Osborne, the shadow chancellor, will warn that Labour's prescription of "an ever-rising tax burden, and an ever-growing welfare" state is the "path to decline".
Stepping up his attack on Gordon Brown's economic record, he will use a speech in Dublin to say Britain should imitate Ireland's low-tax economy and benefit reforms to boost competitiveness.
The state-dependency research, based on 2005 official figures and broken down by parliamentary constituencies, showed that more than 60 per cent of people work for or live off the State in some of Britain's poorer areas.
The highest was the Labour-held constituency of Cynon Valley in South Wales where 70.8 per cent of local adults were heavily dependent on the public sector in one way or another.
The lowest is Conservative-held Horsham in West Sussex where the proportion was 35.8 per cent.
Of the 10 constituencies with the highest level of state dependency, scattered across Wales, the North-West and the West Midlands, nine were Labour and one Plaid Cymru.
Of the 10 lowest, all in the South-East, eight have Tory MPs and two are Labour.
The Spectator research, based on data from the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) as well as the Office for National Statistics (ONS), indicates that Labour has increased the overall public sector payroll by 784,000 since 1997.
Roughly one in four of people in work, or 6.8 million, in Britain now works for the State in one form or another, reports the magazine, which is published today.
The size of the so-called "client state" created by New Labour will invite suggestions that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have deliberately built up the public sector to boost the number of people who vote Labour.
It may also fuel concern that the wealth-creating, private sector of the economy is being neglected.
John Redwood, the Tory MP leading the party's review of economic competitiveness, raised fears of a repetition of Labour's economic mismanagement of the 1970s. "We are not there yet but that's the direction we are heading in," he said.
He warned that the scale of public sector spending could cause "serious damage" to Britain's economy and competitiveness.
He denied that the Tories under David Cameron were backing off from tax cuts for fear of upsetting an over-mighty public sector electorate. "You cannot assume that just because some people derive their income from the public sector that they vote Labour."
Mr Redwood, whose Wokingham constituency at 38 per cent has one of the lowest state-dependency proportions, added that many such workers "would have well paid jobs under a Conservative government".
But he warned that nurses, teachers and similar jobs only accounted for one quarter of public spending. "We need to look at the other three-quarters and see what we are getting for that."
Des Browne, the Treasury Chief Secretary, voiced no alarm at the extent of state dependency.
He said that it was "frankly laughable" to accuse Labour of politically engineering a bloated public sector. "We make no apology for recruiting tens of thousands more nurses, doctors, teachers, teaching assistants and police officers. Compared to the Tory years, we have sharply cut the number of new claimants on incapacity benefit.
"We are now trying successfully to get thousands of long-term claimants off benefit and back into work," he added.
The Treasury Chief Secretary dismissed fears that the public sector was dragging the economy down, saying that two-thirds of the two million jobs created since 1997 were in the private sector.
brendan.carlin@telegraph.co.uk
Interesting and alarming article Jaglover.
" Compared to the Tory years, we have sharply cut the number of new claimants on incapacity benefit.
"We are now trying successfully to get thousands of long-term claimants off benefit and back into work," he added.
I applaud taking people off benefits and getting them into jobs, BUT surely creating state funded jobs just another (more expensive) way of handing out benefits?
" Compared to the Tory years, we have sharply cut the number of new claimants on incapacity benefit.
"We are now trying successfully to get thousands of long-term claimants off benefit and back into work," he added.
I applaud taking people off benefits and getting them into jobs, BUT surely creating state funded jobs just another (more expensive) way of handing out benefits?
Dino D said:
Interesting and alarming article Jaglover.
" Compared to the Tory years, we have sharply cut the number of new claimants on incapacity benefit.
I thought about remarking on that, it was classic Labour Spin
. The numbers on incapacity benefit have gone up by roughly 200,000 since 1997. It might well be true that the numbers of NEW claimants has gone down howevertimmy30 said:
The irony is that just as Europe and even Russia are modernising and adopting freemarket economics the UK is hurtling into a DDRstyle socialist state economy.
sorry had to correct that statement.... no-one can be unemployed in a socialist state as it goes against their very propaganda, therefore fill jobs with 3 people when 1/2 a peep can do the full job....or make another level of useless time-wasting burocracy to "employ" some useless twunts.... FFS time we had a revolution!!!!!!
article said:
The Treasury Chief Secretary dismissed fears that the public sector was dragging the economy down, saying that two-thirds of the two million jobs created since 1997 were in the private sector.
So, 650,000 new public sector jobs, many of them fairly low paid, but at least it's better then the dolw queue.
And 1,350,000 more private sector jobs since 1997, a strong record IMO.
So Gordon and Tony have got 2 million people off the dole, which was costing the taxpayer an awful lot of money under the tories.
What are you right whingers on about this time?
Jaglover said:
Interesting and alarming article Jaglover.
" Compared to the Tory years, we have sharply cut the number of new claimants on incapacity benefit.
I thought about remarking on that, it was classic Labour Spin
How many people went onto incapacity benefit under the tories between 1982 and 1991 Jaglover? About ten times as many? More?
timmy30 said:
The irony is that just as Europe and even Russia are modernising and adopting freemarket economics the UK is hurtling into a Scnadinavian style socialist state economy.
That is the ironic thing. Many European countries, such as Germany, are starting to realise the damage that high state spending and regulation is doing to their economies and they are reforming. Meanwhile we are headed in the other direction. Perhaps it is the fate of every generation in the UK for Labour to ruin the economy before the Tories have to put everything back together again.
tallbloke said:
Interesting and alarming article Jaglover.
" Compared to the Tory years, we have sharply cut the number of new claimants on incapacity benefit.
I thought about remarking on that, it was classic Labour Spin
How many people went onto incapacity benefit under the tories between 1982 and 1991 Jaglover? About ten times as many? More?
True; but the spin is in implying that the numbers are going down when they are going up.
Thoroughly depressing stats! It's a shoddy result of both this Government's and previous Governments' ability to manage thr Civil Service. My neighbour is very senior in the Civil Service and he has told me stuff that could make your teeth curl.
In summary, if this country were a business I'd slash its overheads and turn these people into fee-earners! Currently it's an absolute disgrace!
In summary, if this country were a business I'd slash its overheads and turn these people into fee-earners! Currently it's an absolute disgrace!
i mean, where does all the money go?
the tax take is huge, it certainly doesn't go on transportation or infrastructure. that would be investing! it must be going somewhere? into a blackhole i think called state spending.
the previous labour lot, who remembers them, callaghan & healey, propped up a failing ecconomy that came to a sticky end during 1979. brown is in the same mould, despite what he says. spend more than you earn boy and it will end in tears. except as an MP & minister you retire from parliament with a good pension, except we just have to pay for it.
the tax take is huge, it certainly doesn't go on transportation or infrastructure. that would be investing! it must be going somewhere? into a blackhole i think called state spending.
the previous labour lot, who remembers them, callaghan & healey, propped up a failing ecconomy that came to a sticky end during 1979. brown is in the same mould, despite what he says. spend more than you earn boy and it will end in tears. except as an MP & minister you retire from parliament with a good pension, except we just have to pay for it.
tallbloke said:
The Treasury Chief Secretary dismissed fears that the public sector was dragging the economy down, saying that two-thirds of the two million jobs created since 1997 were in the private sector.
So, 650,000 new public sector jobs, many of them fairly low paid, but at least it's better then the dolw queue.
And 1,350,000 more private sector jobs since 1997, a strong record IMO.
So Gordon and Tony have got 2 million people off the dole, which was costing the taxpayer an awful lot of money under the tories.
What are you right whingers on about this time?
Yes, but they've got them off the dole by giving them all £40k + jobs (e.g. five-a day co-ordinators) which are completely unnecessary and serve only to:
A) Guarantee their votes
B) Screw up the economy
Have a good look through the job pages in the Guardian and ask yourself how many are really necessary...
Have a look around here:
http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/browse/gov
>> Edited by Mon Ami Mate on Thursday 23 February 10:41
tallbloke said:
So, 650,000 new public sector jobs, many of them fairly low paid, but at least it's better then the dolw queue.
Try 784,000, most well paid.
