Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
Join us FREE, we're FREE to use
Web's largest swingers site since 2006.
Already registered?
Login here
 | Back to forum list |
| Back to Politics |
| Jump to newest |  |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Civil servants for the chop as Boris looks for cash down the back of the sofa. " It won’t happen, he will be long gone before that can be implemented | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh!" It won’t happen, just like the Rwanda plan, it is just a distraction to appeal to their base | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" " This  | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh!" Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" " Not going to try and justify numbers but context is good, the MOD covers far more than the Army. Far more than Navy and Air Force too. Not all 57,000 are “pen pushers”. You might be surprised by what some of these supposed “civil servants” do. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" This "Their base! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? " Talking utter shite sorry. I am not a Civil Servant but have worked closely with them for many years. Some of the smartest, hard working and dedicated people I ever come across and do so for less money then they could earn in private sector. As for WFH, really! This is the 21st century and there is this thing called the internet (guess what, you just used it to post your drivel). Collaborative tech has not only improved productivity, it is actually possible (if you lack trust in your staff) to monitor activity and ensure they are working! Plenty of research studies show WFH has proven to increase productivity for office based jobs. Re delays for passports and driving licences, you need to read beyond the Daily Heil headlines. Covid illness impacted on capacity. DVLA, for example, insisted everyone get back in the office which then lead to repeated outbreaks and prolonged absence due to illness. This created a backlog. Passports have unprecedented demand due to people delaying renewing their passports by up to two years because of Covid restrictions. So do you want them staffed up to cope with this unprecedented peak in demand or do you want them to have less staff? Can’t have both! You argue about passport delays but support less people working on it! Facile argument! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" Not going to try and justify numbers but context is good, the MOD covers far more than the Army. Far more than Navy and Air Force too. Not all 57,000 are “pen pushers”. You might be surprised by what some of these supposed “civil servants” do." I'm sure that many of them do very important jobs, but 57,000? And let's face it when it comes to procurement the MOD has got serious form for fuck ups. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? Talking utter shite sorry. I am not a Civil Servant but have worked closely with them for many years. Some of the smartest, hard working and dedicated people I ever come across and do so for less money then they could earn in private sector. As for WFH, really! This is the 21st century and there is this thing called the internet (guess what, you just used it to post your drivel). Collaborative tech has not only improved productivity, it is actually possible (if you lack trust in your staff) to monitor activity and ensure they are working! Plenty of research studies show WFH has proven to increase productivity for office based jobs. Re delays for passports and driving licences, you need to read beyond the Daily Heil headlines. Covid illness impacted on capacity. DVLA, for example, insisted everyone get back in the office which then lead to repeated outbreaks and prolonged absence due to illness. This created a backlog. Passports have unprecedented demand due to people delaying renewing their passports by up to two years because of Covid restrictions. So do you want them staffed up to cope with this unprecedented peak in demand or do you want them to have less staff? Can’t have both! You argue about passport delays but support less people working on it! Facile argument!" I was also around civil servants for years. I won't mention names or departments but a close family member got almost to the top of the greasy pole. So high it resulted in a gong on retirement. One thing I learned very early on from my family member and many other very senior civil servants we socialised with was the first and golden rule of the civil service. "Cover your own arse first" I think that one still applies. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? " Staff shortages so imagine where it’s going. Oh hang on privatisation. . G4 chaos her we come. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" Not going to try and justify numbers but context is good, the MOD covers far more than the Army. Far more than Navy and Air Force too. Not all 57,000 are “pen pushers”. You might be surprised by what some of these supposed “civil servants” do." I have to agree with this . My mate’s dad was always in a suit in Whitehall and just a few hints came out of his involvement in the MOD . Nice to know we still had some sinister guys in there. On the other hand I’ve also through my family in the services seen appalling waste in procurement. So it could be improved by accountability and the restrictions of moving into civilian roles after working in procurement which happens all the time and is blatantly wrong. As for ratios the NHS is one to one on admin to frontline so that does need a good clear out. Hopefully keeping the good . It is far too too heavy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? Staff