Cost of living squeeze in 2022
Discussion
survivalist said:
According to the BBC cutting 90,000 jobs would take us back to 2016 in terms of the number of civil servant jobs.
Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
Brexit mostly. If we are going to save hundreds of millions of pounds by not being on the EU we have to spend some of it here. Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
survivalist said:
According to the BBC cutting 90,000 jobs would take us back to 2016 in terms of the number of civil servant jobs.
Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
2016 - an insignificant referendumAnyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
2020 - a trivial pandemic
And then there is the perennial 'pendulum' effect of government - cut all these useless slackers only to find that taxes don't get collected, borders don't get protected, people don't get locked up, etc. and the public get unhappy so you now recruit to fill the gaps after the last cutbacks - except that hasn't been cheap as you had to pay to get rid of the last lot and now have to pay to train the new lot.
And making civil servants redundant isn't cheap - https://www.civilservicepensionscheme.org.uk/your-...
Edited by PF62 on Friday 13th May 18:52
PF62 said:
survivalist said:
According to the BBC cutting 90,000 jobs would take us back to 2016 in terms of the number of civil servant jobs.
Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
2016 - an insignificant referendumAnyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
2020 - a trivial pandemic
And then there is the perennial 'pendulum' effect of government - cut all these useless slackers only to find that taxes don't get collected, borders don't get protected, people don't get locked up, etc. and the public get unhappy so you now recruit to fill the gaps after the last cutbacks - except that hasn't been cheap as you had to pay to get rid of the last lot and now have to pay to train the new lot.
Randy Winkman said:
PF62 said:
survivalist said:
According to the BBC cutting 90,000 jobs would take us back to 2016 in terms of the number of civil servant jobs.
Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
2016 - an insignificant referendumAnyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
2020 - a trivial pandemic
And then there is the perennial 'pendulum' effect of government - cut all these useless slackers only to find that taxes don't get collected, borders don't get protected, people don't get locked up, etc. and the public get unhappy so you now recruit to fill the gaps after the last cutbacks - except that hasn't been cheap as you had to pay to get rid of the last lot and now have to pay to train the new lot.
brickwall said:
Ok fair enough.
12,000 of the MoD’s 60,000 are DE&S - I remain unconvinced that *more* people in a procurement process leads to a better outcome.
(Especially when the procurement processes I’ve seen were stuffed to the gunnels with secondees from the defence contractors!)
Though not sure cutting DE&S staff numbers would save money - you could halve the number of staff if you had better people, but you’d need to pay them twice as much. Or reduce capability and get screwed by the defence industry.
To be clear I’m not saying “you can’t cut the civil service” - I’m saying without being able to point at wasted work then you’re on a hiding to nothing.
I'll give you an example of "wasted work", however I'll have to be a little circumspect.12,000 of the MoD’s 60,000 are DE&S - I remain unconvinced that *more* people in a procurement process leads to a better outcome.
(Especially when the procurement processes I’ve seen were stuffed to the gunnels with secondees from the defence contractors!)
Though not sure cutting DE&S staff numbers would save money - you could halve the number of staff if you had better people, but you’d need to pay them twice as much. Or reduce capability and get screwed by the defence industry.
To be clear I’m not saying “you can’t cut the civil service” - I’m saying without being able to point at wasted work then you’re on a hiding to nothing.
Two separate parts of my wider corporation, producing vital kit for a specific industry that has both military and commercial aspects. I work in the commercial side, the other business supplies the MoD.
What we both supply, is 98% identical. The differences are fairly minor but important. However, in material/production terms it's about £70k.
We sell to commercial customers, delivered and installed pretty much anywhere on the planet, for under £15M a pop. "Postage and packing" is about £150k - so double the material difference between civvy and mil.
Yet the "ex works" COST for us on the military customer's product is over £25M a pop. Purely due to the absolutely staggering amount of reviews/paperwork/trips/unscoped changes/etc. In terms of the MoD spend - well let's just say every single meeting must be in person at our site, and they turn up with 40 people. And there are many, many meetings. So much so, that where on commercial we'd have one PM managing 4-5 devices at a time, on the military its ten PMs per device on our side just to keep on top of everything.
This kit never sees a warzone. Is predominantly COTS material. Is used far less intensively by the military compared to commercial operators.
The crazy bit? Because it's so well accepted that MoD/DoD/etc., are such f
king nightmares to supply, they operate on 'cost plus' - so they're writing a blank cheque for us as there's guaranteed margin. We absolutely do not take the piss, but when they have such onerous requirements and processes, it's the natural outcome that it becomes incredibly expensive. We've shown them the way we could do things. They merely shrug. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
survivalist said:
Countdown said:
survivalist said:
According to the BBC cutting 90,000 jobs would take us back to 2016 in terms of the number of civil servant jobs.
Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
Brexit and COVID.Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
Randy Winkman said:
That is indeed how it works. As a civil servant of 38 years experience I was quite pleased to see this morning's news. Hopefully they will offer me £50k to go away which I will gladly take. Then, in a couple of years time they will recruit someone else to do my job and in 5 or 10 years time they will lay off another person and give them £50k.
I regret to relay that the plan appears to be to let people leave/retire and not replace them…loafer123 said:
Randy Winkman said:
That is indeed how it works. As a civil servant of 38 years experience I was quite pleased to see this morning's news. Hopefully they will offer me £50k to go away which I will gladly take. Then, in a couple of years time they will recruit someone else to do my job and in 5 or 10 years time they will lay off another person and give them £50k.
I regret to relay that the plan appears to be to let people leave/retire and not replace them…Sway said:
brickwall said:
Ok fair enough.
12,000 of the MoD’s 60,000 are DE&S - I remain unconvinced that *more* people in a procurement process leads to a better outcome.
(Especially when the procurement processes I’ve seen were stuffed to the gunnels with secondees from the defence contractors!)
Though not sure cutting DE&S staff numbers would save money - you could halve the number of staff if you had better people, but you’d need to pay them twice as much. Or reduce capability and get screwed by the defence industry.
To be clear I’m not saying “you can’t cut the civil service” - I’m saying without being able to point at wasted work then you’re on a hiding to nothing.
I'll give you an example of "wasted work", however I'll have to be a little circumspect.12,000 of the MoD’s 60,000 are DE&S - I remain unconvinced that *more* people in a procurement process leads to a better outcome.
(Especially when the procurement processes I’ve seen were stuffed to the gunnels with secondees from the defence contractors!)
Though not sure cutting DE&S staff numbers would save money - you could halve the number of staff if you had better people, but you’d need to pay them twice as much. Or reduce capability and get screwed by the defence industry.
To be clear I’m not saying “you can’t cut the civil service” - I’m saying without being able to point at wasted work then you’re on a hiding to nothing.
Two separate parts of my wider corporation, producing vital kit for a specific industry that has both military and commercial aspects. I work in the commercial side, the other business supplies the MoD.
What we both supply, is 98% identical. The differences are fairly minor but important. However, in material/production terms it's about £70k.
We sell to commercial customers, delivered and installed pretty much anywhere on the planet, for under £15M a pop. "Postage and packing" is about £150k - so double the material difference between civvy and mil.
Yet the "ex works" COST for us on the military customer's product is over £25M a pop. Purely due to the absolutely staggering amount of reviews/paperwork/trips/unscoped changes/etc. In terms of the MoD spend - well let's just say every single meeting must be in person at our site, and they turn up with 40 people. And there are many, many meetings. So much so, that where on commercial we'd have one PM managing 4-5 devices at a time, on the military its ten PMs per device on our side just to keep on top of everything.
This kit never sees a warzone. Is predominantly COTS material. Is used far less intensively by the military compared to commercial operators.
The crazy bit? Because it's so well accepted that MoD/DoD/etc., are such f
king nightmares to supply, they operate on 'cost plus' - so they're writing a blank cheque for us as there's guaranteed margin. We absolutely do not take the piss, but when they have such onerous requirements and processes, it's the natural outcome that it becomes incredibly expensive. We've shown them the way we could do things. They merely shrug. Turkeys do not vote for Christmas.
Mil procurement is a complete mess. There is money left on the table all over the place.
I’d argue that’s down to a *lack* of capability on the MoD side. In the private sector companies will gladly pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions) a year to get the right person and subordinates to run a big project.
DE&S can’t attract that level of talent, because it can’t pay that money. So it supplants with quantity of people…which is a far inferior substitute.
PF62 said:
survivalist said:
Countdown said:
survivalist said:
According to the BBC cutting 90,000 jobs would take us back to 2016 in terms of the number of civil servant jobs.
Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
Brexit and COVID.Anyone know why we’ve had to add 90,000 to the workforce in such a short space of time.
brickwall said:
Completely agree. And without saying too much I’ve seen the military procurement too. I think I can guess the application/platform.
Mil procurement is a complete mess. There is money left on the table all over the place.
I’d argue that’s down to a *lack* of capability on the MoD side. In the private sector companies will gladly pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions) a year to get the right person and subordinates to run a big project.
DE&S can’t attract that level of talent, because it can’t pay that money. So it supplants with quantity of people…which is a far inferior substitute.
Our PMs are on market rates, and they're nothing like hundreds of thousands. They're on mid £60k-ish. There is absolutely zero chance the guys that turn up from the client side are on much less - but there's five times as many of them. Mil procurement is a complete mess. There is money left on the table all over the place.
I’d argue that’s down to a *lack* of capability on the MoD side. In the private sector companies will gladly pay hundreds of thousands (or even millions) a year to get the right person and subordinates to run a big project.
DE&S can’t attract that level of talent, because it can’t pay that money. So it supplants with quantity of people…which is a far inferior substitute.
These aren't 'big projects'. They're pretty much off the shelf devices, bought by a range of customers globally. However, they're run like big projects that's containing a tonne of bespoke design to challenging military spec.
Sway said:
Indeed.
And the real point, is that fking 'weetabix' or whatever the cheaper brands are called, are not the 'essential'.
A nutritious breakfast is.
Which, when you actually look at the nutritional value, weetabix would be far down the scale compared to the much cheaper porridge:
Weetabix
Porridge
That extra protein will also ensure you feel fuller for longer, and less likely to snack. That's also without any toppings - and they can be added incredibly cheaply to add vitamins, flavour, etc.
That weetabix breakfast costs 24p per serving (I've excluded milk, as that's about the same quantity for both). Porridge, bought 'inefficiently', is 18p per serving - and that's for a much bigger portion. The concept of 'breakfast cereal' really is a wonder of advertising changing behaviours over decades. They're made from the 'waste' that previously was discarded or used as animal feed.
When it comes to meat, it's not a downgrade compared to supermarket offerings. It's an upgrade, for less price! Just like porridge compared to weetabix.
Incorrect about porridge v Weetabix I'm afraid. The latter has more protein and less fat.And the real point, is that f
king 'weetabix' or whatever the cheaper brands are called, are not the 'essential'.A nutritious breakfast is.
Which, when you actually look at the nutritional value, weetabix would be far down the scale compared to the much cheaper porridge:
Weetabix
Porridge
That extra protein will also ensure you feel fuller for longer, and less likely to snack. That's also without any toppings - and they can be added incredibly cheaply to add vitamins, flavour, etc.
That weetabix breakfast costs 24p per serving (I've excluded milk, as that's about the same quantity for both). Porridge, bought 'inefficiently', is 18p per serving - and that's for a much bigger portion. The concept of 'breakfast cereal' really is a wonder of advertising changing behaviours over decades. They're made from the 'waste' that previously was discarded or used as animal feed.
When it comes to meat, it's not a downgrade compared to supermarket offerings. It's an upgrade, for less price! Just like porridge compared to weetabix.
Edited by Sway on Friday 13th May 17:09
Before it turns into an argument about Porridge v Weetabix I guess the learning point for me is I've never even thought about the nutritional content because if I'm hungry I can go to the cupboard and take my pick from all the other crap that's in there any time I like.
Don't get me wrong I've probably thought about sugar content but not actual nutrition.
Don't get me wrong I've probably thought about sugar content but not actual nutrition.
bhstewie said:
hstewie said: Before it turns into an argument about Porridge v Weetabix I guess the learning point for me is I've never even thought about the nutritional content because if I'm hungry I can go to the cupboard and take my pick from all the other crap that's in there any time I like.
Don't get me wrong I've probably thought about sugar content but not actual nutrition.
I am a fan of Frosted Wheats. Surprisingly difficult to find.Don't get me wrong I've probably thought about sugar content but not actual nutrition.
Mrs Loafer was slating me for liking such unhealthy cereal, so I challenged her to a nutritional comparison with her favourite granola.
I bring up the outcome on a regular basis, just for fun.
Sway said:
Roman Rhodes said:
Incorrect about porridge v Weetabix I'm afraid. The latter has more protein and less fat.
So the nutritional values I've posted are incorrect?I never mentioned fat. Fat isn't a bad thing, at all.
okgo said:
Putney pubs all busy tonight. Over £6 a pint. Nobody cares.
My bar was really busy last night.Our cheapest pint is £4 and most expensive is £6. Craft beers.
Cocktails £5-£12. Premium spirits, no Smirnoff allowed in the building!
One of our best nights since opening in early Feb.
Made 35% of our monthly operating costs in one night.
Sold a £200 bottle of tequila on Tuesday night. Mind you the guy buying it and his 3 friends had lost money on crypto…one was down USD$240,000. OUCH!
Will see what happens when tourists come back…..its in Bali.
(Free drink for any PH people if visiting, just let me know in advance)
okgo said:
Putney pubs all busy tonight. Over £6 a pint. Nobody cares.
This really is because the cos of rising energy and food A) has not quite bitten yet and b) many will have say 500 a month in slack in there budget so now they have say 300 left.It's thoes who had zero at end of month in say Nov 2021 now have less than zero. I recall as a child my mother saying there was nothing left each month an it never changed my whole life. She worked full time as a civil servant.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff