economic situation is dire

[Awol]

Over 110,00 public sector civil servant have lost their jobs in the last 3 months

Well, that's a start :winkold:

[tonyh29]

by far the biggest wasters of time are some of the larger companies

companies like IBM paying people to browse Villatalk ? :winkold:

I suppose the 15% increase in energy prices from EDF announced today link will just be dealt with by shrugging shoulders and all being thankful we have a job

personally I blame it on the bloke who sold it to the French ** cough Gordon cough **

[drat01]

companies like IBM paying people to browse Villatalk ? Wink

oops own goal for you - holiday afternoon !

personally I blame it on the bloke who sold it to the French ** cough Gordon cough **

Privatisation of public bodies, Hmmm now what was her name again?

[snowychap]

How depressing to hear! No wonder the UK economy is in such a mess when bluechip companies as well as the public sector employ suich numpties.

Perhaps it has more to do with the size of the organizations than those whom they employ.

Surely the difference is the time wasted is on their own dollar rather than that from the tax payers?

I think the point is that inefficiencies, wastage, poor processes and so on exist in both the public and private sectors.

[tonyh29]

oops own goal for you - holiday afternoon !

yet more large company wastage ... The empire was built when you only got a day off if you died , no wonder this country has gone to the dogs ....

[drat01]

oops own goal for you - holiday afternoon !

yet more large company wastage ... The empire was built when you only got a day off if you died , no wonder this country has gone to the dogs ....

actual smiley moment, well done for that :-)

Now to do some work (in my holiday time note), made mental note of all on VT ........

[Awol]

Well yes. What large companies choose to spend [waste] their money on is up to them. They have to answer to their shareholders.

And who "funds" large companies? - the man in the street also. The ridiculous idea that the public only fund public sector is head shaking. Company costs increases and who pays for those? The man in the street.

What an incredibly warped view of reality that is.

Public services are paid for from general taxation which if you work and live in the UK you have no choice but to contribute to. If people choose to purchase good and services from the private sector that is up to them so the key there is choice.

If a business isn't efficient enough it will eventually go down, the public sector can be as inefficient as it likes and until recently the consequences were negligible at best.

However this was sent to me ages ago by a friend with 30 years experience in both the public and private sector (BAE) describing the working culture he is familiar with in both environments:

Official Project Stages:

• Uncritical Acceptance

• Wild Enthusiasm

• Dejected Disillusionment

• Total Confusion

• Search for the Guilty

• Punishment of the Innocent

• Promotion of the Non-participants

Maybe we need to look at bit more closely at the culture of management training in UK.

[drat01]

What an incredibly warped view of reality that is.

Warped? (normal AWOL pleasantries I see)

You say there is a choice, what the hell are you talking about? (yes I will set the tone at your level). Do you honestly believe that inefficiencies and the costs are not passed on to the man in the street? Obviously you don't because you as much say so in your last bit. So in other words you call my views warped and then agree with them!

I have to laugh at the last line, it's as though this is a UK thing only. I must have imagined all of those meetings I have had world wide over the years, maybe I am Bobby Ewing

[Awol]

What an incredibly warped view of reality that is.

Warped? (normal AWOL pleasantries I see)

I do apologise old boy, I wasn't aware that "warped" was an offensive word? How about "simplistic view", is that also massively offensive?

You say there is a choice, what the hell are you talking about? (yes I will set the tone at your level). Do you honestly believe that inefficiencies and the costs are not passed on to the man in the street?

This isn't complicated, tax is not optional, purchase of goods and services are made at the discretion of the buyer. See the difference there? It's called choice - i.e. the public are not compelled to fund a particular business, they are compelled to fund public services, regardless of the efficiency level delivered.

Obviously you don't because you as much say so in your last bit. So in other words you call my views warped and then agree with them!

Er, no. I do think UK management standards across the board are below those of many other countries, your warped view relates to my response above regarding the funding of public services (non discretionary) and an indivduals choice to purchase goods or services from the private sector (discretionary).

I must have imagined all of those meetings I have had world wide over the years, maybe I am Bobby Ewing

You're not the only person who has worked internationally so there is no need to lay on the worldly wiseness quite so heavily.

[drat01]

I do apologise old boy, I wasn't aware that "warped" was an offensive word? How about "simplistic view", is that also massively offensive?

Jon, it's the tone (and I don't mean that Southern Tory mega boy who spends all his working time on holiday and VT - :-) )

This isn't complicated, tax is not optional, purchase of goods and services are made at the discretion of the buyer. See the difference there? It's called choice - i.e. the public are not compelled to fund a particular business, they are compelled to fund public services, regardless of the efficiency level delivered.