shortages so imagine where it’s going. Oh hang on privatisation. . G4 chaos her we come. " 91,000 redundancies, each will require redundancy payments, this will cost a minimum of £91 million, it’s just another dead cat, pretend to do something but never do it then blame someone for why it couldn’t be done | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? Talking utter shite sorry. I am not a Civil Servant but have worked closely with them for many years. Some of the smartest, hard working and dedicated people I ever come across and do so for less money then they could earn in private sector. As for WFH, really! This is the 21st century and there is this thing called the internet (guess what, you just used it to post your drivel). Collaborative tech has not only improved productivity, it is actually possible (if you lack trust in your staff) to monitor activity and ensure they are working! Plenty of research studies show WFH has proven to increase productivity for office based jobs. Re delays for passports and driving licences, you need to read beyond the Daily Heil headlines. Covid illness impacted on capacity. DVLA, for example, insisted everyone get back in the office which then lead to repeated outbreaks and prolonged absence due to illness. This created a backlog. Passports have unprecedented demand due to people delaying renewing their passports by up to two years because of Covid restrictions. So do you want them staffed up to cope with this unprecedented peak in demand or do you want them to have less staff? Can’t have both! You argue about passport delays but support less people working on it! Facile argument! I was also around civil servants for years. I won't mention names or departments but a close family member got almost to the top of the greasy pole. So high it resulted in a gong on retirement. One thing I learned very early on from my family member and many other very senior civil servants we socialised with was the first and golden rule of the civil service. "Cover your own arse first" I think that one still applies. " Generally that is because the politicians, the Ministers, fail to take advice and then when it goes tits up look for a Civil Servant fall guy. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" Not going to try and justify numbers but context is good, the MOD covers far more than the Army. Far more than Navy and Air Force too. Not all 57,000 are “pen pushers”. You might be surprised by what some of these supposed “civil servants” do. I have to agree with this . My mate’s dad was always in a suit in Whitehall and just a few hints came out of his involvement in the MOD . Nice to know we still had some sinister guys in there. On the other hand I’ve also through my family in the services seen appalling waste in procurement. So it could be improved by accountability and the restrictions of moving into civilian roles after working in procurement which happens all the time and is blatantly wrong. As for ratios the NHS is one to one on admin to frontline so that does need a good clear out. Hopefully keeping the good . It is far too too heavy. " Procurement in Govt is a problem. Just look at what happened when the Tory Govt bypassed rules with their PPE VIP lane (oops £8bn wasted and in the hands of cronies). Just a bit more context on that 57,000 - a significant chunk of those work in cyber intel roles (basically good hackers and surveillance). These folks are not uniformed military personnel. Basically what I am saying is people think of Civil Service in too much of a broad brush stroke way. It isn’t all Yes Minister! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? Staff shortages so imagine where it’s going. Oh hang on privatisation. . G4 chaos her we come. 91,000 redundancies, each will require redundancy payments, this will cost a minimum of £91 million, it’s just another dead cat, pretend to do something but never do it then blame someone for why it couldn’t be done " Try closer to £3bn | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? Staff shortages so imagine where it’s going. Oh hang on privatisation. . G4 chaos her we come. 91,000 redundancies, each will require redundancy payments, this will cost a minimum of £91 million, it’s just another dead cat, pretend to do something but never do it then blame someone for why it couldn’t be done " You don’t need to make them redundant all you do is just not replace the ones that are retiring this year and redeploy the rest | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? Staff shortages so imagine where it’s going. Oh hang on privatisation. . G4 chaos her we come. 91,000 redundancies, each will require redundancy payments, this will cost a minimum of £91 million, it’s just another dead cat, pretend to do something but never do it then blame someone for why it couldn’t be done You don’t need to make them redundant all you do is just not replace the ones that are retiring this year and redeploy the rest "PMSL, how do you redeploy a civil servant? They will still be civil servants but in a different position, so your not ‘getting rid of 91,000’ civil servants | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to JRM, there are 38000 departures from the Civil Service each year. Not all will be replaced, so natural wastage in terms next couple of years, should see the bulk sorted." I wouldn’t believe a word he says | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" " so it has shot up since 2016? Hmmm. Good thing Brexit is done and we aren't looking to undo all the work. Hmmm. Assuming the average CS wage is 40k, that's almost 4bn a year in wages for getting brexit done. Wow. (Correct my maths. I don't do sums  ) | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to JRM, there are 38000 departures from the Civil Service each year. Not all will be replaced, so natural wastage in terms next couple of years, should see the bulk sorted. I wouldn’t believe a word he says " wow. Almost 1 in 10 leave each year. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" " exactly too many chiefs not enough Indians | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" so it has shot up since 2016? Hmmm. Good thing Brexit is done and we aren't looking to undo all the work. Hmmm. Assuming the average CS wage is 40k, that's almost 4bn a year in wages for getting brexit done. Wow. (Correct my maths. I don't do sums )"A lot of the growth in the Civil Service was due to Brexit. Maybe they have finally realised there are no Brexit Benefits to be managed so those people are not needed. Probably another reason so few have been in the office with JRM, nothing to tell him! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to JRM, there are 38000 departures from the Civil Service each year. Not all will be replaced, so natural wastage in terms next couple of years, should see the bulk sorted. I wouldn’t believe a word he says wow. Almost 1 in 10 leave each year. " Problem is they still get paid | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? Staff shortages so imagine where it’s going. Oh hang on privatisation. . G4 chaos her we come. 91,000 redundancies, each will require redundancy payments, this will cost a minimum of £91 million, it’s just another dead cat, pretend to do something but never do it then blame someone for why it couldn’t be done You don’t need to make them redundant all you do is just not replace the ones that are retiring this year and redeploy the rest
PMSL, how do you redeploy a civil servant? They will still be civil servants but in a different position, so your not ‘getting rid of 91,000’ civil servants "But you will over the next couple of years by redeploying as people retire | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Another ill conceived knee jerk reaction, floundering and flip flopping around rather than a proper strategy. The growth-cull-growth of civil service is cyclical. There are big numbers of unfilled vacancies already as relevant skills are in high demand and Civil Service cannot match private sector pay. Cue the anti-public sector gang braying for cuts but then moaning they don’t get good service from state organisations! Duh! Will anyone really miss them? Most are still doing WFH long after the Covid restrictions were lifted. I don't thing an occasional Zoom meeting squeezed in-between Loose Women and half an hour on the Peloton can realistically be called work. As for service, anyone tried getting a passport or driving licence recently? Staff shortages so imagine where it’s going. Oh hang on privatisation. . G4 chaos her we come. 91,000 redundancies, each will require redundancy payments, this will cost a minimum of £91 million, it’s just another dead cat, pretend to do something but never do it then blame someone for why it couldn’t be done " These things are often done by natural shrinkage. When a worker retires they would normally replace them but in this situation they don't replace them and therefore reduce the head count. I think it would take a while but think quite a few retire each year | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch the rush back to desks
Why? "They should be there anyway | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch the rush back to desks
Why?
They should be there anyway "presenteeism. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"If 91,000 represents a fifth of the total then there are far too many to start with. Besides it will only take the total back to 2016 levels. Why on earth the Ministry of Defence needs 57,000 pen pushers when there are only around 80,000 full time soldiers is beyond me. As David Sterling (founder of the SAS) once said when talking about the General Staff in Cairo during WW2. "Layer upon layer of fossilised shit" so it has shot up since 2016? Hmmm. Good thing Brexit is done and we aren't looking to undo all the work. Hmmm. Assuming the average CS wage is 40k, that's almost 4bn a year in wages for getting brexit done. Wow. (Correct my maths. I don't do sums )"50k roles for border force were planned and promised . I think it’s reached 10k recruited now. But Gove said all the 50k would be in place by 2021 so that’s good then. Oh wait that means we will have to wait a few years before while we keep recruiting and then sack them ! So in conclusion do away with the border checks which have reduced tax take and increased the number of civil servants . There’s a good start . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch the rush back to desks
Why?
They should be there anyway "Yes less offices being rented form the private sector will reduce the governments costs but private landlords who financially back the Tory party won’t be happy. 25% of Tory funds comes from property developers . | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch the rush back to desks
Why?
They should be there anyway "Why? | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"According to JRM, there are 38000 departures from the Civil Service each year. Not all will be replaced, so natural wastage in terms next couple of years, should see the bulk sorted." Yeah… I can complaining when there are less prison probation officers, or longer queues at passport control, waiting for documents longer at dvla or the passport office.. waiting for refunds longer at hmrc ect… | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch the rush back to desks
Why?
