A government, probably a long time ago, promised very generous redundancy terms, which, on the face of it, are several times as good as most people (other than the most highly paid - such as the bankers who contributed to the present mess) could get. Presumably it was a good thing (in the short term) to cede in negotiations, knowing that it was unlikely to become a problem any time soon.
Now, another government reckons it needs to make some people redundant, presumably because it is not possible to extract enough tax* to keep paying them all. It can't do so in such a way that reduces the financial mess unless it changes the amound of redundancy pay given.
Which government is doing wrong? Are the both wrong, just one, or neither?
*By my calculation, to nearly balance the income and expenditure would need every individual (all 60 million) in the UK, not just every worker, to pay an average of £2,500 per year extra tax per year. I think that it would be impossible to extract that much extra tax. Even then the national debt would continue to grow slowly (assuming that no other economic factors changed - which they surely would).
As it is, with believable cuts and tax increases, S&P still calculate that the national debt will reach 100% of GDP in 4 to 5 years, and still be growing.
It is a widely-established constitutional principle that no Parliament can bind its successors. So if the redundancy package was set out in primary legislation by Parliament as mentioned further up the thread, then it was implicitly subject to amendment or repeal by any future Parliament.
Under that circumstances, I'd say the naughty government was the one that agreed to the original terms, unless of course their negotiators explained this point to the unions at the time (mind, you'd think Civil Servants ought to be aware of the issue)
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
(no subject)
Now, another government reckons it needs to make some people redundant, presumably because it is not possible to extract enough tax* to keep paying them all. It can't do so in such a way that reduces the financial mess unless it changes the amound of redundancy pay given.
Which government is doing wrong? Are the both wrong, just one, or neither?
*By my calculation, to nearly balance the income and expenditure would need every individual (all 60 million) in the UK, not just every worker, to pay an average of £2,500 per year extra tax per year. I think that it would be impossible to extract that much extra tax. Even then the national debt would continue to grow slowly (assuming that no other economic factors changed - which they surely would).
As it is, with believable cuts and tax increases, S&P still calculate that the national debt will reach 100% of GDP in 4 to 5 years, and still be growing.
(no subject)
Under that circumstances, I'd say the naughty government was the one that agreed to the original terms, unless of course their negotiators explained this point to the unions at the time (mind, you'd think Civil Servants ought to be aware of the issue)