Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    I'd heard a stunning fact a while ago, but it was on the radio and I had no means to source it. Today, however, I found the following fact on the Telegraph website:

    "I am sure some of the 700,000 people who have joined the public payroll since 1997 are necessary. I am equally sure many of them (especially in white-collar office, lower- and middle-management) are not."

    -----
    Edit: Linkz http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/m.../12/do1201.xml
    -----

    That's over 160 a day.

    What do we think of this, ladies and gentlemen? Are they worth the monumental cost to the tax payer? Is it healthy that such a high proportion of the workforce are employed by the government (plus all the ones who worked there pre-1997, of course). Do we think it's value for money? Do we think our lives are all markedly better for having 160 extra people a day having their wages paid out of our pockets?

    Lots of Love,
    Dan "Ever-bipartisan" Grover
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    Considering the NHS is the world's largest employer except for the red army, I can't say that figure particularly surprises me.
    Offline

    13
    Do we have any idea how many of them are actually new jobs, or just turnover?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Captain Crash)
    Considering the NHS is the world's largest employer except for the red army, I can't say that figure particularly surprises me.
    The Indian Railway is largest in the world, NHS largest in Europe.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    Do we have any idea how many of them are actually new jobs, or just turnover?
    I was under the impression it meant added to the payroll - otherwise it wouldn't really be a big deal. I don't know what the hack's data was, though.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    I was under the impression it meant added to the payroll - otherwise it wouldn't really be a big deal. I don't know what the hack's data was, though.
    Hrm. I just have to wonder where they'd all go if they were new jobs? I mean, surely even the most bureaucratic government would have an interesting time creating a full 700,000 jobs out of thin air?
    Offline

    8
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    Hrm. I just have to wonder where they'd all go if they were new jobs? I mean, surely even the most bureaucratic government would have an interesting time creating a full 700,000 jobs out of thin air?
    I imagine a fair few aren't new jobs, rather new people to fill positions left by people who have left.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    A lot of council jobs like diversity this and coordinator that, are just jobs for the boys. Jobs created or given to family members or people with contacts in the council. It's not unusual for salaries of over 100k in these jobs.

    Corruption is rife at the local level.
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    Do we have any idea how many of them are actually new jobs, or just turnover?
    This is net growth.

    This is old news. I've heard these numbers before. It's a fact that under Labour the public sector has grown by 700,000.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by _jackofdiamonds)
    A lot of council jobs like diversity this and coordinator that, are just jobs for the boys. Jobs created or given to family members or people with contacts in the council. It's not unusual for salaries of over 100k in these jobs.

    Corruption is rife at the local level.
    I'm not surprised. If you're talentless it's the perfect career. You get to wear a suit, have a fancy title, do f all, paid handsomely and recession proof. Visit your local council to see these peole walking around with no purpose having the time of their lives.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    On a similar subject, someone in the most recent Question Time said that apparently 1 in ever 5 jobs in the UK is in the public sector (I don't know exactly how they define that, but I assume they mean that their wages are paid from taxes).

    That's pretty startling, and it's not exactly the lean approach that I think we need during these, uh, tumultuous times.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    You'll love http://www.taxabuseroftheweek.com/

    I'm more concerned about http://www.nao.org.uk/pn/06-07/0607128.htm - as you can hold your local authority employees to account via your local councillors whereas with consultants it's much more difficult. It's not cheap either:
    http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/new...icle570934.ece
    http://www.localgov.co.uk/index.cfm?...etail&id=73023

    http://www.fbu.org.uk/newspress/ebulletin/pdf/70.pdf illustrates the OPs point.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Having said all of that, what one positive thing are you all going to do having identified the problem?

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/docume...pdf/885997.pdf

    http://www.communities.gov.uk/commun...tiesincontrol/


    http://www.mysociety.org/ may give you some ideas
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Howard)
    This is net growth.

    This is old news. I've heard these numbers before. It's a fact that under Labour the public sector has grown by 700,000.
    Is it disproportionate to overall population growth, though? I mean, if the public sector began serving more people, more hospitals were getting built, more paperwork needed losing, it follows one would see a growth in the number of public sector jobs.

    Nah, having thought about it, it's probably disproportionate. But this would be following public sector cuts in the Conservative years, so maybe it still makes sense...

    A lot of the posts are probably a bit useless though.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by DanGrover)
    On a similar subject, someone in the most recent Question Time said that apparently 1 in ever 5 jobs in the UK is in the public sector (I don't know exactly how they define that, but I assume they mean that their wages are paid from taxes).
    That's not hugely surprising, when you consider teachers, policemen, firemen, nurses, social workers, etc. These are all jobs that do need doing and are infact made harder by bureaucracy.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The bbc comedy 'yes (prime) minister' from the 1980s has a lot of truth in it about the civil service. The problem about making cuts in the civil service is that it is the civil serice that must implement the cuts. The civil service does not like cuts. Whenever a minister insists on making cuts, the civil service takes on more staff 'to implement the cuts' and then wriggles out of actually making the cuts. I suspect that this has a grain of truth.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    Have you ever participated in a Secret Santa?
    Useful resources

    Groups associated with this forum:

    View associated groups
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.