They should be there anyway
Why?"Because that’s their place of work which was the case when they took on the jobs they have. If they want to work from home then get a job that entails working from home | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"because the best way to ensure people are not affected by the conservative and unionist party's cost of living crisis is to make them unemployed and claiming benefits. "They are not, they are simply not replacing people who retire or leave on their own | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch the rush back to desks
Why?
They should be there anyway
Why?
Because that’s their place of work which was the case when they took on the jobs they have.
If they want to work from home then get a job that entails working from home
"So organisations cannot adapt and change? All that has happened is that the Civil Service has finally woken up to what tech companies have known for ages. You don’t need presenteeism or big offices. You need good IT and fast broadband. Certainly not all (or many) jobs can be done from home, but computer or telephone based office jobs certainly can. It will all be about hybrid working with time in the office for certain types of collaboration. Organisations (inc Civil Service) will over the coming years reduce their sq footage and have less desks and more meeting/workshopping space. And save a lot of money. Commercial landlords (and Tory donors) are shitting themselves. This was always going to happen but it has been accelerated by the pandemic. Time to get with the 21st century. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch the rush back to desks
Why?
They should be there anyway
Why?
Because that’s their place of work which was the case when they took on the jobs they have.
If they want to work from home then get a job that entails working from home
So organisations cannot adapt and change? All that has happened is that the Civil Service has finally woken up to what tech companies have known for ages. You don’t need presenteeism or big offices. You need good IT and fast broadband.
Certainly not all (or many) jobs can be done from home, but computer or telephone based office jobs certainly can.
It will all be about hybrid working with time in the office for certain types of collaboration. Organisations (inc Civil Service) will over the coming years reduce their sq footage and have less desks and more meeting/workshopping space. And save a lot of money. Commercial landlords (and Tory donors) are shitting themselves.
This was always going to happen but it has been accelerated by the pandemic.
Time to get with the 21st century.
"Well they can take the xtra money the London centric get | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"because the best way to ensure people are not affected by the conservative and unionist party's cost of living crisis is to make them unemployed and claiming benefits.
They are not, they are simply not replacing people who retire or leave on their own "That will take years | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"Watch the rush back to desks
Why?
They should be there anyway
Why?
Because that’s their place of work which was the case when they took on the jobs they have.
If they want to work from home then get a job that entails working from home
So organisations cannot adapt and change? All that has happened is that the Civil Service has finally woken up to what tech companies have known for ages. You don’t need presenteeism or big offices. You need good IT and fast broadband.
Certainly not all (or many) jobs can be done from home, but computer or telephone based office jobs certainly can.
It will all be about hybrid working with time in the office for certain types of collaboration. Organisations (inc Civil Service) will over the coming years reduce their sq footage and have less desks and more meeting/workshopping space. And save a lot of money. Commercial landlords (and Tory donors) are shitting themselves.
This was always going to happen but it has been accelerated by the pandemic.
Time to get with the 21st century.
Well they can take the xtra money the London centric get "Another myth. London Weighting is not about covering the cost of commuting (everyone commutes in other parts of UK too). It is recognition that everything is more expensive in the South East including accommodation. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"91000 EXTRA civil servants since 2016. Surely the question is what the hell are these 91000 doing? I don't remember problems with passports and driving licences etc at the time....so why now? Is it because so many are "working" from home? (I note the loose women/peloton comments from others above). There must be masses of dead wood in the system. Since opening up post vivid there have been surges in demand as people put off applying for passports etc. There is undoubtedly shortages of staff in certain areas but conversely there must be huge overstaffing in others. Some could be redeployed? Fill these gaps. Others though, surely need to go....there is ridiculous over beaurocracy in so many areas" You need to see where those 91,000 actually work. Each Department is a separate entity. The vast majority have been employed because of Brexit related changes and increased admin needed. The delays in both DVLA and Passports is due to a number of factors. Covid related short staffing levels (the DVLA forced staff to come in sooner than was wise causing covid outbreaks and a backlog). As you say a huge number of people delayed renewing or applying for passports for two years due to pandemic but now there has been an explosion in demand, unprecedented! Ironically HMPO needs more staff not less. Not the junior Civil Servants fault, this was bad planning as the uplift in demand was inevitable. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"creating mass unemployment is highly questionable if your goal is to reduce benefit dependancy and create jobs. the people who dreamt this one up are clearly lunatics if they think people are moronic enough to agree with it. "Indeed AND making 91,000 Civil Servants redundant will cost around £2.5bn based on average salaries and length of service. What will most likely happen is: 1) People will forget once headlines not there any more (another dead cat distraction sorted) 2) They will put in place a recruitment freeze so headcount doesn’t grow. 3) Natural wastage (retirement and resigning) will slowly head towards 91k. 4) Services will be further impacted causing complaints. 5) In run up to election the Tories will pledge to address service issues by either recruiting more Civil Servants or privatising delivery agencies like DVLA and HMPO. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"91000 EXTRA civil servants since 2016. Surely the question is what the hell are these 91000 doing? " my guess is Brexit... The thing we want to almost start again on.... | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"91000 EXTRA civil servants since 2016. Surely the question is what the hell are these 91000 doing? my guess is Brexit... The thing we want to almost start again on.... " That is a very good point, it can’t be a coincidence that the huge increase started in 2016 | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This does seem like a load of tosh from a Government capable of little else. Taking 91,000 well paid tax-payers out of the economy, when you claim to be intent on growing it, lacks logic. Claiming it could save the economy £4bn - and that the money would be spent to help poor people cope with the cost of living crisis, lacks credibility. Particularly from this Government; who, in the last fiscal year, wrote off £11bn in fraud - that they enabled, rather than made any attempt to prevent, or attempt to reclaim. The notion that the 91,000 redundancies will not have a negative impact on services, is very much debatable. The cuts made to them during austerity - particularly where front-line civil servants are concerned - give more than adequate proof of that. Also, whilst 91,000 redundancies should generate sympathy; it hasn't in the past. Coal miners, shipbuilders and steelworkers got so little of it, in the 1980s, that there are now fewer than 91,000 of them - combined. That said, if the current Cabinet were included in the redundancies, that would be no bad thing." The 91,000 are tax payers as you say but they are also paid by taxes so unless they pay 100% tax then it is a saving. I agree it could have a negative impact on some areas | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This does seem like a load of tosh from a Government capable of little else. Taking 91,000 well paid tax-payers out of the economy, when you claim to be intent on growing it, lacks logic. Claiming it could save the economy £4bn - and that the money would be spent to help poor people cope with the cost of living crisis, lacks credibility. Particularly from this Government; who, in the last fiscal year, wrote off £11bn in fraud - that they enabled, rather than made any attempt to prevent, or attempt to reclaim. The notion that the 91,000 redundancies will not have a negative impact on services, is very much debatable. The cuts made to them during austerity - particularly where front-line civil servants are concerned - give more than adequate proof of that. Also, whilst 91,000 redundancies should generate sympathy; it hasn't in the past. Coal miners, shipbuilders and steelworkers got so little of it, in the 1980s, that there are now fewer than 91,000 of them - combined. That said, if the current Cabinet were included in the redundancies, that would be no bad thing. The 91,000 are tax payers as you say but they are also paid by taxes so unless they pay 100% tax then it is a saving. I agree it could have a negative impact on some areas" It won’t be a saving: 1) Redundancy costs 2) The services will be impacted so they will be replaced by contractors and/or the work will be outsourced (actually costing more but accounted for in a different way) It is actually a false economy! | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This does seem like a load of tosh from a Government capable of little else. Taking 91,000 well paid tax-payers out of the economy, when you claim to be intent on growing it, lacks logic. Claiming it could save the economy £4bn - and that the money would be spent to help poor people cope with the cost of living crisis, lacks credibility. Particularly from this Government; who, in the last fiscal year, wrote off £11bn in fraud - that they enabled, rather than made any attempt to prevent, or attempt to reclaim. The notion that the 91,000 redundancies will not have a negative impact on services, is very much debatable. The cuts made to them during austerity - particularly where front-line civil servants are concerned - give more than adequate proof of that. Also, whilst 91,000 redundancies should generate sympathy; it hasn't in the past. Coal miners, shipbuilders and steelworkers got so little of it, in the 1980s, that there are now fewer than 91,000 of them - combined. That said, if the current Cabinet were included in the redundancies, that would be no bad thing. The 91,000 are tax payers as you say but they are also paid by taxes so unless they pay 100% tax then it is a saving. I agree it could have