Public sector monster needs to be tamed

Generali

macaque wrote: »

She fell off the local government gravy train and is now trying to climb aboard the compensation gravy train.

That amounts to £100,000 per head! That seems huge to me.

http://www.personneltoday.com/articles/2009/03/16/49836/shoesmith-adds-sex-discrimination-to-tribunal-claims-against.html

Presumably that'll include office space, IT, heating aircon & lighting, facilities (security, coffee machines etc), Christmas drink-up.

UBS used to reckon that each occupied desk in London cost them £20,000pa. The Government is less productive generally speaking than private businesses so presumably the figure would be higher for a Govt department.

beingjdc

Generali wrote: »

Presumably that'll include office space, IT, heating aircon & lighting, facilities (security, coffee machines etc), Christmas drink-up.

You can't really add up the budget and divide through by the number of staff, because so much is non-staff or outsourced cost.

Schools, are what I suspect to be mainly driving the figure up. As I said earlier the Children's Department now includes responsibility for schools. Build a new one and that's £5million accounted for in short order. Remember also, following our discussion on "public sector pay", that things like cleaners, school meals, and dinner ladies will figure in the budget, but not in the headcount, since they're outsourced contracts.

Then there's the massive cost of a small number of severely disabled children. A Council where I used to work had one child who needed 24 hour care, but because it was chronic and permanent, the cost fell on the Council not the NHS. I forget the exact amount, but it was over £100,000 a year - for one boy.

macaque_2

beingjdc wrote: »

You can't really add up the budget and divide through by the number of staff, because so much is non-staff or outsourced cost.
Schools, are what I suspect to be mainly driving the figure up. As I said earlier the Children's Department now includes responsibility for schools. Build a new one and that's £5million accounted for in short order. Remember also, following our discussion on "public sector pay", that things like cleaners, school meals, and dinner ladies will figure in the budget, but not in the headcount, since they're outsourced contracts.
Then there's the massive cost of a small number of severely disabled children. A Council where I used to work had one child who needed 24 hour care, but because it was chronic and permanent, the cost fell on the Council not the NHS. I forget the exact amount, but it was over £100,000 a year - for one boy.

Thank you Vladimir Posner. Here are a few recent news stories

The London council that failed to save Baby P from abuse has admitted spending £19,000 on media training for high-profile employees involved in the case.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/crime/article5308208.ece

MINISTERS have spent £900m paying off 15,000 civil servants only to recruit an extra 42,020 in new permanent jobs, according to figures released by parliament.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5864817.ece

An investigation by The Times and Computer Weekly shows that the overrun of the largest IT projects totals £18.6 billion. Those include a controversial plan to computerise all NHS patients’ records, originally estimated to cost £2.3 billion over three years but the cost of which has grown to £12.7 billion.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/technology/article5636240.ece

Over the next decade, the Ministry of Defence (MoD) will spend the equivalent of more than £75,000 for each top official working at the ministry’s headquarters on refurbishments, repairs and services. In contrast, it has budgeted just a third of the amount — only £25,000 per person — for refurbishment and repairs to soldiers’ living quarters.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article1290333.ece

More than £55 million a year is being wasted by police and prosecutors because hearings in magistrates' courts do not go ahead as planned, the Government's auditors say today.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1510519/Court-failures-waste-55m-a-year.html

Patients admitted for emergency treatment at an NHS Trust were subjected to “shocking and appalling” care that included untrained receptionists carrying out medical checks and heart monitors being switched off, a report concluded today.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/health/article5924777.ece

Planning chief gets £184,000 for passing the buck

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5920718.ece

A Ministry of Justice IT project that is three years overdue and double its original cost has been condemned as a “masterclass” of sloppy Government management.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article5891179.ece

I don't know what irks me more; the catastrophic waste of public funds or government apologists trying to convince us there are 'non scandalous explanations'.

lostinrates

i8change wrote: »

If we did not have "The least generous state pension in Europe" we would not have to rely on extra provision. A decent pension for ALL, without means testing, like the French and Germans get, would reduce these divisions. We pay enough tax so where has it all been spent?
If increasing longevity is a problem, why do the continentals get more? They live longer than us and retire at 60 in France, 58 Italy if you have paid in for long enough and 68 in Germany but with a very generous pension.
By the way, after leaving BT, I work in the civil service and would now recommend "small government." Unless foolish you will spend your own money a lot more wisely than them from what I have seen. I thought BT was run badly!

I don't know about Germany, but the burden on the economy of pension provision in France and Italy is widely reported: many think it is what will finally topple the house of cards economy in Italy, and I bet you'llfind some who'd take on each way bet on pension and health provision taking blame for any economic difficulty in France

i8change

France has been retiring Men and Women at 60 whilst also retiring it civil servants at 50! As they also live longer, due to the continental diet etc., there is plenty of room for us to rise from bottom place.

beingjdc

macaque wrote: »

Thank you Vladimir Posner. Here are a few recent news stories.

The public sector spends around £4 of every £10 in the economy. If things didn't sometimes go wrong it would be a clue that we were robots living in a computer simulation, not the real world.

If private companies were subject to Freedom of Information rules and had to account in public for any spending above a fairly low limit, it would be possible to construct just as many of these stories.

Sometimes there'll be a rational explanation, sometimes the money won't have been "wasted" at all, and sometimes it will be a screw-up. Very occasionally it might even be corruption.

But the UK does relatively well on all counts, and the public sector is getting constantly better at value for money, when politicians aren't having wacky ideas about PFI or similar nonsense. You just won't hear that from the newspapers. Wonder why...

A_fiend_for_life

The public sector could do with similar penalties as the private sector for project overruns in construction and IT. A supermarket for example imposes hefty penalties for project overruns.

Also the tit for tat strategy employed by the private sector to public sector tenders needs looking at. Who puts in tenders for PFIs and how do they compare between regions or for similar projects?

Cleaver

A_fiend_for_life wrote: »

The public sector could do with similar penalties as the private sector for project overruns in construction and IT. A supermarket for example imposes hefty penalties for project overruns.

I've worked on quite a few large IT installations for the NHS and every single one had a clause in the contract / SLA with any supplier for fines due to overuns.

99% of the IT projects in the NHS are run in the same way as the private sector and our agreements with companies were often the same ones they used with private sector customers.

The oft-quoted NHS project that runs in to the billions is run centrally by an NHS body which provides products that no Trust really wants (and Foundation Hospitals are starting to reject them). It's run in an awful way and should just be abolished.

kabayiri

A simple question. Aren't we just creating a timebomb?

Central government pension funds are paid for out of the public purse 'at that time'.

If the yoof of the day / our offspring turn round in 15/20 years time and say "on yer bike....we can't afford all that" we will be in a right pickle won't we? They are after all, looking at a heavy taxation burden for our recent credit escapades.

macaque_2

beingjdc wrote: »

The public sector spends around £4 of every £10 in the economy. If things didn't sometimes go wrong it would be a clue that we were robots living in a computer simulation, not the real world.

If private companies were subject to Freedom of Information rules and had to account in public for any spending above a fairly low limit, it would be possible to construct just as many of these stories.

Sometimes there'll be a rational explanation, sometimes the money won't have been "wasted" at all, and sometimes it will be a screw-up. Very occasionally it might even be corruption.

But the UK does relatively well on all counts, and the public sector is getting constantly better at value for money, when politicians aren't having wacky ideas about PFI or similar nonsense. You just won't hear that from the newspapers. Wonder why...

There lies the problem. You are just not accountable. No matter how badly you perform and no matter how many cockups you make, you always forgive yourselves. You rationalise, make excuses and cover up as the country goes to the dogs.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/tax-and-bureaucracy-send-uk-down-world-league-table-of-competitiveness-398501.html

The British decline seems to be largely down to the activities of Government and officialdom. Despite the relative success of monetary policy under an operationally independent Bank of England, the UK's worst ranking among the various measures of competitiveness is 46th – for macroeconomic stability. When asked about the problems of doing business in Britain, the WEF's panel of respondents, comprising business people and economists, were clear that tax was the principal obstacle; both tax rates and tax regulations were cited as off-putting, with government bureaucracy not far behind.
An inadequately trained workforce with a poor work ethic is also apparently a reason for steering clear of the UK. The picture is strikingly similar to that identified in the WEF's profile of the US economy, though in America inflation is perceived as a much more potent danger. On the plus side, the UK ranks second in the world on the sophistication of its financial markets. The efficacy of corporate boards, legal rights and scientific research are also advantages. The WEF also found that wage levels in the UK, given its competitive position, were a disadvantage for the British economy.

This article is 2 years old. Heaven knows where we will be when dust clears from the credit crunch. Doubless public servants will still be patting themselves on the back and behaving like monkeys in a fruit shop.