Gordon Brown's first year

CatInASuit

Are you really suggesting that 1 in 4 workers in the UK economy are employed directly by the state ? and even more specifically, by the Civil Service?

I hope not, because it isn’t true.

My information is that its rather less than 1 in 5, and at least 30% of those are part timers. They are more likely to be women - not surprising given the part time aspect, or long serving full timers - ie people whose age means they cannot readily move employment due to our youth obsessed employment market.

As a total of the population they represent between 8% to 13% depending upon the area - with the South East unsurprisingly being the highest - these are not particularly high numbers of the overall population, those numbers have risen between 1998 to 2005 but are now either static or falling.

These are totals for all public workers, from hospitals, through to council workers, education at all levels to city councils, police, fire and prisons, Civil Servants form a very small part of all that.

The current situation, and this is before the credit crunch (and may even be a direct cause) is that public sector workers have been priced out of the housing market in 7 out of 10 UK cities, and yet until recently houses were still selling - to the private sector, so cry me a river over tax,- because somebody can afford to pay that tax and yet buy a house, and its not public service workers - which just leaves everyone else then.

(the definition of unaffordable housing is taken as being 4.75 times annual earnings by the building society association)

I got my other figures from the National Office of Statistics, you will find certain publications that do not deny these figures, but they will greatly exaggerate salaries by adding in overtime or by sheer invention, or completely neglect to mention the part time aspect, or the fact that the average public sector pension is less than £5k per year - hardly gold plated eh?

This is part of the problem, political attacks on public servants are good in the media, yet apart from boardroom excesses, no other groups of workers are attacked in this way, no other director of a private company would denigrate their employees in this manner, and yet government officials make political capitol out of running down their own staff - so if they are not particularly cheerful to you, then maybe you can reflect on their morale and what has led to it.

There are a lot of myths about public sector workers that are reinforced as fact by one source whose figures are then widely requoted, things such as more holidays - not true, more time on the sick - not true, that they get free pensions - not true, they are very expensive pensions and the workers themselves are paying for them, they retire at 60, not true, the majority still have to work till 65, but would you expect fire fighters, police, prisons staff and other emergency service people that have to deal hand to hand with members of the public - would you expect them to be working to 65?

How do you think a 64 year old copper would do in a foot race with a 20 year old scally?
How do you think a 62 year old prison officer would fare in a prison riot having to restrain violent prisoners ?

There is such a lot of crap mentioned about public workers, who have to deal with absolutely the very worst aspects of our society, day in day out.

Unless of course you want to volunteer to run the local old folks home, or perhaps you feel you’d be more than happy to control ASBO bred children in a secure unit.

I do notice that we have the money to support Northern Rock, a private business concern, with public money, yet somehow we cannot find the cash to run our prisons or our schools and hospitals - services that you may well prefer to be well funded.

I also notice that we somehow find the money to fight wars in two distant nations, one of which was based on a threat that was simply an invention - I wonder how much of your taxes those have soaked up, by my reckoning - and others current figures suggest £30 a second for the war and up to 2006 that was £4.5 billions - so you need to add in another 2 years worth, add in that £50 billion bail out to Northern Rock, and then the refund of at least £1 billion to the lowest paid workers because of the tax hike, then tell me why we are short of money.

It’s always been fashionable to attack public service workers, when I first applied for my post there were 20 applicants interviewed for every post, and that was after sifting the application forms, now we have posts that have lain vacant for over a year, and my job is to try train prisoners skills so that they can get out of the offending loop - or perhaps you think this is not worth paying for.

You make sympathetic noises about how the state will employ people who wouldn’t find work elsewhere, but it cuts both ways. I have worked in the public and private sectors in Britain. There are no two ways about it, private employers are much more demanding. It is much, much easier to coast along doing nothing of value in the public sector, because there is no bottom line. Therefore people who work for private companies deserve to be paid more, on average. They can be fired more easily, for one thing. There are exceptions, I concede, public sector workers who work their bollocks off, and conversely private sector workers getting paid lots to do little. But those companies tend to go out of business.

I too would like to see a cite.

What about if you add in local government, schools, the NHS, the armed forces, emergency services, plus a good proportion of the defence industry? Basically anyone paid out of taxation.

And let’s not forget the politicians and their staffs - that’s another thousand or two.

Quartz

Are you serious, didn’t you read my post ?

That figure I gave includes all persons who work in any capacity in the public sector, schools, armed forces, politician’s secretaries, the lot.

Usram

Come and work inside a prison then, if you think its such an easy run.

Try training and teaching prisoners, try a bit of control and restraint, maybe try the police force, or the fire brigade - seems such an easy run and money for nothing, you should fit right in.

Ever tried working in a nursing home?

Ever tried working on a hospital ward, ever worked in a school?

Ever tried working on the bin wagons ?

Ever tried working on the roads, or perhaps on the ambulances, yeah, it sure is an easy ride, we don’t deserve a fraction of the money, which is why we cannot recruit, isn’t that strange?

When did you ever put your life on the line for company profit, maybe squaddies are not worth the pay? Now that’s what I call the ultimate dismissal, coming home in a body bag.

Yeah, sure, all public servants have easy jobs, just get on the counter at the DHSS and see how much respect you get from the clientele.

You see this is what happens, the good old stereotype, because some public servants have a steady job, it must mean that all or most do.

We have created a culture of the lazy public servant, a public perception, this is heavily developed by right wing news media and politicians who can’t think of any other way to gain credibility other than by attacking their own workforce.

Does Richard Branson condemn his staff as lazy, and inefficient or perhaps the directors of JARVIS, or any of the water companies?

Yet in many of these companies, the staff were formally part of state industry. Ever looked at the profits some of the former state owned industries make ? Those industries were making money hand over fist when they were part of state industry too. Telephones, water, gas electric, even the damned post office, and the railways.

These were sold off and shares were oversubscribed, care to work out why this was??

I wish someone would come and privatise my job, it happens that if this occurred, I would get an instant pay rise of £6k per year, I know this because I work alongside colleagues to whom this has happened, I ache for the private sector to step in a give me that wage rise, because that is the current market rate, and of course the market is a good thing isn’t it?

How much do you think we should really pay a policeman on the front line ? What’s he really worth? Do you think that the work he does contributes more or less to society that the work you do?

You get public services on the cheap, very cheap indeed.

You wouldn’t have the bottle to do half the public service jobs out there, and you wouldn’t take on the rest because the money is poor.

I know of no prison in the country that is not full, seems my business has no shortage of customers, perhaps in your esteemed wisdom you could tell me how to be more efficient, because we can fill every place we build, and you should see the complaints we get when we try to cram them four to a cell, and boy do you the public want them to keep filled, in fact you the public are demanding even more prison places - but you won’t provide the money - “its mi taxes yisee I wanna keep mi tax munni.”

Truly spoken, the voice of ignorance.

Yes I did. And I noted your specific qualification of being employed by the Civil Service. As a local government officer, I was not employed by the Civil Service. The local fire brigades were not employed by the Civil Service. Etc.

Binary thinking, casdave. I didn’t say ALL public sector people were like that. I even allowed that some weren’t. I said that it is easier to slack off in the public sector, heroic exceptions aside. It bloody is. Everybody knows it. You can be some council functionary for forty years and nobody can ever sack you. It’s a great career for the terminally unambitious.

Right. casdave, you actually gave no cites. I’ve managed to put the right search terms in and have come up with this PDF from the Office of National Statistics which says in Appendix C that as of 2004Q1 there were 534K people in the Civil Service out of a total public sector of 4559K. Note that this is Full Time Equivalents, so if casdave’s figure of 30% part-timers is correct, that’s 3.2M full-time and 1.36M FTEs. Assume 2 people per FTE on average, that’s 5.92M actual people (the actual figure may be buried in the PDF but I didn’t spot it). The current workforce is 29.55M, so that’s about 1 in 5 people directly employed by the state.

So CatInaSuit would appear to be rather mistaken and casdave is spot on.

Drat, the SDMB has eaten my post, including a couple of cites.