Well Tax is optional for some as we discussed previously, it does depend on how much you earn :-) . The reality of the situation is that Public and Private sector have inefficiencies. In the private sector these are passed down to the company consumer as running costs are factored into prices. You make out as though there will always be a choice for the most efficient, when again reality is that there is not. Market rates are set and as you freely admit there are efficiency savings that can be employed in all areas of employment. To try and single out the Public Sector as Julie and a couple of others did is wrong on so many counts

Er, no. I do think UK management standards across the board are below those of many other countries, your warped view relates to my response above regarding the funding of public services (non discretionary) and an indivduals choice to purchase goods or services from the private sector (discretionary).

Again the tone of the post, warped? because I don't agree with your ultra right wing views (again we can all play that game) I am warped? Your views are not reflected in reality of the market place. Companies pass on costs to the consumers, its part of the whole cost thing, it's a real simple process. Inefficiencies in private sectors like fuel and power will be passed on to manufacturers and suppliers who will then pass these down to teh man in the street. That is not warped that is reality. They don't just drop down into some magic pot

You're not the only person who has worked internationally so there is no need to lay on the worldly wiseness quite so heavily.

Who said I was? So obviously because I bring my real life experiences to an argument, your response is one of typical rudeness and dismissiveness and abuse because it does not fit your views? How tolerant.

[Risso]

Abuse? Dear oh dear Drat, do behave.

[Awol]

because I don't agree with your ultra right wing views (again we can all play that game) I am warped?

So obviously because I bring my real life experiences to an argument, your response is one of typical rudeness and dismissiveness and abuse because it does not fit your views?

Really?

[snowychap]

If a business isn't efficient enough it will eventually go down

So we keep being told as some sort of explanation of why waste and innefficiency apparently don't occur in the private sector.

Unfortunately, what you say doesn't appear to hold water as there are many reasons why companies go under and many reasons why some pretty inefficient ones (and ones with some very inefficient practices) stay around.

the public sector can be as inefficient as it likes and until recently the consequences were negligible at best.

Unless you are putting the size of the budget deficit largely down to inefficiencies in the public sector then this doesn't appear to make much sense - actually if you are doing that then it still doesn't make much sense.

[blandy]

Waste and inefficiency do occur in both sectors - that much is indisputable.

It's also, to a point only, indisputable that taxpayers being compelled to pay for excessive waste and inefficiency is a bad thing.

It's less of a deal in the private sector, for the consumer, because, as AWOL says, you're not compelled to shop at [wherever] you can most often just take your custom elsewhere.

The flip sides are many, though. Some waste and inefficiency is desirable - one man's "inefficiency" is another man's "better working environment". There's inefficiency through shocking management, through ludicrous procurement systems, through duplication of effort, through poor communication, through excess stockholding, through not holding enough stock - just a multitude of areas.

It seems to me that a business has a greater incentive to reduce these inefficiencies, because they are more answerable to customers and shareholders, whereas that's not always the case for the public sector. AS people have said busses tend to fall back or fail if they are less efficient than competitors. But not all businesses operate in that competitive a market. From the only pub in the village, to, I dunno, Rail companies with monopolies, or Energy CO.s with what looks like a cartel.

That 100,000 people fewer are now working in the public sector is 100,000 + personal disasters. I'm surprised though that no-one's picked up on the fact that the level has just gone back to what it was 3 years ago. Massive expansion then massive contraction. You kind of wonder what wonderful things these folk were all producing so efficiently in the past 3 years. I genuinely don't know. And as yet no-one's really explained. Or were they just kind of padding, most of them - more people doing not much more actual work? I don't know, but I'd like to.

It looks a bit like Labour stuffed loads of people into jobs that might not really have been there, in terms of long term need. And it looks like the current Gov't have just hacked away at them.

People being used as pawns in a bigger "game" of political to and fro.

Everyone wants "stuff" cheaper, they want better and more efficient services. To some extent that drive is good, but it has negatives too. It means more people on the dole.

My anecdotal observation is that there's a great deal of inefficiency in many places because of management incompetence, and the point made about training managers is a very good one. The standard is at best extremely variable, and at worst pretty appalling. But it's easier to get rid of some underlings, than train managers to utilise people better, to put in place more effective ways of making things and doing things.

Part of the same outlook the country seems to have, based around "just move some money around" rather than actually creating tangible products and outputs - skim off the top, don't bother with the messy work of actually making anything worthwhile and long lasting.

And that outlook has been round for a long time.

[CI]

The wastage in FTSE100's is mega, but public sector takes the biscuit

I've worked both sides of the fence (not public sector since 94), maybe they've tightened up a bit ?

[drat01]

Pete, while you make some very good points I think you, and those who chose to respond in a more abrupt way above are missing a key issue here.

