h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

When all is said and done it is not what it costs that is the issue.
It is a question of who should pick up the tab and what happens when they can no longer do so.
The needy don't need money they need help.
Money has to be earned it is not economically viable to give it away.
There are now far too many looking after far too many but that system needs to be fed.

Take a hospital or school full of equipment. Other than the equipment, it is "otherwise empty". Stop playing with words.

What you're failing to identify is the difference between "nice to have" and "need to have". Ultimately, it doesn't matter whether it's a suite or a room with some equipment in it. It's not necessary. Spending cuts will have to come somewhere, this is exactly the sort of place where they should be made. That you can't see this is symptomatic of the faultlines between the public sector and the real world.

RF

What were the costs to the taxpayer of the "massage suite" and the "contemplation room"?

The basement box room is *unusable* for any other purpose, and any furnishings were paid for by *staff*. Cost to taxpayer? Zero. The "contemplation room" costs, again, minimal. Perhaps they could have been used for storage, or an extra office. But that's the sum total of Cameron's flagship accusation of "public sector waste" - a handful of rooms. And all this when he's proposing inheritance tax *cuts* for the very wealthy, and doing absolutely nothing about tax evasion.

Incidentally, it would be interesting to know if Cameron would have raised it had it been called a "prayer room" rather than a "contemplation room", which is a secular alternative which would allow it to be used for other purposes - meditation, stress relief, that kind of thing.

Kelli has already said that she's worked in three private sector organisations that had prayer rooms. I've worked for a private sector company that had a subsidised staff gym provided by the company.

This is an attempt to make a mountain out of something that's not even a molehill, and I'm amazed that you can't see it.

Too right, RF.

There was a good conversation in the pub last night. Someone told a tale in which a well-known politician got into the press car after talking to a member of the public in front of the cameras. The politician concerned wasn't exactly noted for his sociability and empathy, and he berated his assistant for getting him into a disastrous interview with a "waste of space". Unfortunately his mike was still on.

In fact the member of the public had been a personable and well-turned out young man, a long-term supporter of the politician's party, intelligently expressing concerns about cuts in public sector administration where he and his peers worked.

The world of news media held its breath. This was the defining moment of the election campaign, with one of its leading protagonists having insulted what they took to be his natural constituency.

They were a little surpised when the till-then beleagured politician's poll ratings jumped 5% overnight. The following night, in a public TV debate, the politician warmed to the theme of cutting back on public administration while preserving the real service provision in the public sector. It seems to have been exactly what the politician's real natural supporters, the ordinary working people in the productive economy and the front-line service sector, needed to hear, because the politician's party, against all odds, has just been returned to power.

In fact the awkward old sod can look forward to another 5 years of government knowing that he got a double bonus. His traditional rivals' vote was split, because a load of disgruntled Guardian-reading dilettante underachievers went and voted for some third party that nobody will ever hear of again.

It's just a good job that our politicians have an innate sensitivity towards their true constituencies. Just think what would have happened if that politician had slagged off real people, instead of a feckless bunch of civil servants that none of us actually need.

I'm a bit puzzled. I'm not sure what point (if any) you're trying to make there. I thought we'd had a fairly productive discussion about the public sector, yet now it seems we're back to insults. Which is a shame.

I´m wondering if people in this thread has read Otto´s link in post 212:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/30/general-election-unemployment-poverty

The whole article but something I´ve read on it :
“”There is an almost surreal distinction between the stigma ladled on the unemployed caught earning a little extra cash to make ends meet, and the lack of opprobrium for tax exiles and UK-based tax fraudsters who cost the country far more: £15bn according to government figures.””
and:
“”Whitaker has £20,000 in student loans to repay. "Everybody I know is pretty much the same," he said.””

Shows a raw reality that should make people shout out of rage, however some prefer to focus on what a biased media and some vulture politicians seeking votes have decided to be the “important facts”
It´s indignant, not only the miserable situation of those jobless people, but also how people react to other´s suffering, whose causes are absolutely alien to them.

Is it fair to blame the victims of this crisis instead of those who have created it and those who are doing little to help those victims?

Spanish goverment, which I think rules a less economical powerful country than Britain, at least said clearly that they wouldn´t let that to happen. They have extended the money help, to jobless whose dole pay ended, up to six months and with 400 euros month. There are other measures so that people can see ends meet. They take seriously social wellbeing, we are having a bad time too, there are some mistakes too, but at least solidarity and compassion still have a meaning within this greedy capitalist system.
On the other hand, can anyone say that the awful situation of those jobless people isn´t going to affect the rest of society? Wouldn´t an improvement in their poor situation help the rest of society?

