Let's scrap more stuff

[Pothole]

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

[V8mate]

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

[Pothole]

V8mate said:

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

If you're not in politics already, your career beckons!

[XJSJohn]

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

If you're not in politics already, your career beckons!

[CDP]

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

Where does the money come from to pay the tens of thousands? Some are useful, some aren't.

I'd suggest dumping the Department for Education on the fire too. We only need a standard set of exams (marked competitively of course) and leave the teaching to the schools.

[Pothole]

CDP said:

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

Where does the money come from to pay the tens of thousands? Some are useful, some aren't.

I'd suggest dumping the Department for Education on the fire too. We only need a standard set of exams (marked competitively of course) and leave the teaching to the schools.

Thing is, if we are making all these people redundant and spending the money on reducing the budget deficit, where does the money come from to finance the redundancy and benefits etc?

[CDP]

Pothole said:

CDP said:

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

Where does the money come from to pay the tens of thousands? Some are useful, some aren't.

I'd suggest dumping the Department for Education on the fire too. We only need a standard set of exams (marked competitively of course) and leave the teaching to the schools.

Thing is, if we are making all these people redundant and spending the money on reducing the budget deficit, where does the money come from to finance the redundancy and benefits etc?

Where does the money come to pay them in the first place?

[Digga]

Pothole said:

hing is, if we are making all these people redundant and spending the money on reducing the budget deficit, where does the money come from to finance the redundancy and benefits etc?

Good point.

Perhaps a more 'natural' shrinkage is better;

1. wage freezes within those departments
2. ban on recruitment

[Gargamel]

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

Its a circle jerk - there tax pays for him and they are then employed by him....

Removing him - they can work elsewhere and remain productive, he can go a start a business.

[Pothole]

CDP said:

Pothole said:

CDP said:

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

Where does the money come from to pay the tens of thousands? Some are useful, some aren't.

I'd suggest dumping the Department for Education on the fire too. We only need a standard set of exams (marked competitively of course) and leave the teaching to the schools.

Thing is, if we are making all these people redundant and spending the money on reducing the budget deficit, where does the money come from to finance the redundancy and benefits etc?

Where does the money come to pay them in the first place?

Check the bolded text and understand that you can't spend money twice!

[Gaspode]

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

I'm certainly not in favour of a 'bloated' public sector, but I'd like to see some properly-worked models to quantify the true costs and benefits of these departments before I went around slashing them willy-nilly. I know that some people see that all government is bad government, but quite frankly I'm quite appreciative of a bit of government control in many areas, it's one of the things that makes our country a civilised and pleasant place to live. I don't want to live in some kind of capitalist wild west.

Let's take the BIS department. According to their website, they are all about encouraging and helping small businesses to develop, cutting out red tape, promoting British Industry (especially ensuring that we are an attractive place for the car industry to do business), ensuring proper standards, assisting apprenticeships, and so on.

The automotive industry in the UK is worth 14 Billion and employs half a million people. Seems to me like it's a pretty major part of the economy. If there's a government department out there making sure it stays healthy and attracts inward investment, that seems like a good thing.

By all means develop some metrics to gain a useful understanding of the costs and benefits of government, and certainly keep them lean and efficient, but let's not imagine that somehow if we get rid of all government regulation and involvement that somehow magically the economy will benefit everyone in some kind of magical way, we know that doesn't work as we have history books to learn from.

[CDP]

Pothole said:

CDP said:

Pothole said:

CDP said:

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

Where does the money come from to pay the tens of thousands? Some are useful, some aren't.

I'd suggest dumping the Department for Education on the fire too. We only need a standard set of exams (marked competitively of course) and leave the teaching to the schools.

Thing is, if we are making all these people redundant and spending the money on reducing the budget deficit, where does the money come from to finance the redundancy and benefits etc?

Where does the money come to pay them in the first place?

Check the bolded text and understand that you can't spend money twice!

You are assuming the civil servants will be as well paid on benefits as they are in work. This would be unusual to say the least. You're also assuming they will never get another job. Also the buildings they work in can be sold off (or leased out) and so on.

Somebody 50 who's worked in the department since 21 and earning 50K is entitled to £10,500 statuary redundancy pay. Which is pretty much what they'd get in the private sector...

[Einion Yrth]

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

Bastiat q.v. and his parable of the broken window.

[Digga]

Einion Yrth said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

Bastiat q.v. and his parable of the broken window.

Cracking demolition of a fundamentally flawed arguemnt.

Plus, I bet the civil servant's lackies don't all pay PAYE and NI but are cash in hand.

[AJS-]

Digga said:

Einion Yrth said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

Bastiat q.v. and his parable of the broken window.

Cracking demolition of a fundamentally flawed arguemnt.,

Plus, I bet the civil servant's lackies don't all pay PAYE and NI but are cash in hand.

Daniel hannan is one of the few people who could possibly make me vote Tory

[V8mate]

AJS- said:

Daniel hannan is one of the few people who could possibly make me vote Tory

Most sensible post of the week.

Maybe the month.

[London424]

CDP said:

Pothole said:

CDP said:

Pothole said:

CDP said:

Pothole said:

V8mate said:

Gaspode said:

How many people either directly (civil servants, contractors, service providers) or indirectly (food, home services, etc) earn their living from these departments? How would they earn a living if the departments didn't exist? What would be the benefits cost of throwing these people out of work?

There's a (very) senior civil servant lives fairly close to me. To my certain knowledge he employs a nanny, a gardener/general factotum/odd job man, and a housekeeper, all pretty much full time (they alway seem to be around, anyway). He uses a local taxi service to take him to and pick him up from the station every day. How would you explain to these people that chucking him out of work is a good idea?

I understand the sentiment, but are you really suggesting we maintain a bloated public sector... forever... simply because we don't want people to lose their jobs? (which aren't needed)

Are you suggesting we add tens of thousands of people to the unemployed figures at a stroke to make some fairly dubious 'savings'?

Where does the money come from to pay the tens of thousands? Some are useful, some aren't.

I'd suggest dumping the Department for Education on the fire too. We only need a standard set of exams (marked competitively of course) and leave the teaching to the schools.

Thing is, if we are making all these people redundant and spending the money on reducing the budget deficit, where does the money come from to finance the redundancy and benefits etc?

Where does the money come to pay them in the first place?

Check the bolded text and understand that you can't spend money twice!

You are assuming the civil servants will be as well paid on benefits as they are in work. This would be unusual to say the least. You're also assuming they will never get another job. Also the buildings they work in can be sold off (or leased out) and so on.

Somebody 50 who's worked in the department since 21 and earning 50K is entitled to £10,500 statuary redundancy pay. Which is pretty much what they'd get in the private sector...

The problem is that they will likely get many multiples of that figure.

[AJS-]

Anyway nevermind what everyone is bhing and moaning about, look at the numbers. No one really cares if we scrap your pet department, because the reality is we can't afford them. The state has taken on too much, and like it always does has fail to deliver, and failed expensively. The reality of the last 10 years has been closing pubs, rising fuel prices and st easily rising stealth taxes. The reality of the next 10 years is necessarily a massive reduction in the size and scope of what the government does. Maybe you'll have to pay for museums, maybe you won't be streaming HD videos in your cottage on Orkney. Either way the government spending party is over.

[CDP]

AJS- said:

maybe you won't be streaming HD videos in your cottage on Orkney.

Actually I reckon infrastructure is about the only area the government can get away with spending on providing it gives a proper return on investment. A new modern museum won't improve the economy but decent trains, roads and targeted education can.

There are certain things only the government can do, the rest should be left to industry and the people.

[AJS-]

CDP said:

AJS- said:

maybe you won't be streaming HD videos in your cottage on Orkney.

Actually I reckon infrastructure is about the only area the government can get away with spending on providing it gives a proper return on investment. A new modern museum won't improve the economy but decent trains, roads and targeted education can.

There are certain things only the government can do, the rest should be left to industry and the people.

Maybe but blind open ended investment is not th ie answer, and broadband for the most stupidly remote place you can find on a map is exactly that.