I am mistaken and **casdave ** is pretty accurate with his calculations. The public sector is about 20% instead of 25% of total people in employment. I would be curious to see the percentages against other countries in Europe.

Actually not sure how accurate this is, but econstats has it as about 19.8% for EOY 2007.

You can comment on wether 1 in 5 workers being employed in public service is too high, that is another debate.

You may well be right - no doubt - that some public servants have an easy cruise.

However, by no means do all public servant have an easy ride, you’ll all be well aware of the distortions that working to targets and performance figures can bring, most public servants have set targets, either directly or imposed by managers who have them set from their agency directors.

This is probably not the most efficient way of doing this, but the absence of a market means that there has to be some other stimulus.

If you then decide to look at exposing public servants to the open market - bring it on - as I say , I would immediately get a significant pay rise.

What has happend over the last three to four years is an increase int he rate of staff privatisations, what it actually means is that public servants are paid by their employers for doing exaclty the same work, however those companies who successfully bid for the work are not doing it to lose money, and what has happened is that with the added ‘on costs’, it end up costing the taxpayer around 25% more to have someone employed privately, but doing the same work.

What it allows ministers to do, particularly Gordon Brown when he was in the treasury, it allows him to say he has reduced the number of public servants - but of course the corollory of that is that the number of ‘consultants’ has risen by the same amount - and with the need for private companies to employ more managers to run their newly privatised employees, the number of consultants has risen above the number of staff transferred.

This is just a political arabesque, I would imagine that the ordinary voter does not care too much about numbers of public servants as long as the service provided is good and reasonable cost.
If you as a governement have to spend more to pay for exactly the same service, something has to be cut, someone budget falls, so what you get is a worse service, but for more money.

There is a lot of information out there about the increasing costs of government management consultants, but not much about who they actually are, there are largely the same people who were doing the job in the public sector, but for more money.
Look at the sort of money spent on specialist consultants

http://www.nao.org.uk/publications/nao_reports/06-07/0607128es.htm

Even the NAO has doubts about the value of them.

Others have doubt about the waste,

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6180819.stm

It is why the expertise leaves public service and takes work on as a private company, hence the rise in recruiting of fromer public servants by companies varying from IBM right through to your local further education establishments.

The definition of a public servant now becomes less easy to pin down, because to me a person employed wholly as part of providing service to the public, no matter who their employer happens to be, could arguably be described as a public servant.

Why does Gordon Brown choose to transfer staff to the private sector and then pay substantially more for the exact same service ?

It’s part of a language isn’t it? We invest in industry, we spend public money, and yet in an industry whose greatest cost by far is staff wages, it makes sense to invest in ensuring staff are well trained, by providing them with incentives - not threatening to take their pensions from them.

Public servants have been effectively crippled by large IT projects that cost a fortune and do not work, this can be laid directly at the feet of the current administration - look it up there’s more than enough to go around, and the worst thing is that instead of throwing out these IT companies on their collective ears, there seems to be little incentive for control of costs and when the next big contract comes around the same companies get the contracts again.

Just wait until you see what a complete lash up the National ID card will be, and yet its all money that could have been better used elsewhere.

Gordon Browns performance at By Elections is not just down to the credit crunch, he and his governement have screwed up public spending, its not that the public want more services than they are prepared to pay - though there will be some of that - its the magnitude of waste, throwing good money after bad, inneffective use of resources.

Public Servants are directly in the firing line for this, and maybe soon the public themselves will get to see it too, but it does still mean that to lambast and criticise your own employees for your own mismanagment just for a headline, that is going to have a cost, no politician can afford to alienate such a large sector of the electorate, public servants voted heavily against the Conseratives last time - rightly or wrongly public servants can have a huge effect on the next general election, Gordon Brown would do well to remeber that.

While I wouldn’t support public servants, I have seen an awful lot of fairly simple government IT projects that crash and burn. My guess is that (a) they don’t know how to do them and have no incentive to do so, and (b) high-level managers don’t want their ox to get gored by the introduction of new systems.

What do you mean, you wouldn’t support public servants ?

Do you mean that I should be privatised ? If so that would be welcome, I would get a good pay rise - it’ll cost you more as a taxpayer - but if that’s what you mean by not supporting public servants, then thats very magnanimous of you.

You don’t support hospitals ?

Do you mean that you prefer it all to be part of the private sector ? OK then, pay the medical insurance, the US figures suggest that over16% of US GDP is given over to healthcare costs, and that it still does not cover everyone adequately.

Put over your proposals to replace public servants with a cost effective alternative.

Fact still remains though, no politician can afford to alienate such a large core vote, especially given the way this vote is distributed in their own safe seats.

A lot of public servants form a very large and valuable force in society.

Hospitals, emergency services, teachers etc. Having a strong backbone of these is good for the country. However, they currently appear to be over-regulated, over administrated and suffering from having to meet arbitrary standard after standard instead of being able to get on with the job in question.

I am not saying that having standards is a bad idea, but this current government has taken it a to extremes.

However, there is a certain amount of bloating in local councils, which if run along private sector lines would make a lot of people unemployed through cost cutting. Mainly because they are being paid for doing very, very little. If one person can do the work that three people have split between them, then getting rid of two of them makes financial sense. It won’t happen because no-one in local council is going to reduce the amount of people working for them and save money from their budget because it will just get cut.

Not to mention, that making people unemployed is always an unpopular move, even if sometimes it really should be done.

Regardless, Gordon Brown now has the challenge of trying to keep the Labour party solvent, avoid major donors calling for a leadership election and waiting to see what policies the Unions are going to dictate to the Labour party in return for bailing them out.

this is something of an aside to the debate that’s going on here but I started wondering about something NineToTheSky wrote in the OP:

Now, excuse me if i’m wrong, but my understanding of UK politics is that no one is elected PM, you’re elected as an MP and then, because you happen to be the party leader, you go on to lead the government. Brown was elected, and then went on to become PM, right?

You are, of course, absolutely right. What I meant is that normally after a change of party leadership, a general election should be called to mandate that leader. Gordon had the chance, but flunked it. Gordon and Tony’s styles and policies are so far apart that the change amounted to a virtual change in party, in my view, so we, the electorate should be given the chance to express our opinions of that change.

The leader of the party with the largest number of seats at a general election is invited by the Queen to form the next government with the leader of that party becoming the Prime Minister. Now, parties are elected for many reasons, with the person in charge of the party being one of them.

When Tony Blair stepped down as leader of the Labour Party, a leadership election was called to elect the new leader and so by default the next Prime Minister. It had one candidate: Gordon Brown.

So he was elected unopposed to the leadership of the Labour Party and hence the PM role. What some people are saying that because no-one stood against him he was not properly challenged and elected to show he could do the role instead of getting it by default due to certain restaurant chats several years ago.

On Preview: NineToTheSky: I think you mean a change of PM instead of party leader. It could be amusing to have General Elections each time the Opposition change their leader :wink:

I’m getting myself in a mess here. :o What I meant was that Gordon went from second in command to party leader, and therefore Prime Minister (and vice versa). We had a change in party leader and prime minister (Tony Blair). But I think I should shut up about this now. :slight_smile:

Actually, based on my personal experience as both a Civil Service Techie and a Private Sector Contractor to the Civil Service it tended to be:

© because setting up and integrating government IT projects is generally hideously complex and full of unforseen hurdles

Combined with:

(d) the tendering and contract process government IT projects have to go through kills the ability of either side to adapt to hideously complex and unforseen hurdles.

I’m not letting you of the hook so easily :wink: , because I’m interested in one more thing, which is if there’s any habit when it comes to PM changes in between General Elections. Is it actually usual for such PMs to seek a mandate either within their party or from the electorate as a whole?

Not quite. The PM is the person who can command a majority in the House of Commons. This is generally the leader of the largest party, but need not be.

Can you describe an alternate scenario in which this is not the case? If there was no party with an absolute majority and there needed to be a coalition, wouldn’t it still be the leader of the largest party who’d be asked to form such a coalition and then go on to lead this coalition as its PM?