New ^left^ political party?

How about doing a thought experiment?

If all civil servants, from top to bottom of the hierarchy, were to disappear overnight, how long would it be before we missed them?

We could make it all state employees. That would be even more interesting…

Casdon

When we have discussions like that in my family, where almost everybody works in business, some senior and some not, that’s not how the conversation goes at all icanhandthemback. Some businesses have practices that are very questionable (putting it kindly), some are inefficient, and some treat staff appallingly, a double dare to go to tribunal is often employed. It’s not all sunshine and roses, in fact.

There are always going to be businesses that aren't using best practice but usually inefficient businesses go down the pan because there is no-one to prop them up like the Civil Service.

MaizieD

Casdon

When we have discussions like that in my family, where almost everybody works in business, some senior and some not, that’s not how the conversation goes at all icanhandthemback. Some businesses have practices that are very questionable (putting it kindly), some are inefficient, and some treat staff appallingly, a double dare to go to tribunal is often employed. It’s not all sunshine and roses, in fact.

Thanks for that, Casdon. 😀

Thinking about ‘business’ and government I think the problem is not so much a lack of business acumen, but a failure of management. As you point out, bad management can be just as evident in the private sector as in the public.

Absolutely some private companies are appallingly managed, no better example than the UK motor industry, the unions got most of the blame, but management was awful.
We’ve seen executive pay multiply while workers wages languish the culture of feathering their own nest while failing to produce results. Not every company but far too many are getting away with

Casdon

When we have discussions like that in my family, where almost everybody works in business, some senior and some not, that’s not how the conversation goes at all icanhandthemback. Some businesses have practices that are very questionable (putting it kindly), some are inefficient, and some treat staff appallingly, a double dare to go to tribunal is often employed. It’s not all sunshine and roses, in fact.

Thanks for that, Casdon. 😀

Thinking about ‘business’ and government I think the problem is not so much a lack of business acumen, but a failure of management. As you point out, bad management can be just as evident in the private sector as in the public.

It’s politically expedient to blame the Civil Service for the failings of society, that’s all

Absolutely.

David49

“You know that for a fact, do you?
Is that observation based on research on the whole of the Civil Service?

Don't forget one important fact - the Civil Service is there to support the public as well as work efficiently and to best practice.”

So you obviously believe that government officials have been thoroughly competent handing PFT over 30 yrs plus. The evidence is that they have sat on their fat backsides and watch the money go down the drain. Efficiency has been a joke, just a lot of reorganization only to fail again.

Please list the successful projects that have been implemented in recent years.

Briefs are not always appropriate for the problem they are intended to solve, or not achievable. Resources are often inadequate. People and systems are fallible. That’s not the Civil Service, or businesses specifically, it’s the way it is. It’s politically expedient to blame the Civil Service for the failings of society, that’s all.

“You know that for a fact, do you?
Is that observation based on research on the whole of the Civil Service?

Don't forget one important fact - the Civil Service is there to support the public as well as work efficiently and to best practice.”

So you obviously believe that government officials have been thoroughly competent handing PFT over 30 yrs plus. The evidence is that they have sat on their fat backsides and watch the money go down the drain. Efficiency has been a joke, just a lot of reorganization only to fail again.

Please list the successful projects that have been implemented in recent years.

When we have discussions like that in my family, where almost everybody works in business, some senior and some not, that’s not how the conversation goes at all icanhandthemback. Some businesses have practices that are very questionable (putting it kindly), some are inefficient, and some treat staff appallingly, a double dare to go to tribunal is often employed. It’s not all sunshine and roses, in fact.

I think the point is, Allira, that what the Civil Service calls Best Practice is a far cry from what a good, well run private business would do. A good, well run private business would treat the public (their clients) well too. I have worked in the Civil Service as has my son more recently and there are just so many ways they waste money and don't work efficiently. Ditto to the NHS. It isn't the majority of the workforce who are at fault, it is the powers that be who have no idea or don't want change. Some of this could partially be rectified by having a graduate programme where there is a built in module for working within different companies so that they have new ideas coming into the CS. Private companies could probably benefit with learning how the CS works too.

David49

MaizieD

I think there should be far more freeflow between business and the Civil Service. Entering the civil service should not be seen as a job for life, but one stage in a varied career.

Am I to take it, then, that your view ( and perhaps your DD's) of state funded enterprise is coloured mostly by your experience dealing with civil servants?

There are far more state employees than just civil servants; there were even more pre privatisation and I can't see that privatisation has been altogether a resounding success.

Anyone with a business brain would break down in tears in a government department.

You know that for a fact, do you?
Is that observation based on research on the whole of the Civil Service?

Don't forget one important fact - the Civil Service is there to support the public as well as work efficiently and to best practice.

MaizieD

^I think there should be far more freeflow between business and the Civil Service. Entering the civil service should not be seen as a job for life, but one stage in a varied career.^

Am I to take it, then, that your view ( and perhaps your DD's) of state funded enterprise is coloured mostly by your experience dealing with civil servants?

There are far more state employees than just civil servants; there were even more pre privatisation and I can't see that privatisation has been altogether a resounding success.

Anyone with a business brain would break down in tears in a government department.

Slovenly language on my part Maizie I meant all those in public service.

I worked for British Gas in the run up to privatisation and for many years afterwards. When I joined the company in a department of 60+, including seceretarial and clerical staff plus engineers, I was the only the second person to join the department who had not worked for the company since they started work, whether school, apprenticeship or university.

Time and again we lost contracts overseas because the company would not work to anything but British Gas Standards, despite their being international standards of an equivalent and sometimes higher standard. To British Gas men and boy employees, there was only one way of doing anything, and that was the BG way.

!0 years on, with a normal workforce of people some who had never worked anywhere elese plus those who had had 1,2, 3 or more jobs with other employers and the unit was commercial, and working to the standards the client wanted, providing they were of an acceptable standard and the overseas work had grown considerably

I think there should be far more freeflow between business and the Civil Service. Entering the civil service should not be seen as a job for life, but one stage in a varied career.

Am I to take it, then, that your view ( and perhaps your DD's) of state funded enterprise is coloured mostly by your experience dealing with civil servants?

There are far more state employees than just civil servants; there were even more pre privatisation and I can't see that privatisation has been altogether a resounding success.

Private finance investment saved the state increasing borrowing to pay for infrastructure - at the cost of paying interest on the loans AND an operating profit for the company.

It enabled hospitals and other infrastructure to be built spreading the cost over many years, political decisions to provide services and keep the cost of living low resulted in massive subsidies. If private finance was ended now it would cost over £200 billion, in addition funding of new projects would cost similar amount on top.

We have had services on the never never for 30 yrs and paid through the nose, now state borrowing is close to a peacetime high we are still demanding more services we can’t pay for.

MaizieD

^Only yesterday my DD, who has worked in both the private and public sector, said to me that she would never work in the public sector again because it was so badly managed and run, where they arged endlessly about trivial cost items while working in a way that was grossly financially and organisationally inefficient.^

could that be because the public sector has been systematically cut to the bone for the past decade and a half and doesn't have the resources needed to introduce more efficient practices?

A fairly recent report I read on the NHS proposed that it was shortage of managers which caused problems, with unqualified staff having to take on management tasks as well as doing the jobs they were trained for.

I am very wary of the belief that business experience is a necessity for government because governments don't (or shouldn't) have the same objectives as a business.

No, because she worked there some years ago and the practices she saw and knows from friends still go on, were ones that wasted money, not because money was in short supply.

I worked for a public refunded search body, many uears ago. i was only there six months but when I left I too vowed never to work for a publicly funded body again - and for the same reasons.

