The public sector,time for the axe?

Discussion in 'The Intelligence Cell' started by Le_addeur_noir, Dec 13, 2008.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Le_addeur_noir

    Le_addeur_noir On ROPs

    In light of the current financial mess Britain finds itself in,can the taxpayer be expected to fund the ever expanding army of non-jobs being created by G Brown and his incompentant government to shore up Labour votes and fund the ever-expanding pension commitments of the public sector at a time when private sector pensions are approaching the point of collapse,and have been robbed of some 5 billion pounds per annum by one G.Brown esq.

    In my humble opinion,I think the time has come for a halt to public sector recriutment(with execptions for the NHS,police,customs and Forces),and the number of quangoes to be radically slashed.Then a cull of civil servants needs to be implimented.Those not sacked need to have their pay reduced for the forseeable future.

    The alternative?,prepare to pay ever more taxes to fund the public sector.

  2. It certainly is do-able. There are alot of offices in alot of public buildings includingThe NHS, police, customs and Forces where a level headed none politically motivated boss could kick half of the staff out the door to do other more productive jobs (Even within the same organisation) and leave the others to take up the slack.

    Not to mention the amount of jobs that could be completely binned without being missed.
  3. There needs to be a massive cull of public sector workers and the NHS, police etc needto be included. Not the front line staff but the bean counters. the main criterion should be' Does this job need to be done at all?'
    So if no-one counts those particulr beans will we miss the statistic obtained?
    The second criterion should be, 'Does the post give value for money?' That is, would it cost more not to have the job done and pay out when necessary than paying for someone (with office, pension etc) to supervise the public?' Example, do the dust bin police generate more income than they cost in employment?
    These criteria cannot apply to everything but I believe that it would be a good start especially when it lowers council tax.
  4. Auld-Yin

    Auld-Yin LE Book Reviewer Kit Reviewer Reviews Editor

    Neu Arbeit have already started to cut down on the public sector, i.e. those paid by the Treasury. Look at the cuts in defence that have been made.
  5. Le_addeur_noir

    Le_addeur_noir On ROPs

    Cuts in the armed forces are deplorable,but for every menber of the forces done away with,you can bet your bottom dollar three of four numpties are employed to check the contents of your bin,paper shuffle in the Health and Safety Executive or some other waste of space quango in some office in a labour-voting town near you.
  7. I think the gubment should create an enormous autonomous super department investigating cost cutting 'strategies'.Could be a winner.
  8. MoD's pissed away millions on PFI, and still has a deal on to privatise training across all the services (worth £12 billion), 30% of which has already been f'cked off and the rest is behind schedule. Cancel that, for starters.
  9. I can be paid £40,000 a year to make sure a black, female, lesbian gets the top job?
  10. You could not make it up:-

    "Equalities Officer"

    "Salary: £38,463 to £41,076 plus final salary pension, 36 hour week"

    "You need not be an equalities expert but you will need a strong commitment to equalities, and be willing and able to stay aware of government requirements and best practice in this field."

    So what do they pay the "experts"?

  11. Yes, that's the spirit! We need to get rid of public servants. This is especially sensible in the middle of a recession, where you really, really, really need more people being unemployed so that the government and councils can spend more on benefits and take the unemployed out of being consumers, thus meaning less tax collected, less goods being bought, which in turn will lead to more unemployment.............etc.

    And aren't armed forces and police pensions vastly better than those for public servants?

    You guys just make me chortle over my coffee some times.
  12. From the outside, the forces seem to receive different treatment than the rest of the public sector. The labour party have, overall, massively increased public expenditure, whilst cutting the forces down. It's a culture clash thing. The labour party isn't run by gruff old yorkshiremen and welshmen who served in WWII and then worked down 'pit any more. It's run by people like Peter Mandelson and Harriet Harman.

    Giving somebody a job in the NHS bureacracy or some weird local government 'inspection' position seems to be a pretty effective way of turning an undecided person into a Labour voter, if for no other reason that their income is now dependent on public expenditure. Oddly, whilst the forces are also paid by the taxpayer, putting people through military training doesn't seem to have the same effect. It's the culture of the forces I suppose. That's probably partly why they don't like it.
  13. Command_doh

    Command_doh LE Book Reviewer

    Don't sack me!

    I actually try to throw people out of the country according to my job description and the Immigration law, despite all attempts at hindrance, obfuscation and legal wranglings from my own department, Senior civil servants (and MP's), Human Rights parasites and EU legislators.
  14. Yep. No to privatisation. I agree with you. That does of course mean that you can't then get rid of public and civil servants, but I'm sure you agree with me that that's a good thing.
  15. Dont think the tax collected counts when you pay all the wages in the first place.