Tories to slash public sector pay

9 April, 2010

The Tories would slash up to £2bn from the public sector payroll within a year as part of moves to bring the deficit under control, it has been revealed.

The reduction could see an estimated 20,000 to 40,000 jobs go over the next 12 months, according to experts.

Details of Conservative plans were disclosed by the party’s main adviser on efficiency, Sir Peter Gershon, in an interview with the Financial Times.

He was speaking as David Cameron pledged to crack down on “fat cats” in the public sector, insisting the highest earners would be forced to take cuts.

However, the information about where wider cuts will fall is sure to give fresh ammunition to Labour as the parties engage in bitter wrangling over tax and spending plans.

Gordon Brown is to use a speech this evening to step up his attack on Tory claims that £6bn of efficiency savings can fund reversing the bulk of planned tax increases.

Labour strategists believe that they can unpick the policy and win the argument on National Insurance, despite a slew of senior business figures coming out against the rises.

Mr Brown accused Mr Cameron and shadow chancellor George Osborne of doing their calculations “on the back of an envelope”.

In an article for the Guardian, Mr Cameron set out plans to ensure that no senior manager in the public sector can earn more than 20 times more than the lowest-paid person in their organisation.

The scheme could mean that up to 200 senior public sector executives would face pay cuts. They could include Ofcom chief executive Ed Richards, whose reported £392,056 salary is thought to be 22 times higher than the lowest full-time salary in his quango.

“We are already committed to pay transparency and accountability, but I think it is time to go further,” he wrote.

Readers' comments (17)

Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 1:38 pm
About blinking time!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 2:08 pm
Tories doing what Tories do, no surprise there! Just following their instincts as peddlars of inequality and 'me first!'
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 2:17 pm
Bring it on.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 2:25 pm
Course last time they were in it was hopelessly underfunded. Labour have sprayed money at it in the usual populist strategy without ensuring any increase in quality or productivity whilst the numbers of suit's wondering around the place has grown exponentially. Which one is worse? I find the idea of politicians claiming that only they can be trusted to 'save' the NHS in the 21st century utterly contemptable. Time to take 'party' politics out of nationalized healthcare I think.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 3:49 pm
Despite the cuts the Tories main aim is to decentralise the NHS and give the power back to the nurses and doctors, something labour have failed to do. It raises concern that under Labour government the amount of bureaucrats is increasing three times as fast as the amount of nurses! Is that really what the NHS needs? Despite Labour getting the waiting list's down and ensuring nurses are meeting the four hour target within the A & E departments have the government actually analysed the amount of re-admissions to the A&E department due to the quality of care recieved. To back up this point The Office of National Statistics have confirmed that since 1997 the productivity of the NHS has decreased by 2.5%. I agree with the Tory policy decentralise the NHS and give it back to the frontline staff!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 5:59 pm
I'm really not interested in Party Politics - I just want them to stay out of patient care and stop paying their cronies to tell us how to do our jobs.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 7:32 pm
its about time someone looks at the ridiculous amounts 'pen pushers' get paid! especially whilst staffing levels of hands on care is not enough.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 7:44 pm
Since labour have been in power there has been an INDIRECT cut in front line services. The cuts were initially made with agency staff and then low pay rates of bank positions continued. Further to this managers were under pressure to reduce the number of bank staff being booked. This meant that in some trusts nurses were forced to rotate to other acute/critical care areas on a daily basis to cover shortfalls and doubling of critical care patients became commonplace and acceptable.

During this period of time we have seen the number of management positions increased. There has also been no visible reduction in pay rates for 'fat cats' to allow for cut backs that front line nurses are complying with.

It is also important to note that IT IS NOT the policy of the the conservatives to cut front line investment. In fact the latter!! It is a shame that David Camerons voice for front line staff has been misinterpreted by frightened management. His policy is exactly the democracy we need in the NHS instead of front line staff taking cuts in pay in isolation.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 9-Apr-2010 9:25 pm
All I want, is to do my job in caring for people, to get a decent wage for doing so and the pension my years of service has earned me. Too many suits draining limited funding, not enough nurses in the front line. As long as its the suits that are paying for it then i agree bring it on. Perhaps then we will be able to effect change in service delivery for the betterment of our patients health rather than doting the I's and crossing the T's to make sure all the data for the suits to play with is in.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 10-Apr-2010 0:45 am
It is so very true that all most nurses want to do is their job that they had in the first place?? Far too many of us have become demoralised by the changes that have taken place in the last few years. I for one am tired of being 'educated' by middle management protecting their positions that 'the botch up' was inevitable??I think that the intelligence of nurses in the front line has been insulted enough.

