Boris Johnson-Prime Minister (Vol 8)

[loafer123]

They aren’t going to make anyone redundant, just put a ban on hiring without ministerial approval and let natural attrition do the rest.

Many civil servants do a great job, just as many private sector workers do. Equally some do not,min both categories.

It doesn’t seem particularly controversial to want an efficient government, so that taxpayers get value for money.

[768]

bhstewie said:

It's interesting comparing the rhetoric from Mogg and Johnson over the Civil Service to the rhetoric over how P&O treated their staff.

I'm sure I heard that Johnson and Mogg announced the 90,000 less staff without any sort of discussion or consolation with the unions.

I’m sure they can stretch to a pack of tissues. Unlike P&O, nothing’s happened yet, no one’s chosen who’s going, if anyone.

[bitchstewie]

It's a tone thing.

I agree hiring just because someone has left shouldn't be a given and natural attrition probably accounts for all of it (or any of it if it even happens being cynical).

They haven't explained it like that though they've just done the usual red meat dog st of wasteful civil servants working from home with their feet up in the garden we'll cut 1 in 5 and fix the cost of living crisis blah blah blah.

[Randy Winkman]

bhstewie said:

jdw100 said:

He makes them (civil service employees that will lose their jobs) sound like free-loaders who deserve to be sacked.

They were hired by the government. They didn't somehow sneak on to the payroll.

Where is the compassion for them and their families?

He gives the impression that these are all £100k+ shirking work and WFH.

I'd be interested to know the actual salaries involved, the redundancy cost and impact on the public purse in other ways.

It's interesting comparing the rhetoric from Mogg and Johnson over the Civil Service to the rhetoric over how P&O treated their staff.

I'm sure I heard that Johnson and Mogg announced the 90,000 less staff without any sort of discussion or consolation with the unions.

Civil servants knew about it when they read it in the news at the same time as everyone else. In my department we were even told by the Permanent Secretary quite recently that there were no plans for anything like this. I would guess that they found out the day before at the earliest. Possibly even by seeing it in the news like the rest of us.

[Electro1980]

loafer123 said:

They aren’t going to make anyone redundant, just put a ban on hiring without ministerial approval and let natural attrition do the rest.

Many civil servants do a great job, just as many private sector workers do. Equally some do not,min both categories.

It doesn’t seem particularly controversial to want an efficient government, so that taxpayers get value for money.

Nothing wrong with wanting efficient government. The issue is the likes of JRM and Boris think you can get efficiency by demanding everyone be in the office, screaming “BE EFFICIENT” and not actually investing or understanding where the inefficiency is. It’s not about actual savings, it’s about political rhetoric.

All this results in is lots of money spent on consultants to produce reports that then get rejected as too expensive to implement. Frankly the biggest cause of inefficiency is batst crazy political interference.

Edited by Electro1980 on Sunday 15th May 08:41

[loafer123]

It isn’t BJ or JRM’s job to tell the civil service where to find efficiencies, that is for the civil service itself to manage.

What they are doing is saying the CS needs to find efficiencies and that, if they want to hire for vacancies, they will need to justify why they need the people.

[bitchstewie]

And if they'd said that that would be fine.

Again though all the red meat thrown out has been about lazy civil servants and they'll get rid of 1 in 5 and they've all got their feet up in the garden and aren't actually working from home anyway.

Just more culture wars crap to disguise their own failings.

[loafer123]

bhstewie said:

And if they'd said that that would be fine.

Again though all the red meat thrown out has been about lazy civil servants and they'll get rid of 1 in 5 and they've all got their feet up in the garden and aren't actually working from home anyway.

Just more culture wars crap to disguise their own failings.

Actually, that is exactly what they have said.

Ban on hiring without specific approval with the aim of reducing the CS numbers to 2016 levels.

The fact that you have read the media’s interpretation of that and are being deliberately wound up is a reflection of the media, not the policy.

[blueg33]

Why don’t they have a ban on hiring without approval anyway? The private sector does.

[bitchstewie]

loafer123 said:

Actually, that is exactly what they have said.

Ban on hiring without specific approval with the aim of reducing the CS numbers to 2016 levels.

The fact that you have read the media’s interpretation of that and are being deliberately wound up is a reflection of the media, not the policy.

It's literally their own words.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/13/ja...

"they think that the working week is shorter than it really is"
"One can't help but be suspicious about the desire to work from home on Mondays and Fridays."
"we're going to have to compare notes with the Met Office"
"we need to have the evidence on Lord's Test matches and all that"

And from Johnson

"Things like Zoom and Teams can increase productivity, rather than just be an excuse for people to stay at home."
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."

