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

Nope, I'm not advocating that at all.

My point was that there has been a belief that the certain functions in public sector organisations can be contracted out to the private sector to save money. On the occasions where significant money is saved, the result is a terrible service. But what tends to happen is that tenderers bid far too low to get the work, and then either force a renegotiation (often through threatening to go into administration) to force the price up. To paraphrase Jeremy Hardy, if the public sector is incompetent, the private sector is incompetent and greedy. What you get in these circumstances is the worst service that people are still prepared to pay for.

More broadly, my view is roughly "markets where possible, governments where necessary." And 'necessary' includes infrastructure and services that are either (a) essential, or (b) can only be run as a monopoly.

Exactly Otto and what I said was :-
< A serious look at the procurement practices of the Public sector. >
with a link here :- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8694584.stm
to proposals that would take a step in that direction.
Good procurement practice would sort out the cowboys.
Politics and Development Planning are not good bed mates add Economics to make up the eternal triangle and who's in charge.

We could save 15k a year by not giving Fergie her Civil List payments. That'd pay my wage

I quite like working for the public rather than to make a shareholder richer.

I posted this on the news story thread..but I thought it might do here as well on the day that first and relatively minor cuts of 6.5 billion are announced..we ain't seen nothing yet. They said on Newsnight tonight ten times the amount will be coming soon.
**
Apparently the Windsors are wanting more public money at the moment.

'..July will see the announcement of a new civil list settlement. There are rumours the royals are asking to double the amount to more than £15m. '

from,

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentis...ppetite-secrecy-only-invite-scandal

and even more ironic that Labour spent its last days protecting the Windsors.


'.. Among the laws rushed through in the "wash-up" of the last government was a change to the Freedom of Information Act granting an absolute ban on all communications with the royal family and royal household. Prior to this such information was still exempt but if there was a public interest in the material, it had to be disclosed.

That exemption meant, for example, one could argue that, as the billpayer, the public has a right to know the detail of how the £7.9m from the civil list is spent, about the additional £15m spent to maintain the royal palaces, and the estimated £50m spent on royal security...'

Wow £15m. That's a farthing a head in old money. I'll pay your share effers you can emigrate
How much do think the crown jewels would fetch on e-bay.

>Wow £15m. That's a farthing a head in old money.<

Sorry you've lost me AB. Everyone here is capable of simple arithmetic. What's your point about increasing the farthings spent in this area of the public sector?

And also that in future we the people coughing up the farthings, are going to be denied information about this, that all other areas of public sector spending are quite rightly subject to.

The royal familay are net contributors to the exchequer. Nearly every other country's head of state is a cost to their exchequer. Changing this would make things worse, not better, for public finances, Effers.

RF

Changing what?

And this public sector spending isn't just limited to the head of state who should quite rightly IMO, have public money spent on them

I think it's really just a comment on how little a difference £15m will make, though I'd perhaps argue that a bit of leading by example might be useful.

I came across a useful analogy the other day.

Let me run this imaginary scenario past you.

My wife and I both have good jobs, but we spend money like Billy-o! In fact in overdraft at the bank and in credit cards we are £1,300,000 overdrawn. Ridiculous I know, but stick with me. Now although as high fliers we earn £50,000 per month, we are actually spending £13,000 per month more than we are earning. That means that we will be £156,000 more overdrawn at the end of the year.

Now the bank we deal with is starting to get a little concerned at our financial situation. However, we have a plan! My wife is going to stop buying designer shoes this year and that will save £6,000, so we'll only have a deficit this year of £150,000 to add to our existing overdraft of £1.3m, meaning we will owe £1,450,000 at the end of the year. The Bank have accepted our plan and although my wife wanted to wait until next year to stop buying shoes and implement it, she's accepted that we need to do it now.

Simples.

Yeah but no-one here is explaining why in the future the detail of the public spending on the Windsor family is to be kept secret, even though we have a Freedom of Information Law.

But I suppose a bit like your 'imaginary scenario' we can simply 'imagine' what the Windsor family are costing...or as RF claims making us money. I mean if we knew, rather than simply imagined, we can suggest better ways for them to make even more spondulicks for the country.

eg The Duchy of Cornwall might be better managed to make more money for everyone. I don't have a clue though how much it makes us at present.

