1.3 million jobs to go

The Budget’s unpublished small print is hugely significant.

By James Macintyre Published 30 June 2010 12:04

The Guardian has got hold of leaked Treasury figures showing that about 1.3 million jobs are to be lost across the British economy as a result of George Osborne's "austerity Budget".

From the paper's report:

Unpublished estimates of the impact of the biggest squeeze on public spending since the Second World War show that the government is expecting between 500,000 and 600,000 jobs to go in the public sector and between 600,000 and 700,000 to disappear in the private sector by 2015.

The Chancellor gave no hint last week about the likely effect of his emergency measures on the labour market, although he would have had access to the forecasts, traditionally prepared for ministers and senior civil servants in the days leading up to a Budget or pre-Budget report.

I understand from a source at the Treasury that a document drawn up in that department showing the real winners and losers from the Budget has been doing the rounds for the past week among roughly 100 civil servants, some of whom are privately alarmed. As well they might be. Job losses on that scale would be a huge setback for the process to recovery.

No wonder Osborne kept it quiet.

More from James Macintyre

7 comments

Wed, 2010-06-30 12:28 — Lou (not verified)

I'm interested to see how this is handled in PMQs because the treaury is remaining very quiet about this leak at the moment. The Chartered Insitute agrees with these leaked figures, they concur with their own findings, and says there will be job shorfalls for a considerable period of time as well as the unemployed figures remaining high for a considerable period of time. Jobs will be lost, growth will slow down or stop and the recession will last longer.
No wonder he kept it quiet indeed.

Wed, 2010-06-30 12:31 — David Hough (not verified)

What gets me is that these figures were omitted in this supposed age of 'transparency.' If the figures they are talking about regarding job creation are true, then they should have had no problem at least including them in the Red Book. This government is a disgrace already, and all Liberal Democrats (barring Bob Russell and Mike Hancock, who at least voted against the VAT hike), should hang their heads in shame.

Wed, 2010-06-30 12:42 — alan (not verified)

I suppose we should have suspected something like this once people had the time to go over the red book as the days wore on more and indeed seemingly bigger holes are being found in the figures i would love to hear the coalitions reasoning for these numbers of people who will be hit hard.

And to see the likes of Danny Alexander sitting in a studio on the politics show still defending this sham as a "fair" budget was frankly sickening within weeks this government has taken us back to a time i thought i'd never see again they should be ashamed.

Wed, 2010-06-30 12:50 — bobigb (not verified)

osborne is a dangerous amateur

I wouldn't leave him in charge of a raffle he is so dense

We all know of the tories cruel ideology...but clegg has put the lib dems out of any sort of political power forever

I do not believe the condems will last very long anyway....civil disobedience will see to that thank God

Wed, 2010-06-30 14:23 — Peace pod (not verified)

I bet these responses are vetted.

Fri, 2010-07-02 09:57 — Nick (not verified)

Don't get me wrong, I'm no Coalition fan but Ian Duncan Smith actually talked quite a bit of sense on last night's QT. He was, so it seemed, genuinely passionate on Prison reform and appeared to understand some of the wider social issues connected with youth offending and drug abuse. He openly admitted the prospect of 1.3 million unemployed was the reality but fudged how the contradictory 2+ million newly employed would be created. It's a shame that this coalition hasn't talked more with Labour about what's already been achieved. It was refreshing to see a Tory and Labour politician putting up intelligent debate and having a mutual respect for what was being said.

Mind you. I still don't get the new coalition 'tough on welfare, soft on crime' thing; that's not compatible with any form of social justice.