[BBC News]Change plan for Manx government

[Roger Smelly]

Well if things didnt change what would the world be like ?

 

The report is setting out the need for reform and the need to slim down the way the government runs things.

 

If we don't change we cannot grow, we will be just chasing our tail.

 

The finance sector has slimmed itself down, but the government still runs things the same why ?

 

Get rid of some of the dead wood for f*cksake

[Albert Tatlock]

Get rid of some of the dead wood for f*cksake

It would be interesting to see whether 2000 people could actually fit into one job centre.

 

I've looked at the report and was impressed by much of it (especially the benchmarking which serves to illustrate just how overstaffed they are). 8000 people working for the government is just far too many. 729 just in the DoT!

 

Don't forget everyone working in the Private Sector is also paying for these guys to be on nice fat worryless pensions. Realistically, at least a quarter of them should be told to collect their stuff and Foxtrot Oscar.

[Ripsaw]

I agree that there is a lot of good content in the document. Even if some of the recommendations are not feasable at least we can see them in black and white to form an opinion from.

 

I'm not quite halfway through it yet, but have nodded more often than shaken my head.

[manxman8180]

Get rid of some of the dead wood for f*cksake

It would be interesting to see whether 2000 people could actually fit into one job centre.

 

I've looked at the report and was impressed by much of it (especially the benchmarking which serves to illustrate just how overstaffed they are). 8000 people working for the government is just far too many. 729 just in the DoT!

 

Don't forget everyone working in the Private Sector is also paying for these guys to be on nice fat worryless pensions. Realistically, at least a quarter of them should be told to collect their stuff and Foxtrot Oscar.

It's all very easy to say, however, when you start to think about actually implementing these 'vast' reductions which you speak of, it becomes a little more difficult.

 

You have initiated this sort of debate before (HERE) and you really didn't come up with anything useful there either.

 

There is undoubtedly 'dead wood' within Public Service as a whole. But you must also recognise that, primarily through economies of scale, there are many services which need to be operated by Government (be it local or central) as they would not be a viable option to private operators. This creates an increase in the number of staff required. There are also services offered which utilise seemingly over abundant resources (be it labour or expenditure), again, however, this is because the customer (me and you) expect e certain level of service.

 

There is undoubtedly a case for the re-organisation of departmental functions, as some plainly do not sit within their current areas. However, unless it is properly managed and administered, these changes could well increase the headcount not reduce it.

 

Whilst I can see value in some of the report (see my previous post on the matter) it is flawed in one major way. In fact, this flaw is referenced to in the first few paragraphs. How can a report be asked for regarding the Scope and Structure of Government and yet, the terms clearly state that it is not to look at Tynwald and the associated processes.

 

Surely, if we are to have a 'root and branch' review of our Governmental system, it should be exactly that, from bottom to top.

[Albert Tatlock]

You have initiated this sort of debate before (HERE) and you really didn't come up with anything useful there either.

Au Contraire. Going by the report - I was obviously onto something wasn't I?

 

Are you sweating now? You should be!

[manxman8180]

You have initiated this sort of debate before (HERE) and you really didn't come up with anything useful there either.

Au Contraire. Going by the report - I was obviously onto something wasn't I?

Come on Albert, it hardly takes a genius to figure out that a report into the scope and structure of Govt may actually suggest some changes, inlcuding reducing Depts etc.

 

Of course, if you read the report to the end, it clearly shows that the headcount remains the same despite the 48 recommendations. Personally, I think that they should have had the balls to clearly state where personnel reductions can be made.

 

Of course some years ago there was something called the Groves report, which went into, amongst other things, reducing Govt control and headcount etc.

 

Now, whatever happened on the back of that.........

[Juan Kerr]

Whilst I can see value in some of the report (see my previous post on the matter) it is flawed in one major way. In fact, this flaw is referenced to in the first few paragraphs. How can a report be asked for regarding the Scope and Structure of Government and yet, the terms clearly state that it is not to look at Tynwald and the associated processes.

 

Surely, if we are to have a 'root and branch' review of our Governmental system, it should be exactly that, from bottom to top.

 

A very good point I picked up on to. It was largely the powers of the CM it sought not to change, and then went on to say that Ministerial posts should be restricted to on or around the 9 current, using the same mechanism to appoint Ministers (the CM). That is still a pretty concentrated centre of power.

 

If you start off with this basic premise, there is a risk that all you do is shuffle bodies and names around underneath. Although that might not necessarily be a bad thing when you don't have a transport dept thats in charge or buses, but is in charge of animal waste etc.

 

The report does make some good recommendations though, although it should come with one overriding caveat - if changing department responsibilities, corpratising, merging responsibilities or departments, or shifting responsibilities does not result in proven cost savings then they should not do anything. Its better to have staff doing jobs they are already doing cost effectively, than use the report as an empire-build document which is a risk.

 

You can't expect every department of government to be profitable, and there are many services on a small island that can only be provided by government and most people, bye and large, most people accept that.

 

The best thing about the report was the history lesson on the background to the current structure, and historic structure of government departments etc. That was really well put together.

[Tempus Fugit]

Although I see a lot of rationalisation is necessary, I think it could be a slippery slope, for example, if the current state of the MEA finances needed sorting out, it would be too much of a temptation if an overseas power company came along with bucket-loads of euros and then we would not have control of our power supply (like UK) with no way back.

[lisner]

If there are any problems with implementing any of the recommendations in the future the new Government can always claim MillenniumDome Syndrome whereby they blame any disasters on the previous administration who actually initiated the report.

 

Me being cynical probably, but I hink you will find that the excuse of 'it wasn't me it was the previous minister/government etc' will come into play.

 

I look forward to this report being debated in Tynwald.

 

Edited to add that I expect every election candidate to be very familiar and understand this document.

 

Otherwise I would suggest they are standing for alterior motives that include their egos/appetite for free lunches and functions/pressure from social climbing wife etc.

[Kodak747]

An independent committee has called for the privatisation of services such as the buses and the Post Office. Do you agree?

 

- Topic merged into this one -

[Moghrey Mie]

An independent committee has called for the privatisation of services such as the buses and the Post Office. Do you agree?

 

- Topic merged into this one -

 

My experience of the privatisation of the buses in UK was that the companies invested in new vehicles and brought in a new positive attitude.. There was more information and maps to show people where the bus routes were. There were special offer fares and you could buy tickets at various shops etc.Socially necessary routes were safeguarded through agreements between the local authority and the bus company. And buses were out on the streets bringing in revenue rather than sitting in the bus station for hours at a time.

 

Many of these improvements could be made with the existing bus company but it requires a change of attitude. The first thing a private company would probably do on the IOM is provide a shuttle service to the airport and the hospital.That could be done by IOM Bus Services without privatisation.

[Juan Kerr]

The first thing a private company would probably do on the IOM is ......

 

Stop paying people £30,000 a year to drive buses.