The mistake was a very obvious one when the 'ingenious' idea to get nurses to do the job of two staff members where barely legal and excusable became an agenda. The idea to move them from pillar to post rather than book required bank staff..just ridiculous in the long-term. Oh? and then add a pay cut disguised as less than the rate of inflation-we wouldn't notice that would we??The result was quite what even a 'fast food' establishment would expect?? Higher sickness, staff working in other private areas for overtime and others walking out on the shop floor.

Then when the inevitable 'mess hit the fan' we were demoralised further..by investigations into sickness?? Even though it would be quite obvious even to a ten year old where the problem was??

I think most staff nurses are far to tired after a long day to even contemplate the amount of money these pen pushers are being paid to make such 'obvious' mistakes??

Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 10-Apr-2010 11:53 am
When they say public sector cuts why is it always the nurses. Teachers and police get paid so much more than us as soon as they qualify? They are never mentioned when it comes to pay cuts. I have to say nothing ever changes, and they still see nursing as a vocation and not a profession and the hard work it really is! Most nurses nowadays are graduates and most of us work hard for our pay, but it is not fair in comparison to other public sector members, never has been never will be, and I believe it happens because the majority of us are women and because they can. What can we do?
Unsuitable or offensive?
John Tallon | 11-Apr-2010 3:05 pm
Unlike all the previous commentators I'm not ashamed to put my name to my views.

There is a cycle in the management of the Health Service were sometimes the power is given to the medical staff to run the thing and sometimes to professional, trained, managers. Having been in the NHS 34 years I would say neither model is correct; we need an NHS were trained managers, clinical, clerical and support staff all have a say and a steak in management.

Some of the above contributors, though, are being incredibly naive if they think a Tory government is going to hand some power to nurses. Middle England has been fed an plethora of anti-nurse propaganda by their media friends over the last few years; aided by a nursing profession which carries too many sub-standard carers.

I don't want my pay cut - or my pension that I have worked hard for - to pay for the mistakes of bankers and politicians so there is only one way for NHS nurses to vote. Labour.
Unsuitable or offensive?
John Tallon | 11-Apr-2010 3:06 pm
OK. That should read 'stake'. ;)
Unsuitable or offensive?
P. Damien | 11-Apr-2010 10:43 pm
It doesn't really matter who is in power ...labour/tories.

They will both make cuts within the NHS.

They will both sell off..sorry i mean commission services.

They will both make a mess of it.

Neither are worth voting for.
Unsuitable or offensive?
Martin Gray | 12-Apr-2010 9:20 pm
All the political parties are going to have to make cuts in public spending, and it is not the clinical staff that are going to get 'chopped'; how can they when all the parties know there is already a shortage. Whose idea was it to re-train midwives as Health Visitors and get retired HVs to return to work???

Yes the management tiers need to be reduced, yes the salaries of high earners HAS to be capped - why is it people at the upper end get financial bonuses and perks when there results are poor? The same should apply to all high earners; a higher tax on bonuses and perks (including pensions) is one way of doing that.

As for your view John that we should all vote Labour; I don't believe for one nanosecond that they will be any better if they have the luck to get voted back into power for a 4th term (or is it 5th?? they seem to have been there forever!).

As long as the cuts in the NHS are at management level then that's more than fine by me P.Damied ;o)
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 18-Apr-2010 4:53 pm
if this happens it'll b a miracle!
Unsuitable or offensive?
Anonymous | 25-Apr-2010 2:54 pm
They all chelp on about doing the right thing, more of this and less of that. As if the excess of non-job's and as jjjez@hotmail.com has taught me today, sinecures in the NHS was the end of civilization. I think not. I want to see the measurement of the effects of public / private in the commissioning of services. Really then the argument would be finally won and the NHS would be wrestled from the village idiots in westminster telling us how 'they' can 'save' it. Again.

No one really care about how much management there exists - how to tell since most don't appear to accomplish anything that we are actually aware of; what we do care about is being effective and skilled in our occupation and it stands to reason that the only way for this to happen is to refuse to collude with this fabrication and become relevant. Handing back 'control' to clinicians of whatever description will a) not mean the slight bit of difference to how efficient the service runs - remember we've got sinecures and pensions to secure.

b) If the NHS 'worked' no-one would need to save us from disaster - politicians like to feel useful.
Unsuitable or offensive?