Morning Line: Are we prepared for the job carnage to come?

For goodness sake stop adopting the use of 'lazy' tabloid language, ie 'job carnage etc,' in the headings for otherwise articulate and well researched articles.

#Anonymous 1.

Whilst I agree about normal Tabloid language.

What is wrong with Carnage in this context

will it not be a "Great slaughtere of jobs"?

Whilst a possible loss of 1.3 milion jobs over the next five years is obviously an extremely bad prospect for those affected and of great concern re the knock on affects in the wider economy, this 'throw away' use of language is clearly over the top and more appropriate to describe the levels of unemployment last seen during the Great Depression ie somewhere around 20 > 25%. At this rate there will no fitting superlatives left to describe the biggest catastophes in life in fact substitute English such as mega and awsome are already worn out through over use.

# Anonymous 1

Iknow not what your background or experience happens to be.

But you can be assured that it matters not to any person losing

their job, with no prospect of obtaining another, whether the percentage

is 5-10-20 ro more, it will feel to them like another overused word Devastation.

I don't doubt for one moment that anyone in those extremely grim circumstances will feel devastated and it would be very understandable if they described their feelings in that way. I did not make my point in any way to 'downplay' or show any lack of concern regarding the potentially serious impact on those affected. Quite the contrary as I was simply stating a view that well researched articles, making serious points, about such serious matters, merit an appropriately measured 'bullet point' otherwise they risk being devalued by association with this style of throw away 'tabloid' banner headline . I hope this has clarified why I made the observation - it was related to the importance of the subject matter and therefore the importance of it's style of presentation.

#Anonymous 1

I respectfully accept and understand the the points you have now made.

I would suggest however, that many who later may be faced with the possible reality of the situation, may well not look so kindly upon them.

Best wishes

I agree that we have to get the deficit down but the flip side is with total unemployment possibly reaching 3.5m in the next 2 yrs and the economic forecast of growth on the lower side , it seems that the recipe for cooking up a double dip depression is ripe.

George Osbourne has never called or figured out the way out correctly and it seems that this Govt will roll us back 10-15 years.

Will they suggest retirement age of 70-75 years!

" Some cuts were needed by any measure, certainly, but not on this scale.

To cut so much so quickly is a political act and a statement of absolute faith in Thatcherite, neo-classical economics ..."

Ahem, your left wing slip is showing again, Tony. Now just remind me what were your parties plans to tackle the deficit? Was Cameron correct that they involved 70,000 MORE public sector job losses?

The Tax Payers contribution to Public Sector Pensions is 20%+ and if labour costs are about 50% of spending, it means pensions are costing about 10% of Public Spending.

So if you eliminated pension contributions (I know you can't get away with it all) and assuming that you are getting retirements of about 3% of the work force per year and not replacing them, that gives you 25% over 5 years.

I say let the unions fight it out, there is a fixed kitty in pound notes, nom more - you decide, jobs or pensions!

References to the Great Depression are ill-informed The peak of 2,995,00 unemployed of Jan 1933 had fallen to 1,276,000 by the autumn of 1937, when 11 million in insured occupations surpassed the figure of

1929. Four million people had been absorbed or reabsorbed into industry, even in coal mining, unemployment had been cut from 40% to 18%. Agriculture flourished; the acreage under wheat rose by 44%, home-produced bacon doubled.

In the year 35-36, while local authorities built 52,000 houses, private builders produced 270,000, half paid for with money advanced by building societies to wage-earning owners, amongst them my father, who on a wage of about £150 a year bought for a little over £600 the house where I grew up; it now commands a price of around 180k. To keep the same ratio a single buyer today would need a salary of £45k

This was a time when many families had one wage-earner, for married women rarely worked outside the home - remember that female teachers, and probably women in other jobs were automatically sacked if they got married.

There were of course many areas where there was hardship and deprivation, just as there are now after 13 years of Labour government. The legend that Britain suffered appallingly under the Great Depression is a convenient quarter-truth mouthed by ill-informed politicians who worship at the shrine of JMK.