I think there should be far more freeflow between business and the Civil Service. Entering the civil service should not be seen as a job for life, but one stage in a varied career.

David49

Different objectives certainly but now and in the past government and LA department have been hopelessly inefficient.

That is why privatization came about, all it achieved is to give the government someone else to blame when it goes wrong, - Thames water is a good example. The civil servants writing the contracts don’t have a clue, nor do the regulators like OFWAT, the commercial companies run rings round them.

Privatisation had nothing at all to do with state run services being inefficient. That was just the story we were told to justify privatising them.

Privatisation was the result of Thatcher's conviction that the state shouldn't be running anything at all if it could be avoided, as 'the markets' were much more efficient at using resources and producing good results. What is more, competition as a result of privatisation would drive prices down to the advantage of the consumer.

Do tell me about the stunning success of her shrinking the state policies...

Different objectives certainly but now and in the past government and LA department have been hopelessly inefficient.

That is why privatization came about, all it achieved is to give the government someone else to blame when it goes wrong, - Thames water is a good example. The civil servants writing the contracts don’t have a clue, nor do the regulators like OFWAT, the commercial companies run rings round them.

A government department has about as much in common with private business than an oyster does with an apple.

Businesses are run to make a profit, and only to make a profit. A government department is run to serve the country, and only to serve the country.

Comparing the two is daft.

However, you could argue that some departments are inefficient and therefore waste money. Equally, some departments could be models of service.

Only yesterday my DD, who has worked in both the private and public sector, said to me that she would never work in the public sector again because it was so badly managed and run, where they arged endlessly about trivial cost items while working in a way that was grossly financially and organisationally inefficient.

could that be because the public sector has been systematically cut to the bone for the past decade and a half and doesn't have the resources needed to introduce more efficient practices?

A fairly recent report I read on the NHS proposed that it was shortage of managers which caused problems, with unqualified staff having to take on management tasks as well as doing the jobs they were trained for.

I am very wary of the belief that business experience is a necessity for government because governments don't (or shouldn't) have the same objectives as a business.

A government or LA department has no interest in economy efficiency or making money, the politicians give them a budget, they are failures if they do not spend that budget. Any spending over budget will always be funded.

Businesses exist to make a surplus, to expand and invest in the future developments, if they fail they go bankrupt

MaizieD

^And a bit off topic, I know, but IMO it’d be an excellent thing if all potential MPs were required to have worked for at least 5 years in a sector that is not local council/local government/ trade union official.^

What is wrong with those posts?

What sectors do you have in mind for potential MPs to have worked in?

I certainly think that the route to being an MP should not be PPE or Politics degree, followed by working as an advisor to an MP, then straight into becoming an MP. A wider range of experience should matter.

I also don't think that running a business would be a good background. Government is not a business. Government should be providing essential services for all the population, caring for the wellbeing of the disadvantaged, distribution of resources to achieve a smaller inequality gap and competent handling of the economy. Business managers don't really 'get' part of that...

The furthest left Labour government that the UK has ever had, the Atlee government, made radical changes that worked towards achieving the caring objectives. People regard it positively these days...

On the contrary running business is not just about making money it is about running an organisation efficiently and effectively.

Only yesterday my DD, who has worked in both the private and public sector, said to me that she would never work in the public sector again because it was so badly managed and run, where they arged endlessly about trivial cost items while working in a way that was grossly financially and organisationally inefficient.

Whitewavemark2

Wealth is not the same as high income.

People seem to be muddling it.

Quite correct I know a lot of high income earners that spend every penny and more from month to month on an extravagant lifestyle.
Conversely others are very wealthy and live modest lives.

Iam64 of course

ronib

I bet more poor people think greater equality would be highly desirable too but somehow we need to move from thinking to doing…. Wwm2

Do yiu know any poor people ronib

Why does it make you laugh when a lot t of these far left types come from very well off backgrounds , cumbrianmale.