Morning:
9°c
It was, perhaps, disingenuous for the head of the Audit Commission, Steve Bundred, to say in an interview yesterday that freezing public-sector pay would be a "pain-free" way to cut public spending. The Chancellor, Alistair Darling, has conceded, however, that "public- sector pay obviously has to reflect prevailing conditions" and, in particular, low levels of inflation.
The burden of this recession has so far fallen overwhelmingly on the private sector.
People who are not in state or local government employment have borne the brunt of business closures, redundancies and pay cuts; those in the public sector have far greater job security, not to mention pension entitlements.
In return for their relative security of employment, it is reasonable to ask them to accept a pay freeze.
Indeed, given the sheer scale of the public-sector deficit, there may be no other option. As matters stand, it now looks as if we may have to pay increased national insurance to fund care in our old age.
There is no such thing as painless cost-saving - nor any way around spending cuts. The Tories are today launching an initiative to cut quangos, bureaucratic bodies which consume public funds out of all proportion to the benefits they offer.
But this would only save small sums, whereas a public-sector pay freeze could, according to Mr Bundred, save £5 billion a year.
It is childish for Dave Prentice, of the Unison union, to say that public-sector workers should not pay for a recession caused by "bankers and speculators". Many thousands of private-sector workers are redundant who had nothing to do with the credit crunch either.
Inevitably, unions will threaten strike action. For the Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, this raises the unpleasant prospect of what are probably his last months in office being spent dealing with disaffected police, teachers and nurses.
But for a man who as Chancellor increased so greatly the sheer size of the public-sector payroll, this may be poetic justice.
Another Met blunder
The latest revelations over the death of Ian Tomlinson at the G20 protests in April should be deeply embarrassing for the Metropolitan Police - and raise wider questions about its institutional culture.
Mr Tomlinson was pushed to the ground by officers at the demonstration shortly before collapsing and dying.
It has now emerged that the unnamed officer at the centre of the investigation had previously retired from the force and been banned from rejoining after reportedly facing disciplinary action following an off-duty road-rage incident.
Yet he subsequently joined Surrey police and then re-joined the Met, whose vetting processes failed to establish that it had allegedly banned him.
Just as bizarrely, it turns out that when the officer left the Met, he was allowed to retire on evidently spurious medical grounds for an old injury, picking up a substantial medical pension in the process.
It is hard to think of many jobs where someone accused of serious misconduct would be allowed to retire early in this way - and then have the circumstances of their departure ignored when they were subsequently re-hired.
Early retirement on grounds of ill health remains a real problem in the police.
Until Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson addresses these and other issues raised by the Tomlinson case, the Met will remain open to charges of being the last great unreformed public service.
Youth triumph
While lesser folk restricted their engagement in sport this weekend to watching Wimbledon on television, thousands of teenagers in London were participating in a remarkable range of sports at the London Youth Games.
These mini-Olympics culminated this weekend with a win for Havering but the remarkable aspect of the events is that 31,000 young people took part.
At a time when sport is regarded as something you watch rather than do, it is heartening that London's youth want to play, and win.
Reader views (3)
A pay freeze for those magnificent Bankers and a ban on bonuses might also be necessary. It wasn't Public Sector Employees who screwed up the economy with their excessive greed and most are in no position to retire happily having paid off their mortgages with one year's salary.
- Elmer Gatty, Hammersmith England
If Public Sector pay has to be cut, then it should fall at the top with those who earn over £35,000-00 Per Annum, not at the bottom. There are far too many Senior Managers in Local, Central and Quango-land who recive 'Money for Old Rope'. These are the people who should feel the 'Pain' first, not the bottom earners on average or below average salaires.
- Uncle Vanya, East Anglia Area UK
I speak as a recently retired front line public service worker who never earned more than £20,000 gross a year. Not a vast sum.
So pray tell me readers, how little do you think I should have had to live on?.
But remember this for the future. When the emergancy service does not tirn up, when the council services you use no longer oopperates, when the school class is so large children learn nothing, when people die in hospital, and it's all because front line public service wages are so small that nobody wants to do the jobs. Feel free to blame your selves.
- Gerry, Chatham KENT UK