Now, we can think about it or close our eyes and focus on what only fits our right fixed ideas on what really matters:
" a windowless box room in the basement, unfit for office space and part of the staff-funded gym, with a camp bed and a chair, where staff with injuries can be treated there – any treatment is paid for by the users, at no cost to the taxpayer. And a space for staff who need to pray at certain times of the day."


But if people in this thread has really read that link, and have no other comments to make, fair enough. I have neither more to say.

>>There is an almost surreal distinction between the stigma ladled on the unemployed caught earning a little extra cash to make ends meet, and the lack of opprobrium for tax exiles and UK-based tax fraudsters who cost the country far more: £15bn according to government figures



The Tory election posters are highlighting the issue of the unemployed who 'Refuse Work'

Maybe there are a few. We can argue about numbers. But are the the leading cause of the current economic situation?

Scary.

There's a reason why folk don't much care about rich tax avoiders - they can't relate to them. The rich live a parallel existence from average people. I don't bump into rich people in the circles I mix in. Not many millionaires at my pub and the level of football I support doesn't have millionaire players. Point to a billionaire putting his money into a Swiss account and living on a yacht and you mght as well be pointing at an alien.

But the workshy, lazy s who skive and thieve and who somehow manage to go on two foreign holidays a year are my neighbours or the people who go to the match with me. Ordinary working men have to rub shoulders with these ing wasters. It boils my piss that both me and my wife work FT jobs and we still can't afford the nice things that our neighbours who have NEVER worked (legally) do.

That's interesting. The first paragraph indicates that the reason is purely short-sightedness, not seeing the full picture. But then in the second paragraph you suggest that there's nothing wrong with that.

Insults?!

Don't be so pathetic Otto.

That was a real yarn I heard last night in a real pub in the real world. Everyone who heard it thought it was funny. Everyone. In fact everyone I know thinks that just about the only silver lining on a cloudy horizon is that a week from now, a long-overdue process of rebalancing the economy is finally sure to begin.

Isn't it now imperative that we value workers in the productive economy highest, and isn't it imperative to concentrate public sector spending on service delivery, and the people who are using real skills and putting themselves in really tough situations on society's behalf?

At the same time, isn't it imperative that the people who are overpaid, overprotected and overprivileged in the administrative side of the public sector have their terms reduced to a level commensurate with their economic and social contribution? And while we're at it, isn't it imperative that public sector employees who are poor performers in their jobs are replaced by people who want to and will do better?

I thought we were having a fairly productive discussion too, and I seem to recall that I showed you some rather conclusive government statistics in support of the above hard facts, but maybe you're still not persuaded of the glaringly obvious. You might even feel that there's a cosy consensus that the impending fate of Public-Sector-Lite is somehow unjust here in the Haven of Underachievement that is h2g2, but let me tell you categorically that when I talk about Everyone I know out there in the Real World I mean Everyone. They're supporters of every party and of none, and ordinary working people are in the vanguard, and there are public sector employees among them, and there is nothing untypical about the place I live or the company I keep. I am talking about Real Public Opinion here and you know it, unless you're in complete denial.

Democracy is about to run its course. The electorate knows that we can't afford anyone taking out more than they put in. Get used to it, mate. Either learn some humility (and realign your concept of insult, among other things), or come to terms with the fact that you're siding with a minority that many people resent deeply. Since Wednesday and a certain event in Rochdale I now decisively count myself among them. Since you seem to have difficulty understanding the concept of insult, let me remind you of that exceptionally illustrative example. When bloated and autistic Government dismisses the widely-held and reasonably-voiced opinions of ordinary people as bigotry, that's an insult.

I guess you know what point I'm trying to make now. See you in six days time. My glint of light will by then be hopeful. I guess yours will be an oncoming train.

Here's what it's all about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G0Nhgvgh4Vo&feature=player_embedded

1.11 Gordon Brown - "I fight every day for my future"

Yes, I rather think we got that Gordon.

Incidentally, the man you see being muscled out by heavies for speaking is the Dean of St Benedicts Hall, Oxford University

So unemployment is caused by laziness rather than job shortages, is it?

Job shortages? Aren't we repeatedly told that millions of jobs have been created but the jobless total remains curiously static? Haven't we been told again and again that industrious immigrants are prepared to do the jobs that British people won't do. Haven't we seen report after report of farmers frustrated at the lack of people coming forward in jobless hotspots to pick their crops that they are forced to take on Poles and Slavs?

Labour have been telling us that the unemployed are lazy gets for a decade.


Incidentally, the heckler's identity is now not clear so please disregard the Oxford connection for now.

Here's more interesting footage. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4-N93RP9t7s Freedom of speech eh, dontya just love it.

But all partys are telling us that that we are in dire economic straits. Jobs are being lost in the private sector. Cuts in the public sector mean that they will also be lost from there, too.

And this is the time for billboard ads telling us that our economic problems will be solved by going after a small (how small?) subset of the workshy?

Why?

And what impact might the climate the billboards have on (let's call them) 'the deserving unemployed.'


Like I said...scary.

>>And what impact might the climate the billboards have on (let's call them) 'the deserving unemployed.'

-->

And what impact might the climate the billboards encourage have on (let's call them) 'the deserving unemployed.'

That's a world class rant, there, Pinniped. I'm surprised and disappointed that it's come to this.

In posts 134 and 140 it looked very much as if there was substantial common ground between our respective views, and where there was difference, at least mutual respect. I think you even said that: "threads like this one are the best of hootoo because they help you see issues from a number of perspectives". An observation which I should have seconded in my reply.

I don't know whether to be charitable and assume that you're not attacking me personally and wishing me misfortune, but in places it does read like you are. I also get the impression that you think that I'm in some way involved or implicated in the Labour government or central government in general. I'm not - I'm not a Whitehall or local government civil servant and I won't be voting Labour.

"Job shortages? Aren't we repeatedly told that millions of jobs have been created but the jobless total remains curiously static? Haven't we been told again and again that industrious immigrants are prepared to do the jobs that British people won't do. Haven't we seen report after report of farmers frustrated at the lack of people coming forward in jobless hotspots to pick their crops that they are forced to take on Poles and Slavs?"

Part of the problem seems to be that work doesn't pay enough in relation to benefits, especially once the costs of work (travel, clothing, childcare) have been factored in. The problem seems to be that as income from pay increases, so income from benefits decreases, and so there's no incentive, especially for part time work. One response is the "starve people back to work" response and the reduction of benefits, but that assumes that there *is* work to be had and ignores the possible consequences and costs of such an approach (child poverty and the impact on the next generation, crime, extra strain on families etc). I mentioned the citizens' income in post 64, and I think that could be part of an answer - everyone gets the citizens income, and pay is on top of that as part of a more equal society. I also wonder whether employers could be more innovative and flexible around working hours and home working to make things easier for single parents.

Crop picking and similar activities are something of a special case. The problem with crop picking is that it's mainly a rural occupation. and the majority of unemployment is urban. It pays very poorly, and my impression (which may be wrong) is that many crop picking and similar roles are paid as a package of accommodation, food, and money. Those without family, housing, or financial commitments could take such jobs, but it's rather harder for everyone else.

Of course I'm not wishing you ill personally Otto. What you construe as insulting does mark you out as pretty thin-skinned, mind you.

Rant? Well I certainly admit to being angry. My political sympathies lie with the parties who foster the productive economy, and who protect and reward the people who work hard to acquire skills. I happen to believe that those virtues are being undervalued in this thread and are overlooked on the site as a whole. They are moreover being paid lip service in political debate, and in our society in general.

Labour's true constituency should be working people. That's one reason why Wednesday's eavesdropping was so shocking. Labour's last stand now seems to be an appeal to the votes of the one part of the economy we can't afford to protect, ie the backroom elements of the public sector. It isn't enough to wheel out Peter Mandelson to say nice things about Advanced Manufacturing (particularly when almost all of its practitioners deplore a hike in NI, but I digress). You need to invest, making it rewarding and secure to work in such areas of the economy. You don't let young people believe that they'll do better working in non-jobs in public sector administration. You don't go rewarding the people who are doing those jobs better than those in the productive economy. You don't preferentially underwrite their pensions, and you don't encourage such jobs to proliferate. Why not? Because they're not the jobs we need, and that means the people who do those jobs are undeserving of such privileges, and that in turn means that those jobs are the priority for cutbacks in time of economic need.

Get used to it, Otto. The public sector has had a good run, with a lot of people in its middle and upper echelons taking out a lot more than they put in. That aberration is now over, perhaps for good, certainly IMO for the better. I don't know and I don't really care whether you feel personally wronged by this or whether you feel strongly about others who you pereceive as bound to suffer. The simple fact is that we are going to have to invest in the real economy now. That's what I meant by the light at the end of the tunnel. And I'm trying not to feel spiteful about Brown, but I'm becoming more and more convinced that he completely deserves his humiliation.

It's going to be tough for a lot of people, sure. I guess you think I'm being callous. But I've seen better jobs lost than these, very many of them, whole communities full of them. I've seen a lot of people with more useful skills struggling on with much less reward and recognition and security than the so-called public sector professionals, and if that makes me seem callous now that change is coming, so be it.