There certainly seems to be a strong desire from those who have right wing views and seemingly support the whole attack on the public sector (interestingly while not living in this country) to try and apportion blame or some of it for the financial mess on public sector inefficiencies. The point about the private sector is a simple one, as many are accepting the same if not greater inefficiencies exist there. As a result of these operating costs do increase which filter down to Joe Public. To simply say you go somewhere else just is not the case. How much of the energy companies costs could be reduced by greater efficiencies? How much of fuel costs can be cut by greater efficiencies? Big supermarkets? etc etc. These are key components to the way a country runs and to say you would go somewhere else is just not possible.

The simple thing is though to pick on the easier target which is the public sector, bundle it all together under one banner and attack it, knowing that champions of the right wing such as media outlets like the Mail, Express etc will follow. Its a massive deflection to keep away from the real causes, basically the typical headline grab that seems to be the whole thinking behind Gideon's plan A.

Again noticeable that those who are very vocal against the Public Sector in this thread have said little / nowt about the banking scandal that appeared in the last few days and rogue trading. I heard one right wing commentator say today that it wont affect the UK, which was gobsmacking considering the dependency on the financial sector we have.

If this Gvmt especially, and I really do include Clegg massively in this for his unwillingness to affect the Tory part, has any sort of conscience and willingness to do what was right for the UK and not just for the areas who are typically their biggest supporters, then they would admit that the policy to date was wrong, things have moved, they need a plan B and C, they need to pull back on impacting so many of the wrong areas of society so severely and with such haste, basically sort things over a period of time, not overnight. As said before they have said to the finance area they have many years to change but are intent on hitting public sector, NHS, Police, armed forces etc straight away, that certainly shows where the real ideals are behind what they are doing

Remember Thatcher saying "No U Turns" and being proven wrong, it's happening again

[blandy]

Yes, the Gov't has definitely got it wrong, IMO. And yes they use their right wing media mates to be their cheerleaders by picking on typical trigger topics for the typical right winger.

But, not everything they are doing is wrong, or indeed that different from what Labour would have done.

Re the banking scandal, isn't that the kind of reason why the banks need splitting up between retail and investment - so that us and the taxpayer are not under-writing their risks. Christ knows why they've been given 7 years to do it, you can re-organise a whole nation in half that time, let alone a bank.

The public private sector thing, I don't completely agree with you, but I do take your points. It's really a case of competition rather than public/private - where there is competition for business, that competition does tend to drive efficiency higher, because there are winners and losers. Where there's no competition, efficiency tends to drop off. Much of the public sector has no competition, and it is the duty of the Gov't (local and national) to keep up pressure for efficiency - not just in terms of "work harder, wretches" but in terms of how the money is spent - whether it be bulk buying of supplies, or removing duplication of role or effort. The other thing is that quality of service should take a higher billing than just reducing costs. Making something more efficient, but worse, is no kind of gain.

So the Gov't has a duty to improve the quality and effectiveness and efficiency of public sector work, and denying that, would be strange.

The Gov't has a much lesser duty over Private Enterprises, unless they are contracted to perform public services.

In some cases driving private business efficiencies is a bad thing - Supermarkets are models of efficiency and they do more harm than good. We get cheap milk but farmers go to the wall. We get produce cheap, but at the cost of the environment. We get supermarkets everywhere, but local high streets become ghost towns.

Anyway, you're right that concentrating on public sector workers on it's own is completely the wrong way to solve our problems.

It seems like the real plan is to inflate away the debt, while hacking away at Tory hate targets and protecting their mates and supporters.

[Eames]

Aren't the Governments "right wing media mates" the same ones dear Tony couldn't wait to leap into bed with in 1997?

Sounds awfully like the bitterness of a jilted lover to me.

[blandy]

Pretty much, they are, Yes.

I don't get the second point, you're making. I'm not really a supporter of any of the three parties as such, though I confess to thinking the tories are largely diabolical.

[peterms]

Re the banking scandal, isn't that the kind of reason why the banks need splitting up between retail and investment - so that us and the taxpayer are not under-writing their risks. Christ knows why they've been given 7 years to do it, you can re-organise a whole nation in half that time, let alone a bank.

We've recently learned, thanks to UBS, that even seven days would have been too long a time to give them.

As well as letting them off the hook (further increasing our own exposure by doing so), we continue to subsidise them to an astonishing and utterly mindblowing degree.

In return for which, we get told that the time for saying sorry is over, and if we do anything they don't like, they will relocate, sack staff, or whatever whim takes their fancy.

I believe we should impale the bank bosses on harpoons, and place them at strategic locations in the City, at airports and major crossroads.