But that is not the biggest factor for the rise in state dependency. That is the result of 'tax credits' (in actual fact benefits) paid to those in work.
tallbloke said:
So, 650,000 new public sector jobs, many of them fairly low paid, but at least it's better then the dolw queue.
no its not. i'd much rather have a scrounger costing £10k per year than a worker on a trumped up job costing the state £30k per year. basics maths £10k is less than £30k.
tallbloke said:
And 1,350,000 more private sector jobs since 1997, a strong record IMO.
So Gordon and Tony have got 2 million people off the dole, which was costing the taxpayer an awful lot of money under the tories.
Employment statistics:
yr total
1993 2919.2
1994 2636.5
1995 2325.6
1996 2122.2
1997 1602.4 2200 0 1600 0
1998 1362.3 1900 00 1300 100 1400
1999 1263.0 1800 100 1400 200 1500
2000 1102.3 1700 200 1300 300 1400
2001 983.0 1600 300 1300 400 1400
2002 958.8 1600 400 1400 500 1500
2003 945.9 1600 500 1400 600 1500
2004 866.1 1500 600 1500 700 1600
2005 874.4 1500 700 1600 800 1700
This is an interesting graph, as it shows a decline from a high in 1993 of 2.9m people on unemployment benefit, through the 874,000 by 2005. The problem is that the graph flattened out in 2001. This year the rate has actually gone up to 950,000. The graph is just not getting better after 2001.
If you now add in the 650,000 govt jobs then the figures actually don't look very good at all. obviously i've added in 650k from 1997 in column 3, i'll add in a smoothed off increase into columns 4 & 5.
If i took a smooth line increase of civil servants over the 7 year period (say 100k extra per annum) then the graph tells a much different story.
What it shows is that there has been no real increase in proper employment since Labout got to power.
editted to take JLs 780k rather than 650k (columns 6&7)
>> Edited by tinman0 on Thursday 23 February 11:31
Mon Ami Mate said:
Have a good look through the job pages in the Guardian and ask yourself how many are really necessary...
http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/browse/gov
The thing that brasses me off is that the jobs are mostly darn sarf. Presumably because NooLabrador want to garner more votes in the sarfeast.
tinman0 said:
So, 650,000 new public sector jobs, many of them fairly low paid, but at least it's better then the dolw queue.
no its not. i'd much rather have a scrounger costing £10k per year than a worker on a trumped up job costing the state £30k per year. basics maths £10k is less than £30k.
But the people on 30k jobs are spending money in the economy which has helped create twice the number of private sector jobs. It has reflated the economy from the bad times under the tories but without the boom and bust bullshit they used to perpetrate. And inflation has stayed low. No mean feat. That Gordon Brown is a feckin genius I tell you.
tallbloke said:
The Treasury Chief Secretary dismissed fears that the public sector was dragging the economy down, saying that two-thirds of the two million jobs created since 1997 were in the private sector.
So, 650,000 new public sector jobs, many of them fairly low paid, but at least it's better then the dolw queue.
I'd rather pay someone a small amount on the dole - which incentivises them to get wealth-creating work ,
than pay them £50k from the treasury to do something totally useless -..........
which then locks them in as a Labour voter as they are dependent on the Labour Bureacratic Edifice for their "Wealth destroying " job and private sector funded gold plated pension scheme .............which I pay for
tallbloke said:
But the people on 30k jobs are spending money in the economy which has helped create twice the number of private sector jobs. It has reflated the economy from the bad times under the tories but without the boom and bust bullshit they used to perpetrate. And inflation has stayed low. No mean feat. That Gordon Brown is a feckin genius I tell you.
Why doesn't the Govt just employ us all and be done with it then? I must grab some economy stats from the Soviet Union because by your definition they must of been really wealthy. Everyone was employed by the govt, so they all spent money in the economy, must of been some sort of utopia.
There is a much better way to keep £30k in the economy - its to have a lower tax rate so the Govt doesn't collect it in the first place, and then waste it on another useless bod.
Equals the same thing - the same £30k stays in the economy, but you don't have the added wastage of yet another faceless civil servant whose job entails ensuring that "toilet bowls are no longer white as it might cause offence".
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff