Would you want my job cut?

ninky_2

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

If you want civil service cutbacks, be careful what you wish for. .

Absolutely. Thanks for this post. I'd also say the same about public sector in general. It seems there is a big backlash against public sector workers at the moment as often happens in a recession. During boom times it is the private sector that seem to get the wrath.

I think a lot of this is fuelled by jealousy, seeing others with more secure jobs, pensions etc. But many in the private sector would not be willing to give up the chance to make a fastbuck in boom times.

Before we were all angry with estate agents. Now it's social workers and civil servants.

Sir_Humphrey

ninky wrote: »

Before we were all angry with estate agents. Now it's social workers and civil servants.

I agree - it is the usual divide and rule crap from the Daily Wail and the Current Bun.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Or you could raise taxes for rich people and do both perhaps?

You've shifted your argument.

If you raise enough tax then you could have your car resprayed whilst you do your shopping paid for by the taxpayer. If rich people pay enough tax.

What is your point please? That you are indispensable or that more money should be raised to ensure that your position can be financed while others can.

Out of interest, what do you think is a moral or practical limit to Government spending vs GDP?

Sir_Humphrey

Generali wrote: »

You've shifted your argument.

If you raise enough tax then you could have your car resprayed whilst you do your shopping paid for by the taxpayer. If rich people pay enough tax.

What is your point please? That you are indispensable or that more money should be raised to ensure that your position can be financed while others can.

Out of interest, what do you think is a moral or practical limit to Government spending vs GDP?

I am not shifting the argument. You were implying that there was a fixed figure for spending, and that spending in one area means cuts in the other. I was pointing out that was wrong. There is a line to be drawn of course, but your attempt at a slippery slope argument simply does not work. They are both indispensible, so having one does not negate the other.

No-one is suggesting that I have my car resprayed or my shopping done by the taxpayer, what a silly straw man. Of course, cutting taxes for the rich would divert money from cancer care to getting Porsches resprayed, but right-wingers tend not to mention that.

Generali

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am not shifting the argument. You were implying that there was a fixed figure for spending, and that spending in one area means cuts in the other. I was pointing out that was wrong. There is a line to be drawn of course, but your attempt at a slippery slope argument simply does not work. They are both indispensible, so having one does not negate the other.

Neither is indispensable, you should know that. We can't spend indefinitely on preventing everyone from dying, we have to take the best pay offs. You know that as a civil servant, right? You have cost=-benefit analysis I hope. if you don't then it explains some of what's wrong with the civil service in the UK.

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

No-one is suggesting that I have my car resprayed or my shopping done by the taxpayer, what a silly straw man. Of course, cutting taxes for the rich would divert money from cancer care to getting Porsches resprayed, but right-wingers tend not to mention that.

Again you shift your argument from how to direct spending to who should pay for it. The two are different things.

At present rather more than 40% of GDP goes on Government spending. If things continue as they are for much longer (say 15 months - 5 quarter years) then Government spending will be more like 50% of GDP. Where do you think that should end?

JonnyBravo

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

Fireworks are just one part of my work, which covers a very large range of dangerous items, some of which are far more dangerous.

Got anything to protect yourself from the large amount of paper cuts you must suffer???

bendix

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

I am not shifting the argument. You were implying that there was a fixed figure for spending, and that spending in one area means cuts in the other. I was pointing out that was wrong. There is a line to be drawn of course, but your attempt at a slippery slope argument simply does not work. They are both indispensible, so having one does not negate the other.

No-one is suggesting that I have my car resprayed or my shopping done by the taxpayer, what a silly straw man. Of course, cutting taxes for the rich would divert money from cancer care to getting Porsches resprayed, but right-wingers tend not to mention that.

Are you not at work again for a second day, Sir H?

Does anyone in the public sector every do any work in return for my taxes. You're my servant . . get off the goddam internet and regulate some sparklers or something, would ya? Make yourself useful - there's a crazed Catherine Wheel out there that need controlling.

Bloody slackers.

carolt

Generali wrote: »

Neither is indispensable, you should know that. We can't spend indefinitely on preventing everyone from dying, we have to take the best pay offs. You know that as a civil servant, right? You have cost=-benefit analysis I hope. if you don't then it explains some of what's wrong with the civil service in the UK.



Again you shift your argument from how to direct spending to who should pay for it. The two are different things.

At present rather more than 40% of GDP goes on Government spending. If things continue as they are for much longer (say 15 months - 5 quarter years) then Government spending will be more like 50% of GDP. Where do you think that should end?

To be fair, Generali, civil servants don't make decisions on priorities, or decide on levels of govt spending - ministers do. Elected officials - chosen by us.

We get the spending priorities (roughly, anyway) that we, the public, vote for.

Civil servants just implement whatever they're told to implement, to the best of their ability.

No point shooting the messenger - or the 'implementer' (sorry, there must be more elegant way of saying that). I'm sure lots of civil servants feel frustration at some of the nonsense they're asked to implement, but if you dislike the nonsense, then you need to (a) vote better and (b) persuade others to vote better.

Or take up lobbying.

I don't think Sir Humph did his own cause much good with the OP - his work may or may not be valuable, but the level of secrecy he employs (Official Secrets Act etc, say no more, say no more) makes it rather difficult to tell.

That said, I know plenty of very useful public servants and the odd bit of dead wood - much like any organisation, I'm afraid.

The real problem may be that the biggest dead wood is at the top of the tree - the pants ministers with pants ideas, which change as often as the ministers do, just so they can be seen to have been 'making their mark'.

Sir_Humphrey

carolt wrote: »

I don't think Sir Humph did his own cause much good with the OP - his work may or may not be valuable, but the level of secrecy he employs (Official Secrets Act etc, say no more, say no more) makes it rather difficult to tell.

That said, I know plenty of very useful public servants and the odd bit off dead wood - much like any organisation, I'm afraid.

The real problem may be that the biggest dead wood is at the top of the tree - the pants ministers with pants ideas, which change as often as the ministers do, just so they can be seen to have been 'making their mark'.

The reason I am not being more specific is because I don't want to reveal my Department. Fair enough surely? OSA has nothing to do with it. What do Wookster, Bendix and all the others do for a living? At least I have the balls to put my cards on the table rather than acting like a five year old with ADHD.

bendix

carolt wrote: »

I don't think Sir Humph did his own cause much good with the OP - his work may or may not be valuable, but the level of secrecy he employs (Official Secrets Act etc, say no more, say no more) makes it rather difficult to tell.

quote]

He's on the internet at public expense during work hours, asking complete strangers if his job is worth keeping.

As a contributor to his salary, I think the answer is self-evident.