Public sector watch
Discussion
mph1977 said:
Rovinghawk said:
Any comment on the extravagance of the NHS chaps mentioned above?
Do you support them or think they're troughing scumbags?
very few 'general ' managers in the NHS are worth anything , not many 'Nurse' Managers in the NHS are worth anything - odd isn't it that that Doctors as Managers right up to the Medicla Director maintain clinicla commitments when more and more Nurse 'Managers' from Ward levle band 7 upwards use it as an excuse to not touch a patient ... Do you support them or think they're troughing scumbags?
Do you support them or think they're troughing scumbags?
Rovinghawk said:
mph1977 said:
Rovinghawk said:
Any comment on the extravagance of the NHS chaps mentioned above?
Do you support them or think they're troughing scumbags?
very few 'general ' managers in the NHS are worth anything , not many 'Nurse' Managers in the NHS are worth anything - odd isn't it that that Doctors as Managers right up to the Medicla Director maintain clinicla commitments when more and more Nurse 'Managers' from Ward levle band 7 upwards use it as an excuse to not touch a patient ... Do you support them or think they're troughing scumbags?
Do you support them or think they're troughing scumbags?
5CylTurbo said:
SpeedMattersNot said:
And again, it's not entirely true that top teachers always flock to top schools and poor teachers swarm towards the bad ones. As already mentioned, the largest variable is the student and in many cases, the best or the worst teachers can't help them. It's a far bigger problem than whether or not the teachers are any good - it's a massive problem with several areas of the country in all aspects of life, not just education.
Your last statement is entirely pointless (much like my efforts in replying, or indeed even reading this thread).
So if what you are saying was true, then once a school was poor it will never ever be improved, as apparently the staff make no difference according to you!Your last statement is entirely pointless (much like my efforts in replying, or indeed even reading this thread).
But we all know that isn't the case, a better head, get rid of some of the crap teachers and bingo the school starts to improve, same pupils, same location but it is turned around by, decent teachers!
A decent teacher will make the lessons interesting and the kids will want to attend and learn.
Indeed, poor schools get more money (than a lot of average schools) and yes, they can relatively employ a 'better head' for that school. For that student type. For that environment. They can then influence the school how they choose to. Yes...they can make it better.
The same head for a leading private school in the country? I very much doubt it. The best Oxbridge maths lecturer, makes it exciting for these students and they suddenly flock to these classes in awe?
You are out of touch with something you can't comprehend. Reality.
These threads are very good value.
Months of pointless arguing about terms and conditions of public servants compared to private sector workers and an almost religious belief that the private sector is totally flawless and self supporting.
I say this as a private sector worker who has never, nor will ever, be a public servant - but some posters on here really are no less dogmatic and entrenched in their beliefs as the left leaning/unionised/golden pensioned public servants they so despise.
In the same way that some of you complain that 'banker bashing' is very wide of the mark as very very few bankers make enormous bonuses etc, the vast majority of public servants are low paid, middle-of-the-road workers. Very very few public servants spend £300/night on hotels or £7k a year on taxis etc.
There seems to be very little recognition or self awareness that both the 'evil bankers' and the 'troughing public servant' are both very tiny, demonised by the press, pantomime minority.
Anyway, I will let you get back to the pointless bickering.
Months of pointless arguing about terms and conditions of public servants compared to private sector workers and an almost religious belief that the private sector is totally flawless and self supporting.
I say this as a private sector worker who has never, nor will ever, be a public servant - but some posters on here really are no less dogmatic and entrenched in their beliefs as the left leaning/unionised/golden pensioned public servants they so despise.
In the same way that some of you complain that 'banker bashing' is very wide of the mark as very very few bankers make enormous bonuses etc, the vast majority of public servants are low paid, middle-of-the-road workers. Very very few public servants spend £300/night on hotels or £7k a year on taxis etc.
There seems to be very little recognition or self awareness that both the 'evil bankers' and the 'troughing public servant' are both very tiny, demonised by the press, pantomime minority.
Anyway, I will let you get back to the pointless bickering.
johnfm said:
In the same way that some of you complain that 'banker bashing' is very wide of the mark as very very few bankers make enormous bonuses etc, the vast majority of public servants are low paid, middle-of-the-road workers. Very very few public servants spend £300/night on hotels or £7k a year on taxis etc.
How many is an acceptable number?The difference with the public sector is that I can't choose to take my business elsewhere.
Rovinghawk said:
johnfm said:
In the same way that some of you complain that 'banker bashing' is very wide of the mark as very very few bankers make enormous bonuses etc, the vast majority of public servants are low paid, middle-of-the-road workers. Very very few public servants spend £300/night on hotels or £7k a year on taxis etc.
How many is an acceptable number?The difference with the public sector is that I can't choose to take my business elsewhere.
We don't have much control over the government's QE and zirp policies either, nor their rather skewed version of risk allocation.
As I said above, virtually every claim made against the troughing public service has an equivalent claim against some element of the private sector.
johnfm said:
These threads are very good value.
Months of pointless arguing about terms and conditions of public servants compared to private sector workers and an almost religious belief that the private sector is totally flawless and self supporting.
I say this as a private sector worker who has never, nor will ever, be a public servant - but some posters on here really are no less dogmatic and entrenched in their beliefs as the left leaning/unionised/golden pensioned public servants they so despise.
In the same way that some of you complain that 'banker bashing' is very wide of the mark as very very few bankers make enormous bonuses etc, the vast majority of public servants are low paid, middle-of-the-road workers. Very very few public servants spend £300/night on hotels or £7k a year on taxis etc.
There seems to be very little recognition or self awareness that both the 'evil bankers' and the 'troughing public servant' are both very tiny, demonised by the press, pantomime minority.
Anyway, I will let you get back to the pointless bickering.
Very true.Months of pointless arguing about terms and conditions of public servants compared to private sector workers and an almost religious belief that the private sector is totally flawless and self supporting.
I say this as a private sector worker who has never, nor will ever, be a public servant - but some posters on here really are no less dogmatic and entrenched in their beliefs as the left leaning/unionised/golden pensioned public servants they so despise.
In the same way that some of you complain that 'banker bashing' is very wide of the mark as very very few bankers make enormous bonuses etc, the vast majority of public servants are low paid, middle-of-the-road workers. Very very few public servants spend £300/night on hotels or £7k a year on taxis etc.
There seems to be very little recognition or self awareness that both the 'evil bankers' and the 'troughing public servant' are both very tiny, demonised by the press, pantomime minority.
Anyway, I will let you get back to the pointless bickering.
johnfm said:
Well, unless you are subject to some sort of travel ban, you can. You can move to one of the few countries in the world with a much lower %of GDP spent on public services - Hong Kong, Switzerland, Somalia...
A bit extreme compared to getting control over a self-serving bunch of wasteful, arrogant a
holes, isn't it?johnfm said:
As I said above, virtually every claim made against the troughing public service has an equivalent claim against some element of the private sector.
Can you give me the equivalent to the troughing NHS managers that I have a legal obligation to fund via taxation? I don't think you can.Rovinghawk said:
johnfm said:
Well, unless you are subject to some sort of travel ban, you can. You can move to one of the few countries in the world with a much lower %of GDP spent on public services - Hong Kong, Switzerland, Somalia...
A bit extreme compared to getting control over a self-serving bunch of wasteful, arrogant aholes, isn't it?johnfm said:
As I said above, virtually every claim made against the troughing public service has an equivalent claim against some element of the private sector.
Can you give me the equivalent to the troughing NHS managers that I have a legal obligation to fund via taxation? I don't think you can.I have a suspicion that there are £billions just in IT projects where the private sector is feasting on the taxpayers' collective teat, not to mention the £millions in external legal spend, big 4 advisory spend and so on ad infinitum.
You (and I) have no choice as to whether we fund or don't fund the fees and expenses for these pseudo public servants.
johnfm said:
I have a suspicion that there are £billions just in IT projects where the private sector is feasting on the taxpayers' collective teat, not to mention the £millions in external legal spend, big 4 advisory spend and so on ad infinitum.
Who administers these public sector contracts? If they're doing their job properly, how does this alleged feasting take place?Rovinghawk said:
johnfm said:
I have a suspicion that there are £billions just in IT projects where the private sector is feasting on the taxpayers' collective teat, not to mention the £millions in external legal spend, big 4 advisory spend and so on ad infinitum.
Who administers these public sector contracts? If they're doing their job properly, how does this alleged feasting take place?Rovinghawk said:
johnfm said:
I have a suspicion that there are £billions just in IT projects where the private sector is feasting on the taxpayers' collective teat, not to mention the £millions in external legal spend, big 4 advisory spend and so on ad infinitum.
Who administers these public sector contracts? If they're doing their job properly, how does this alleged feasting take place?If there is evidence of such behaviour in a private sector company then the shareholders, which may or may not include myself, have a right to bring the company and the directors to task. Given sufficient support then it could be possible to remove the pesky responsibles from office though my holdings are unlikely to tip the balance practically speaking. However I have the right to pitch up air views and point out the situation.
As far as public y sector is concerned it's pretty much the same with the taxpayers as shareholders. Except that there isn't much of an opportunity to pitch up and remove anybody.
Still waiting for the usual suspects to say in clear and simple English "You know what that's just taking the piss."