a negative impact on some areas It won’t be a saving: 1) Redundancy costs 2) The services will be impacted so they will be replaced by contractors and/or the work will be outsourced (actually costing more but accounted for in a different way) It is actually a false economy!" No redundancy payments if they go down the normal natural wastage route which basically is just not replacing people that retire wherever possible. I am thinking this is what they intend as they have said it will take around 3 years. A lot of people were employed for covid response which is winding down. Even reports some are still employed to prepare for the COP meeting which is over a while back. It will need careful management but if there is room to save then I think they should. After all it's our taxes that pay | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This does seem like a load of tosh from a Government capable of little else. Taking 91,000 well paid tax-payers out of the economy, when you claim to be intent on growing it, lacks logic. Claiming it could save the economy £4bn - and that the money would be spent to help poor people cope with the cost of living crisis, lacks credibility. Particularly from this Government; who, in the last fiscal year, wrote off £11bn in fraud - that they enabled, rather than made any attempt to prevent, or attempt to reclaim. The notion that the 91,000 redundancies will not have a negative impact on services, is very much debatable. The cuts made to them during austerity - particularly where front-line civil servants are concerned - give more than adequate proof of that. Also, whilst 91,000 redundancies should generate sympathy; it hasn't in the past. Coal miners, shipbuilders and steelworkers got so little of it, in the 1980s, that there are now fewer than 91,000 of them - combined. That said, if the current Cabinet were included in the redundancies, that would be no bad thing. The 91,000 are tax payers as you say but they are also paid by taxes so unless they pay 100% tax then it is a saving. I agree it could have a negative impact on some areas It won’t be a saving: 1) Redundancy costs 2) The services will be impacted so they will be replaced by contractors and/or the work will be outsourced (actually costing more but accounted for in a different way) It is actually a false economy! No redundancy payments if they go down the normal natural wastage route which basically is just not replacing people that retire wherever possible. I am thinking this is what they intend as they have said it will take around 3 years. A lot of people were employed for covid response which is winding down. Even reports some are still employed to prepare for the COP meeting which is over a while back. It will need careful management but if there is room to save then I think they should. After all it's our taxes that pay " True and I already said above they will go down natural wastage route. But a large chunk of that extra 91k growth since 2016 was to do with Brexit and additional admin now required. Whatever happens, it WILL impact on services. People are moaning about delays to passports but the only way around that is more staff not less. This is classic softening up for privatisation. Under resource. Cause delays and long delivery timescales. People moan about inefficiencies. Decide the privatise. Public support it and then over time see costs go up as these companies are required to make profits rather than just cover their costs. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This does seem like a load of tosh from a Government capable of little else. Taking 91,000 well paid tax-payers out of the economy, when you claim to be intent on growing it, lacks logic. Claiming it could save the economy £4bn - and that the money would be spent to help poor people cope with the cost of living crisis, lacks credibility. Particularly from this Government; who, in the last fiscal year, wrote off £11bn in fraud - that they enabled, rather than made any attempt to prevent, or attempt to reclaim. The notion that the 91,000 redundancies will not have a negative impact on services, is very much debatable. The cuts made to them during austerity - particularly where front-line civil servants are concerned - give more than adequate proof of that. Also, whilst 91,000 redundancies should generate sympathy; it hasn't in the past. Coal miners, shipbuilders and steelworkers got so little of it, in the 1980s, that there are now fewer than 91,000 of them - combined. That said, if the current Cabinet were included in the redundancies, that would be no bad thing. The 91,000 are tax payers as you say but they are also paid by taxes so unless they pay 100% tax then it is a saving. I agree it could have a negative impact on some areas It won’t be a saving: 1) Redundancy costs 2) The services will be impacted so they will be replaced by contractors and/or the work will be outsourced (actually costing more but accounted for in a different way) It is actually a false economy! No redundancy payments if they go down the normal natural wastage route which basically is just not replacing people that retire wherever possible. I am thinking this is what they intend as they have said it will take around 3 years. A lot of people were employed for covid response which is winding down. Even reports some are still employed to prepare for the COP meeting which is over a while back. It will need careful management but if there is room to save then I think they should. After all it's our taxes that pay " does doing it via wastage help? It just spreads the costs as you are effectively paying 18 months of salaries on average. Plus it's horribly inefficient. The wrong people will leave. | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This does seem like a load of tosh from a Government capable of little else. Taking 91,000 well paid tax-payers out of the economy, when you claim to be intent on growing it, lacks logic. Claiming it could save the economy £4bn - and that the money would be spent to help poor people cope with the cost of living crisis, lacks credibility. Particularly from this Government; who, in the last fiscal year, wrote off £11bn in fraud - that they enabled, rather than made any attempt to prevent, or attempt to reclaim. The notion that the 91,000 redundancies will not have a negative impact on services, is very much debatable. The cuts made to them during austerity - particularly where front-line civil servants are concerned - give more than adequate proof of that. Also, whilst 91,000 redundancies should generate sympathy; it hasn't in the past. Coal miners, shipbuilders and steelworkers got so little of it, in the 1980s, that there are now fewer than 91,000 of them - combined. That said, if the current Cabinet were included in the redundancies, that would be no bad thing. The 91,000 are tax payers as you say but they are also paid by taxes so unless they pay 100% tax then it is a saving. I agree it could have a negative impact on some areas It won’t be a saving: 1) Redundancy costs 2) The services will be impacted so they will be replaced by contractors and/or the work will be outsourced (actually costing more but accounted for in a different way) It is actually a false economy! No redundancy payments if they go down the normal natural wastage route which basically is just not replacing people that retire wherever possible. I am thinking this is what they intend as they have said it will take around 3 years. A lot of people were employed for covid response which is winding down. Even reports some are still employed to prepare for the COP meeting which is over a while back. It will need careful management but if there is room to save then I think they should. After all it's our taxes that pay True and I already said above they will go down natural wastage route. But a large chunk of that extra 91k growth since 2016 was to do with Brexit and additional admin now required. Whatever happens, it WILL impact on services. People are moaning about delays to passports but the only way around that is more staff not less. This is classic softening up for privatisation. Under resource. Cause delays and long delivery timescales. People moan about inefficiencies. Decide the privatise. Public support it and then over time see costs go up as these companies are required to make profits rather than just cover their costs." I must have misunderstood your point 1) in your previous post where you mentioned redundancy costs. I assume now you mean redundancy costs are not relevant. My error | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
"This does seem like a load of tosh from a Government capable of little else. Taking 91,000 well paid tax-payers out of the economy, when you claim to be intent on growing it, lacks logic. Claiming it could save the economy £4bn - and that the money would be spent to help poor people cope with the cost of living crisis, lacks credibility. Particularly from this Government; who, in the last fiscal year, wrote off £11bn in fraud - that they enabled, rather than made any attempt to prevent, or attempt to reclaim. The notion that the 91,000 redundancies will not have a negative impact on services, is very much debatable. The cuts made to them during austerity - particularly where front-line civil servants are concerned - give more than adequate proof of that. Also, whilst 91,000 redundancies should generate sympathy; it hasn't in the past. Coal miners, shipbuilders and steelworkers got so little of it, in the 1980s, that there are now fewer than 91,000 of them - combined. That said, if the current Cabinet were included in the redundancies, that would be no bad thing. The 91,000 are tax payers as you say but they are also paid by taxes so unless they pay 100% tax then it is a saving. I agree it could have a negative impact on some areas It won’t be a saving: 1) Redundancy costs 2) The services will be impacted so they will be replaced by contractors and/or the work will be outsourced (actually costing more but accounted for in a different way) It is actually a false economy! No redundancy payments if they go down the normal natural wastage route which basically is just not replacing people that retire wherever possible. I am thinking this is what they intend as they have said it will take around 3 years. A lot of people were employed for covid response which is winding down. Even reports some are still employed to prepare for the COP meeting which is over a while back. It will need careful management but if there is room to save then I think they should. After all it's our taxes that pay does doing it via wastage help? It just spreads the costs as you are effectively paying 18 months of salaries on average. Plus it's horribly inefficient. The wrong people will leave. " I don't know is the honest answer but just going on how some places go about these things in the past. I guess if people retire then they are leaving anyway so could be the wrong people leaving regardless if this was not happening at all. Also I guess you have to compare waiting for them to retire for up to 3 years to paying out 91,000 redundancy packages. As I say these are purely guesses on my part and I have zero experience of such decisions | |||
| Reply privately | Reply in forum | Reply +quote |
| Post new Message to Thread |
| back to top |  |