Absolutely. And one of the reasons for that is the myriad sneaky taxes brought in on transport, fuel etc. I quite like the LibDem approach of no taxes below £10,000 because this outgoing so called progressive government uses tax systems that disproportionately impact upon the lower paid.

The tax "credits" system is cruel and cynical and relies on the fact that there is always a proportion of people wo do not claim benefits/credits through ignorance/laziness/principle. I understand that take-up of tax credits rises in line with wages. Which is another thing - tax credits seem to be available to people on quite generous wages. IIRC they can be claimed by households with joint incomes up to £50k plus

And so many benefits are given to people who don't need them. Many quite wealthy pensioners get given hundreds of £s in fuel allowances. Many quite wealthy parents get given child benefit. This must collectively add up to a substantial sum - to the point where the cost of means testing is outweighed. Yes, I realise that brings us full circle to my earlier point that some people don't claim what they are entitled to, but for Winter Fuel Allowance the people most in need are highly likely to be known to the authorities already by way of home helps and/or social work.

Welfare is one of the largest areas of public expenditure and the blanket approach of throwing cash around to all and sundry simply MUST be addressed. It's ridiculous that the Queen can claim winter fuel allowance and that Madonna can claim child benefit.

Thanks for that clarification, Pinniped.

That actually makes a lot more sense, as I had literally no idea what you were talking about at times, especially with regard to the stuff about Rochdale and Labour. You did make quite a number of very insulting remarks, and I'm still not entirely clear who they were aimed at, or the basis for them, so I'm not sure whether that makes me thin-skinned or not.

Administration staff are vital for the smooth running of any organisation. It's easy to score cheap points by criticising "bureaucrats" and "administrators" out of context from the services they provide. Let's take a hospital for example. A hospital without an efficient appointments system that allows for maximum use to be made of the facilities and of medical staff time would be a disaster, even with the best doctors and nurses and equipment money could buy. There are a lot of other functions which - if they fail - would ruin a hospital. Inefficient procurement and stock management = huge costs and shortages of drugs and medical equipment. Bad patient records = patient deaths. Poor financial controls = fraud and waste. Poor HR function = poor recruitment decisions. And so on and so forth.

As well as creating an environment where front line staff can work effectively, administrators can also take tasks from front line professionals to free up their time. We're often told that we want police officers on the beat, not filling in forms. Of course, reducing the paperwork burden is one way to do that, but given that records are needed, another way is to employ civilian start to coordinate and support this activity. One of my frustrations in my previous job was seeing highly-paid senior professionals spending their time photocopying, because there wasn't the admin support available to do it for them. None of this is unique to the public sector - it's true in all organisations, though I suspect that the private sector is probably better at providing admin support to its senior staff.

I'm not saying that they are *no* efficiencies that can be made in backroom and support functions in the public sector, but my experience is that these efficiencies are already being looked for all the time. My experience is that better IT systems could make a difference, but that requires investment. However, any politician who tries to demonise or belittle essential support functions is either an idiot or is treating the electorate like idiots.

I'll assume that your ire is not aimed at admin staff and managers who allow front line services to work efficiently. If I understand correctly, your main objection is to offices and offices full of highly-paid staff doing non-jobs badly (perhaps a bit like the 'Department of Administrative Affairs' in 'Yes Minister') sucking in and then spoiling talent that could be producing wealth in the private sector. Such staff have a job for life (rather than a career for life, which is different, as we've discussed) are employed for the sake of employment and for shoring up Labour party support, and that there's enough of them to form some kind of core constituency for the Labour party to pander to.

I guess the main difference between us is that you think that such offices and departments exist, and I don't. If I did, I would be appalled and would be calling for action too. Thing is, I can't see what the *evidence* is for the existence of such monoliths of waste. There is a lot of sneering and derision in aspects of the right wing media about some public sector jobs, but it seems to me that a lot of this is from not really understanding the job or the context. It's not surprising that people don't understand job adverts for jobs outside of their sector, using the jargon and language of that sector. And when examples are highlighted, as with Cameron's recent claims, on closer examination they turn out to be very misleading. So, for me, criticisms along these lines either seem so vague as to be meaningless (*who* exactly, and *where*), or when they are detailed, turn out to be wrong. So in the absence of any evidence, I conclude that they don't exist, and I wonder why people believe that they do.

On manufacturing, you say that you're worried by the NI hike, but what do you think about Tory plans to scrap the Regional Development Agencies? In the last debate, Brown was very critical of Tory plans to scrap capital allowances - is that not more damaging than any NI rise? Genuine questions here - we've established that you're not a Tory, I think, and that I'm not voting Labour, so this is just a policy question, not a point scoring exercise.