That isn't the media.

[loafer123]

blueg33 said:

Why don’t they have a ban on hiring without approval anyway? The private sector does.

I think the point is that the hiring approval would now be by exception and would need to be approved at a higher level, with a greater focus on justification.

[blueg33]

loafer123 said:

blueg33 said:

Why don’t they have a ban on hiring without approval anyway? The private sector does.

I think the point is that the hiring approval would now be by exception and would need to be approved at a higher level, with a greater focus on justification.

That’s the way it’s always been in my career. I used to have to go up the ladder to hire and present a business case. Now people come to me and need to have a business case, especially if the hire is not in their approved budget

[loafer123]

bhstewie said:

loafer123 said:

Actually, that is exactly what they have said.

Ban on hiring without specific approval with the aim of reducing the CS numbers to 2016 levels.

The fact that you have read the media’s interpretation of that and are being deliberately wound up is a reflection of the media, not the policy.

It's literally their own words.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/13/ja...

"they think that the working week is shorter than it really is"
"One can't help but be suspicious about the desire to work from home on Mondays and Fridays."
"we're going to have to compare notes with the Met Office"
"we need to have the evidence on Lord's Test matches and all that"

And from Johnson

"Things like Zoom and Teams can increase productivity, rather than just be an excuse for people to stay at home."
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."

That isn't the media.

That is all about working from home, not the hiring freeze.

[biggbn]

bhstewie said:

loafer123 said:

Actually, that is exactly what they have said.

Ban on hiring without specific approval with the aim of reducing the CS numbers to 2016 levels.

The fact that you have read the media’s interpretation of that and are being deliberately wound up is a reflection of the media, not the policy.

It's literally their own words.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/13/ja...

"they think that the working week is shorter than it really is"
"One can't help but be suspicious about the desire to work from home on Mondays and Fridays."
"we're going to have to compare notes with the Met Office"
"we need to have the evidence on Lord's Test matches and all that"

And from Johnson

"Things like Zoom and Teams can increase productivity, rather than just be an excuse for people to stay at home."
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."

That isn't the media.

That doesn't really tell anyone anything they didn't already know about Johnson does it?

[blueg33]

bhstewie said:

loafer123 said:

Actually, that is exactly what they have said.

Ban on hiring without specific approval with the aim of reducing the CS numbers to 2016 levels.

The fact that you have read the media’s interpretation of that and are being deliberately wound up is a reflection of the media, not the policy.

It's literally their own words.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2022/05/13/ja...

"they think that the working week is shorter than it really is"
"One can't help but be suspicious about the desire to work from home on Mondays and Fridays."
"we're going to have to compare notes with the Met Office"
"we need to have the evidence on Lord's Test matches and all that"

And from Johnson

"Things like Zoom and Teams can increase productivity, rather than just be an excuse for people to stay at home."
"My experience of working from home is you spend an awful lot of time making another cup of coffee and then, you know, getting up, walking very slowly to the fridge, hacking off a small piece of cheese, then walking very slowly back to your laptop and then forgetting what it was you're doing."

That isn't the media.

Productivity for us went up with working from home, many people starting work when they would have been on the commuter train in.

But collaborative working was not as good. I make sure my team are in 2 days a week, together for collaborative stuff

[loafer123]

blueg33 said:

That’s the way it’s always been in my career. I used to have to go up the ladder to hire and present a business case. Now people come to me and need to have a business case, especially if the hire is not in their approved budget

I was once hired into a role during a hiring freeze - it can happen, but I know it needed the CEOs sign off, and not just a department head.

[bitchstewie]

loafer123 said:

That is all about working from home, not the hiring freeze.

And if you want to pretend to think it's a co-incidence that it was published at the same time as an announcement on a Civil Service hiring freeze I have a bridge to sell you.

[loafer123]

bhstewie said:

And if you want to pretend to think it's a co-incidence that it was published at the same time as the announcement on a hiring freeze I have a bridge to sell you.

The subjects are certainly linked, but you keep saying that they are “getting rid of people” - they aren’t.

[biggbn]

bhstewie said:

And if you want to pretend to think it's a co-incidence that it was published at the same time as an announcement on a Civil Service hiring freeze I have a bridge to sell you.

Aw Stewie, Stewie, I had you pegged as much, much better than this. The 'bridge to sell you' standard PH trope...argh, its like nails down a blackboard to me....

[bitchstewie]

biggbn said:

I had you pegged as much, much better than this.

Your first mistake