Surely Yet Another Non-job?

[triskelion]

The comparisons with a town council are a bit shallow. By the same logic, Switzerland is the same as a US State.

You are missing the point with throw away comments like that

 

The fact is the job is already the responsibility of EVERY manager - or could have been done using existing managers.The job was kicked into touch years ago - yet suddenly reappears?

 

There is also something called scale of economies when you compare: UK town councils; borough councils and Switzerland.

 

Per Capita the number of public servants (esp high rankers) are getting out of control here.

 

My point was that comparing the Tynwald with a English town council purely on the basis of similar population size made no sense, as would comparing Switzerland with, say, Michigan. I'd imagine there are few English town councils that spend much time concerned with VAT sharing agreements, red meat derogation. Or have GDPs of some £1.6 billion.

 

I can't say I have a lot of experience with upper management, but it seems unlikely that Teare would reinstate this pot for no real reason. Leaving aside the (rather cynical) responses to that statement, I think it worth pointing out that many managers might see 'value for money' in terms beyond 'spend as little money as possible.' What I'm saying is that whilst we might see money being wasted, others might say 'you get what you pay for.'

 

I'm not saying money isn't being wasted, as inevitably money could have been better spent to at least some degree. However, I can see the argument for having someone who is controlling how DHSS operations are co-ordinated. Few lower-level managers are likely to spontaneously say 'Well to be honest, I think I need a smaller budget and fewer staff.' I don't accept that just because the DHSS is having to cut back on services elsewhere that reforms should not be made. If it cannot afford to operate, then the answer is not to cut everything in order to support 'front-line' services, as such a policy is unsustainable. Nor can it just wait for more money from the Treasury, as the latter is not an infinite cash dispensing machine.

 

I consider the number of civil servants to be a seperate issue, but would agree that their numbers need to monitored. However, the issue is much more complex, not just in administration, but at the 'front-lines' as well. You get much better 'value for money' out of full-time nurses than you do agency staff, but recruiting is much more difficult for the former, even though (compared to nurses elsewhere in the World) ours are actually rather well-paid (though still arguably under-paid). Managers have become almost a new class enemy in the context of the health service, but where do you cut back? (This is about more than one job, even if it is rather well renumerated)

 

The DHSS is the department which demands the most funds (by far), has the greatest demand for higher levels of service and probably has the lowest non-Treasury income. In such an environment, I think a case can be made for having someone there charged with making sure resources are effectively deployed. This raises the question 'Why the Hell wasn't someone already responsible for doing that?' Why indeed.

[Alias]

You'd probably be best not comparing a country to an american state, laws do vary by quite a bit and taxes are also different from state to state. Constitutionally there aren't many issues the federal government is supposed to dictate to the states (the same kind of issues that the Isle of Man has the UK look after/always follows on), even if it is a federation.

[Newsbot]

A new role in the Department of Health and Social Security is created to ensure services provide value for money.

 

Source : http://news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/1/hi/world/...man/7165613.stm

[triskelion]

You'd probably be best not comparing a country to an american state, laws do vary by quite a bit and taxes are also different from state to state. Constitutionally there aren't many issues the federal government is supposed to dictate to the states (the same kind of issues that the Isle of Man has the UK look after/always follows on), even if it is a federation.

 

I agree. It was exactly my point was that it was a very poor comparison.

[Gags]

Excellent quotes in this thread!

I absolutely agree, what a waste of of money!

[Sparky]

I thought that the Gov had already employed an individual to work in Government whose sole responsibility it was to come up with cost savings and ensure our pound is spent wisely. Is this now another of these people? I'm sure we wouldn't be as sceptical if these announcements were followed up i.e. last year we appointed a friend of ours to save us some money and so far he has saved us 1s 6d after all costs were accounted for. However we don't as these initiatives are quickly outdated with a newer initiative.

 

I'd love to be proven wrong, but this does seem to be taking responsibility away from the already well paid managers and civil servants in the Treasury.