>> or as RF claims making us money. I mean if we knew, rather than simply imagined <<

here you go Effers. Knowledge is contained herein: http://www.royal.gov.uk/pdf/Introduction%20to%20Head%20of%20State%20expenditure%202006-07.pdf

Head of state expenditure for 2007 was £37.3 million.

"Income from the Crown Estate for the year to 31st March 2006 surrendered by The Queen to the Exchequer amounted to £188 million"

RF

Oh well to the Windsors.

Though if I'm honest I don't understand enough about how all these things are actually measured to make any sort of judgement as to how meaningful they are...but I'll take your word for it. I also get confused the way one moment people talk about head of state..and the next the Royal Family. And how many of the big ol' rambling family get public money. Eg I saw just now that kea had posted on the Fergie thread, that she lives in the same palace as Andrew. Though I do actually applaud that doubling up..even though they are divorced..one less person on the council waiting list.

And I'll 'imagine' in the future this money making they do will continue. Mind you I'm not certain whether Edward exactly pulls his weight after his disastrous career in the film industry. But I'll 'imagine' he's pulled things round.

You seem to be in the know Reddyfreddy
Your observations on this scenario would be appreciated:-

Public sector workers wages are paid out of taxes, out of those wages the public sector worker pays national insurance and pension contributions, but as employer the tax payer has to pay an equal amount. ie the tax payer pays twice for benefits awarded to public sector workers. On retirement , at whatever age, the public sector worker gets a public sector pension related to the leaving salary, and on reaching state retirement age the worker becomes elligible for a state pension as a bonus. If public sector workers were to enjoy the benefits of the services, which they themselves provide, free but without access to a state pension, it would leave the employer/tax payer to pay them the pension that as employer/tax payers they are committed to pay them because of the contributions they, as public sector tax payers and the employer/tax payers, have paid to the public sector pension scheme on their behalf. If you see what I mean.

>>"Income from the Crown Estate for the year to 31st March 2006 surrendered by The Queen to the Exchequer amounted to £188 million"

Even more if we nationalised it, presumably.

Actually...cancel that. It *is* nationalised in all but name. The Crown Estate is a property portfolio owned by the Crown, but paying surplus revenue to the treasury.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_Estate

So...can it really be said that the royal family is a net contributor? That seems an odd way of looking at it. They nominally own assets which would otherwise be in state hands anyway - but they don't actually *do* anything with them.

What a presumption. Far more likely that the £188 million would be absorbed and the assets would eventually be sold at a loss.

> Far more likely that the £188 million would be absorbed and the assets would eventually be sold at a loss.<

Well at least we'd know about that, and the public would know, and be able to vote accordingly.

What I can't fathom is if the Royals are raking it in for us..surely it should be shouted from the hills, not kept secret all of a sudden.

>>What I can't fathom is if the Royals are raking it in for us

Cut what does 'raking it in for us' mean? It depends on whether we regard them as:
a) Sovereigns. Owners of this land who distribute their largesse to us
or
b) Constitutional monarchs who serve us as guarantors of our democracy.

If b)...then, granted, they should receive payment (albeit maybe not *quite* so much) - but that's position is somewhat incompatible with a).

I never voted for 'em anyway.

>> but they don't actually *do* anything with them. <<

That's right, they do nothing with them, they just magically generate cash.

That reminds me of this joke:

One day a man comes home from work to find total mayhem at home. The kids were outside still in their pajamas playing in the mud and muck. There were empty food boxes and wrappers all around.

As he proceeded into the house, he found an even bigger mess. Dishes on the counter, dog food spilled on the floor, a broken glass under the table, and a small pile of sand by the back door. The family room was strewn with toys and various items of clothing, and a lamp had been knocked over.

He headed up the stairs, stepping over toys, to look for his wife. He was becoming worried that she may be ill, or that something had happened to her.

He found her in the bedroom, still in bed with her pajamas on, reading a book.

She looked up at him, smiled, and asked how his day went. He looked at her bewildered and asked, "What happened here today?"

She again smiled and answered, "You know everyday when you come home from work and ask me what I did today?"

"Yes," was his reply.

She answered, "Well, today I didn't do it!"

RF