Government Reserves Revealed - £1.28billion

[bluemonday]

Half the number of MHKs - at least.

Have just one council for the IOM - remove the 24 local authorities currently in existence.

[Albert Tatlock]

I think much more of what government do can be outsourced.

 

They don't need such a monsterous IT dept for starters, and even with all that their work record on automating many processes is quite bad, and no one should be paid to shuffle paper at this stage of the game.

 

Also the DTI should be made a little bigger, whilst heritage, DTL and maybe other areas are maybe merged with it.

 

With well over 700 staff, the DoT especially needs looking at, again, outsourcing much of the work when we can afford to it without maintaining paid staff in govt pensions.

 

In line with that, this all needs to be aligned with a sensible immigration policy. E.g. Health provision needs to take into account who is coming here and gets paid for e.g. retiring pensioners etc. And, when new residents are actually entitled to free health cover (e.g. only after 10 years and in the meantime, with no reciprocal health agreement, they have to have health insurance).

 

Oh...and sandwich lunches.

 

Lots and lots of things.

[WTF]

Half the number of MHKs - at least.

Have just one council for the IOM - remove the 24 local authories currently in existence.

 

an obvious idea, but the government is not about to make redundant big numbers of people only to have to pay them redundency pay and then benefits, and add them to the 100's unemployed now. it would mean less people working supporting more people not. i can't see how that will help in real terms??

[bluemonday]

The only concern I have with that is that the Hospital would not function without the great range of people from all over the world who choose to come and work there.

 

Sensible immigration policy yes, a kneejerk zenophobic one no.

 

DTL is a dinosaur, it's time has passed. Make its functions an office of the DTI

[bluemonday]

an obvious idea, but the government is not about to make redundant big numbers of people only to have to pay them redundency pay and then benefits, and add them to the 100's unemployed now. it would mean less people working supporting more people not. i can't see how that will help in real terms??

 

A natural wastage policy should be up and running pdq.

When people retire then they are only replaced in proven need circumstances.

An area across with a population of 80k won't have 24 Mps representing it.

It's a luxury that can't be justified.

The local level functions can be performed by a councillor in a unitary authority.

[bluemonday]

Quite right

People on here who work for private sector companies are probably permanently worried they won't have a job in a few weeks time.

 

Why the hell should taxpayer funded government workers be any different?

 

Hard times for all.

[WTF]

Quite right

People on here who work for private sector companies are probably permanently worried they won't have a job in a few weeks time.

 

Why the hell should taxpayer funded government workers be any different?

 

Hard times for all.

 

 

i see what you are saying, and i tend to agree, but once the government starts laying off people they won't be in a possition to tell the rest of us how things aren't that bad really. but there are far too many people in roles that are unnecessary if those further up did a days work. people seem to want to be promoted to a possition where they do nowt and just watch others work.

[Claudie]

I find this odd on the basis of the Foot Report confirming that:-

 

"3.25 None of the Crown Dependencies have, however, taken on significant levels borrowing. This is a measure of the economic resilience achieved by pursuing a policy of building up reserves during a period of rapid economic growth to provide a cushion during a downturn. The reserves range from £582 million (at 31 December 2008) in Jersey to £221.3 million (at 31 December 2008) in Guernsey. The reserve fund in the Isle of Man stood at £337 million at 31 March 2009."

 

So how do we get from reserves of £337m to £1.28bn?

 

The fact is that most of the money in the MR report is not in 'reserve' but allocated against specific government liabilities its not rainy day money.

 

Aren't all these numbers a bit out?

 

£337m is the figure on p356 of the detailed Govenment Accounts. This was without accounting for £10m reduction in value of investments or £5m in KSF. Those accounts are subject to audit. In the audited accounts the figure is £326m.

 

However we then have to consider what "Reserves" means. On the Govt. Balance Sheet the Reserve side of the Balance sheet totals £2.7m.

 

See

 

http://www.gov.im/treasury/finance/accounts.xml

 

look at Balance Sheet on p19 of "Dark Blue book" which are the audited accounts.

 

Most of the "Reserves" are an allocation of Revenue rather than a provision. This does make the Balance Sheet hard to understand. If you wish to assess the govt's free cash I would look at the top half. If you ignore Fixed Assets the Net Current Assets less liabilities is £378m. this is the figues I would see as "Spare Funds".

 

I do wonder how complete this figure is. The Public Service Employee Reserve is £182m. The net liability in respect of accrued pension liabilites was £1.311bn at 2009 year-end and I do not think this has been accounted for. You might think this is a £1.1 shortfall but really we have free reserves, as above of £378m and an unprovided liability of £1.3bn!

[manxy]

Quite right

People on here who work for private sector companies are probably permanently worried they won't have a job in a few weeks time.

 

Why the hell should taxpayer funded government workers be any different?

 

Hard times for all.

 

 

i see what you are saying, and i tend to agree, but once the government starts laying off people they won't be in a possition to tell the rest of us how things aren't that bad really. but there are far too many people in roles that are unnecessary if those further up did a days work. people seem to want to be promoted to a possition where they do nowt and just watch others work.

 

Quote: Why the hell should taxpayer funded government workers be any different?

I don't agree with the way it seems to be portrayed to me, as it looks like you genuinely want people to suffer and that can't be right as I wouldn't want hardship to be put on any person whether it's private or civil. (maybe I've read that wrong?)

I agree like I've once wrote before, that the machine has become too top heavy and needs trimming through natural wastage and people need to have a good look at their department and get back to the old ways of working their socks off for a living like WTF mentioned and I agree with a lot of his post

[manxy]

an obvious idea, but the government is not about to make redundant big numbers of people only to have to pay them redundency pay and then benefits, and add them to the 100's unemployed now. it would mean less people working supporting more people not. i can't see how that will help in real terms??

 

A natural wastage policy should be up and running pdq.

When people retire then they are only replaced in proven need circumstances.

An area across with a population of 80k won't have 24 Mps representing it.

It's a luxury that can't be justified.

The local level functions can be performed by a councillor in a unitary authority.

I agree with the natural wastage idea and you make a good point Blue

[manxy]

The only concern I have with that is that the Hospital would not function without the great range of people from all over the world who choose to come and work there.

 

Sensible immigration policy yes, a kneejerk zenophobic one no.

 

DTL is a dinosaur, it's time has passed. Make its functions an office of the DTI

The Hospital has lots of jobs that lose people and I do not include the basic nurses, clerks, assistants etc do a good job on tight numbers and often stretch between two departments.

 

Certain higher grades however, need to get their hands dirty and muck in when times get busy although I have to admit, there are one or two that do that when the time arises and credit to them.

[Albert Tatlock]

an obvious idea, but the government is not about to make redundant big numbers of people only to have to pay them redundency pay and then benefits, and add them to the 100's unemployed now. it would mean less people working supporting more people not. i can't see how that will help in real terms??

It is going to be tough, but we have to be realistic, as cuts are inevitable at the moment. The problem is of course time, and if the government had seriously previously looked at their scope, staffing levels etc. - when many of us had asked - they wouldn't have the problem they have now. But there we are.

 

The priority should be to maintain front-line services, and avoid putting people on the dole (as each person on the dole costs the taxpayer here £15K P/A), and/or avoid paying out substantial redundancy payments.

 

A someone who has worked with government...I would start with several major in-government assessments:

 

1. An assessment of the current 300 plus government 'contractors' (who will not be subject to the same employment terms and conditions and pensions) with the intention of redeploying people internally when essential to replace them - with the word 'essential' carefully redefined. 300 people on the average wage (£25K) is £7.5 million, however, I suspect contractors will be on a slightly higher average. There are obviously going to be some specialists that are essential that cannot be moved, replaced or laid off.

 

2. A realistic assessment of spare capacity in government. Who can be moved to replace (only essential) contractors where they can be replaced, even if they look at this for the short term to get through the next two years. Many people, especially administrators and managers have transferable skills, but all too many government departments are well overstaffed.

 

3. A no capital project plan. A managerial assessment of what projects in each department are required and deemed essential for the next two years, and departmental skeleton staffing levels required to get through the next two years. Again, identifying essential and non-essential staff.

 

4. An assessment of the work permits granted for government roles, and up for renewal in the next financial year. With, again aiming at a redeployment of essential staff internally. Manx and IOM workers should take priority here.

 

5. Outsourcing. What functions e.g. driving, admin, services etc. can be outsourced to private industry on the island at a cost saving.

 

6. Last in, first out principle. When you do have to make people unemployed, it should be done on this basis to minimise the costs of doing it.

 

7. Retire senior staff - as many of them as you can. Although this will immediately up the pension liability in one sense in the short-term, it will lower it in another sense in the long term. It also allows more people, often more capable people, to be redeployed upwards.

 

8. Enact the existing disciplinary procedure. There are people who should be on the final stages in any organisation.

 

Plus a few more things.

 

Those assessments alone will give wriggle room for laying off or redeploying at least 1000 staff IMO and substantial £millions in immediate savings. My guess based on my experience would be savings of the order of £30Million to be accrued straight away. Projects eat money and should be deemed either essential or non-essential ONLY. 'Nice to have' shouldn't exist anymore in government.

 

But all this has to be done in conjunction with an assessment of the work permit system itself too, as (as many people have said) there is little point just putting people on the dole when each person on the dole costs us £15K a year. For example, there are numerous IT people already registered on the dole (government breakdown of the figures). Numerous IT people are also not registered as unemployed while doing other, and in some cases non-skilled menial work. But IT is not impacted by the work permit restrictions at present, so it would be unfair and unrealistic to expect another 30 IT staff to have to compete for work with the doors still wide open. Same goes for numerous other trades, especially administration. So Cretney NEEDS to do an immediate review of how the work permit system is being applied and needs to be applied.

 

Yes there will be pain, but it is now unavoidable.

[pongo]

All the various proposals are probably worth considering over the longer term but the problems are immediate.

 

It will take a while to un-build the various empires and to carefully put in place the structural reforms which are probably required.

 

The immediate answer is to increase income tax pro rata to cover the full amount. Better to pay a bit more tax than to lose your job.

[Albert Tatlock]

All the various proposals are probably worth considering over the longer term but the problems are immediate.

 

It will take a while to un-build the various empires and to carefully put in place the structural reforms which are probably required.

 

The immediate answer is to increase income tax pro rata to cover the full amount. Better to pay a bit more tax than to lose your job.

A bit more tax? The whole of income tax only generates £127 Million. Are you saying up it by a third? Half? Double it?

 

In the first financial year, much of what I outlined above can be achieved, in two years - all of it.

[Claudie]

The immediate answer is to increase income tax pro rata to cover the full amount. Better to pay a bit more tax than to lose your job

 

A bit more tax? The whole of income tax only generates £127 Million. Are you saying up it by a third? Half? Double it?

 

In the first financial year, much of what I outlined above can be achieved, in two years - all of it.

 

Won't income tax go down?

 

The focus on 0%/Zero/10 means we either go to no corporate taxes - in which case income tax reduces or we tax corproate profits and economic activity reduces, a lot, and income tax reduces.