Frankly the silence speaks volumes.
FiF said:
If there is evidence of such behaviour in a private sector company then the shareholders, which may or may not include myself, have a right to bring the company and the directors to task. Given sufficient support then it could be possible to remove the pesky responsibles from office though my holdings are unlikely to tip the balance practically speaking. However I have the right to pitch up air views and point out the situation.
As far as public y sector is concerned it's pretty much the same with the taxpayers as shareholders. Except that there isn't much of an opportunity to pitch up and remove anybody.
Still waiting for the usual suspects to say in clear and simple English "You know what that's just taking the piss."
Frankly the silence speaks volumes.
Shareholders have no idea of the little perks that Senior management enjoy in large corporations. For example CEO spends £20k fitting out his office with plasma screen and lots of toys, insisting on first class travel, regular meals out and corporate entertaining on his procurement card - who exactly do you think picks this up and reports it to the Board or shareholders?As far as public y sector is concerned it's pretty much the same with the taxpayers as shareholders. Except that there isn't much of an opportunity to pitch up and remove anybody.
Still waiting for the usual suspects to say in clear and simple English "You know what that's just taking the piss."
Frankly the silence speaks volumes.
johnfm said:
Well, unless you are subject to some sort of travel ban, you can. You can move to one of the few countries in the world with a much lower %of GDP spent on public services - Hong Kong, Switzerland, Somalia...
We don't have much control over the government's QE and zirp policies either, nor their rather skewed version of risk allocation.
As I said above, virtually every claim made against the troughing public service has an equivalent claim against some element of the private sector.
That sounds very much like I shouldn't try to improve my own country.We don't have much control over the government's QE and zirp policies either, nor their rather skewed version of risk allocation.
As I said above, virtually every claim made against the troughing public service has an equivalent claim against some element of the private sector.
There is a lot of this country I do like and I try to improve the bits I don't like, at the very least by voting.
Countdown said:
Shareholders have no idea of the little perks that Senior management enjoy in large corporations. For example CEO spends £20k fitting out his office with plasma screen and lots of toys, insisting on first class travel, regular meals out and corporate entertaining on his procurement card - who exactly do you think picks this up and reports it to the Board or shareholders?
I can sell my Glaxo shares or stop buying Persil a damn sight easier than I can move abroad.voyds9 said:
johnfm said:
Well, unless you are subject to some sort of travel ban, you can. You can move to one of the few countries in the world with a much lower %of GDP spent on public services - Hong Kong, Switzerland, Somalia...
We don't have much control over the government's QE and zirp policies either, nor their rather skewed version of risk allocation.
As I said above, virtually every claim made against the troughing public service has an equivalent claim against some element of the private sector.
That sounds very much like I shouldn't try to improve my own country.We don't have much control over the government's QE and zirp policies either, nor their rather skewed version of risk allocation.
As I said above, virtually every claim made against the troughing public service has an equivalent claim against some element of the private sector.
There is a lot of this country I do like and I try to improve the bits I don't like, at the very least by voting.
My point is that while threads like these are a useful forum upon which to vent one's frustration, the vast majority of negative comments aimed at public service troughing is equally applicable to the private sector.
johnfm said:
My point is that.............the vast majority of negative comments aimed at public service troughing is equally applicable to the private sector.
I asked this once before:Can you give me the equivalent to the troughing NHS managers that I have a legal obligation to fund via taxation? I don't think you can.
You said things but didn't actually answer the question. Care for another go? What private sector mamagers am I legally obliged to fund, who take the piss with public funds? Name five, to match the 5 NHS bods referred to earlier.
Rovinghawk said:
johnfm said:
My point is that.............the vast majority of negative comments aimed at public service troughing is equally applicable to the private sector.
I asked this once before:Can you give me the equivalent to the troughing NHS managers that I have a legal obligation to fund via taxation? I don't think you can.
You said things but didn't actually answer the question. Care for another go? What private sector mamagers am I legally obliged to fund, who take the piss with public funds? Name five, to match the 5 NHS bods referred to earlier.
Take your pick from any of the big 4 accountancy firms, see any of Serco, Mitie, Compass or any outsourced facilities management company, see any of the big law firms (Simmons & Simmons will do - see here http://www.thelawyer.com/in-house/in-house-news/mo... see BT (some of their excesses on NHS IT contracts is depressing) - the list would be quite long if I could be bothered. Maybe you could invest a few moments and do some research for yourself.
I don't care either way - I merely point out the hypocrisy of those who point and froth at one group of 'troughers' while ignoring another group of 'troughers' doing the same thing. It whiffs a bit of the sort of tribal rantings that supporters of the left and the right continue to indulge in on PH. Entertaining, but tribal wibblings nonetheless.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff