300,000 jobs in public sector face the axe

Harry_Powell

marklv wrote: »

Consultancies are parasitic organisations. The perceived need for them from customers is generated by senior managers who are contantly seeking 'improvement' in the running of a business even when no real improvement is either realistically achievable or necessary. Consultancies thrive on this management culture that seems to have been born in MBA business schools rather than the real world. The end result is that enormous sums are spent on management consultants without a tangible end result that can justify this expense. These consultants are certainly very clever, I'll grant them that, and they are also good at selling themselves, but in my experience the benefits they offer are marginal when compared to the high cost. I believe it is scandalous that such organisations have been used in the public sector. This is a practice that must end - the sooner, the better.

THere speaks a man who applied to and was rejected by a big 5 consultancy company. I can see the HR psyche file now...

"Do not employ, emotionally unstable with narcisistic tendancies". :easter_os

kennyboy66_2

marklv wrote: »

So what use is it to raise basic rate tax? That will hurt mainly low and low-to-middle income taxpayers. And why hurt pensioners on low incomes?
I still maintain that the upper sector of the working population has had it too good for too long - and now it's time to pay up. I would reduce the 50% tax rate from 150k down to 90k or thereabouts, and put the 40% rate up to 42%.

National Insurance increases hurt mainly low and low to middle income taxpayers as well. In fact more so, as you pay it at only 1% above the upper earnings threshhold.
So moving the burden of tax from income tax to National insurance actually favours the wealthy. A pity this is another of Gordon Browns legacies.

By next year, the employees NI rate will have increase from 10% (in 1997) to 12%, whilst income tax will have fell from 23% to 20%.

Well done Labour, another demonstration of penalising the working low - middle paid and favouring the well off. At least it generated some cheap headlines about cutting income tax to its lowest rate for x years.

princeofpounds

There is no magic bullet but someone needs to consider most of the following.

1) Increase income tax rather than National Insurance. In what possible way is it useful to burden the workers rather than everyone with tax increases ?
2) Make people work longer sooner.
3) Make all new recruits go on a a "career average" style pension
4) Make existing members on final salary pay significantly more for their pension.
5) Close final salary schemes and put everyone into a "career average" pension (but protect existing rights).

These are all potential ways to mitigate the impact and to stop further growth of the problem, but unfortunately relatively few of them address the underlying intergenerational unfairness because most of them preserves the benefits already earnt, which are the source of the problem as it exists today.

I have to say I'm surprised that the younger generation haven't cottoned onto this more. Normally severe interegenerational inequity causes some kind of strife, but we haven't really seen it yet.

Maybe now that we have reached the limits of the national borrowing that has been part-funding the largesse that will clarify the problem. Maybe it will just be a matter of time. Or maybe the whole problem is so creeping and complex that most people will remain ignorant of it their whole lives and it will never become a public as opposed to policy issue.

kabayiri

Harry_Powell wrote: »

THere speaks a man who applied to and was rejected by a big 5 consultancy company. I can see the HR psyche file now...

He is certainly bitter about something....maybe he had a bad run in with Accenture or the like.

Mark, you need to not let it eat you up inside. For every person like you with strong views on consultancies, you must know there exists someone in a consultancy with an attitude to 'clients' .... ie they aren't all that bright and they get the quality of results they deserve.

It doesn't follow that either view is right.

We shall see more use of certain areas of consultancy as the public sector tries to manage the change which comes from this necessary shrinkage.

donaldtramp

marklv wrote: »

And I am sick of busybodies like you not minding their own bl**dy business. :mad:

Oh I have touched a nerve, GOOD!
If by busybody you mean, one of the people that have been taxed to the hilt to pay for other peoples pensions and keep them in featherbedded jobs, then yes I am a busybody.
I'm also glad that the government is having to listen to sensible busybodys like me,

BEFORE WE ALL END UP LIKE GREECE!!!!

I work in IT in a professional/managerial capacity

Oh dear, isn't IT one of the areas the government has in its sights?

donaldtramp

Consultancies are parasitic organisations.

I'd agree. But there is a far larger problem. The sheer number of public sector posts and their pensions. Now theres a parasite.....
The consultants costs become a drop in the ocean compared to the trillions of pounds worth of debts our bloated public sector is building up.

Let's not try to steer the thread towards talking about a tiny, miniscule part of our countries problem eh?

JasonLVC

donaldtramp wrote: »

Oh dear, isn't IT one of the areas the government has in its sights?

IT "Professionals" like these donald? :-

StevieJ

marklv wrote: »

I believe it is scandalous that such organisations have been used in the public sector. This is a practice that must end - the sooner, the better.

I partially agree but public sector also needs to open recruitment more widely to those in the private sector to enable a cross fertilisation of ideas. BTW I feel that consultants are invariably used as a CYA exercise.

kabayiri

donaldtramp wrote: »

Oh dear, isn't IT one of the areas the government has in its sights?

I believe that lovely quango BECTA has already been read it's death rites.

That's a saving for what some would argue as not much loss.

A thought....if there is no more IT in public sector, then what will they blame their future c*ck ups on?

They can hardly use the 'computer error' excuse can they?

lostinrates

kabayiri wrote: »

They can hardly use the 'computer error' excuse can they?

I would think they'll, truthfully or otherwise, be able to blame computers more if there is reduced access to staff who understand technology!

edit: I wasn't going to say anything but.....despite my belief that IT can indeed be classed as a ''Profession'' now (and a job, many titles could be either depending on the actual role and person semantically I think) I am dismayed that someone in a managerial role displays such counterproductive communication in what cannot be anything like as high stress a situation as faced in day to day managerial role.