The easy option

[Cambon]

33 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

The problem is that for years the IoM lived in a VAT-funded bubble that was largely removed from the real world and  far too much of Govt and its employees are now overtly reluctant to, or incapable of realising and letting go of the pink, fluffy, puffed-up, surreal existence they lived during these times.

They simply expect everybody else to endlessly stump up in their febrile attempts to maintain this position, despite it being completely unsustainable.

The VAT debacle was overcome around 10 years ago and we were pretty much back on an even keel. Covid was the killer. The ease of dipping into reserves has lead to the current situation. 
 

However, the bigger problem is the civil service. They are like an AI computer that has learned to control its leaders. Either by ousting them from position when the questions get to difficult or the leader learns too much, or, by purposely overspending knowing that those supposedly in charge have no option but to pay for the over spend. The CS position is win, win. We lose.

[joebean]

Many roles within the CS involve no specialist skills, merely the ability to administrate something, therefore many staff are interchangeable and staff can be moved to new tasks, without a great deal of retraining.  A lot of savings could be achieved by not filling new vacancies; asking what the implications would be of leaving roles vacated through natural wastage unfilled; examining administrative process to streamline tasks and seek opportunities to double up roles or create part-time positions; regrading; reducing capital expenditure; contracting out; identifying savings in management structures. There are many avenues to explore, short of mass redundancies and there is a huge amount that could be done if the will existed to do the work and achieve expenditure savings. I don’t know how many people are recruited into the general civil service annually but I suspect a two-year moratorium on recruitment to it would have little impact on essential service delivery and would  achieve a meaningful reduction in staff numbers. This would, of course place additional demands on  public sector managers and administrative staff. That might be considered better than constantly increasing the cost of services to the public, if the public sector and our politicians thought that was important. 

Edited April 11 by joebean

[Max Power]

It hasn't stopped one government institution from buying around 15 new trucks to cover for the fact that Ellerslie can not keep to the required service safety regime, and too many are backed up awaiting safety checks? Got to be over £1m spent there! Imagine this magnified throughout government, you soon begin to see the problems.   

[Non-Believer]

1 hour ago, joebean said:

I don’t know how many people are recruited into the general civil service annually but I suspect a two-year moratorium on recruitment to it would have little impact on essential service delivery and would  achieve a meaningful reduction in staff numbers.

There has been a Tynwald-mandated CS personnel/headcount cap in place for many years.

It is wilfully ignored and circumvented.

[joebean]

20 minutes ago, Non-Believer said:

There has been a Tynwald-mandated CS personnel/headcount cap in place for many years.

It is wilfully ignored and circumvented.

It’s not just about headcount, it’s about not filling natural wastage. Headcount has always been subject to business case increases, which is why the PS has expanded over the years. There should be no increase in the general civil service headcount for a few years. Only increases in essential public services, particularly front-line health service personnel should be considered and funded by savings elsewhere. The public would support that, if only politicians had the courage to demand it. 

[Banker]

34 minutes ago, joebean said:

It’s not just about headcount, it’s about not filling natural wastage. Headcount has always been subject to business case increases, which is why the PS has expanded over the years. There should be no increase in the general civil service headcount for a few years. Only increases in essential public services, particularly front-line health service personnel should be considered and funded by savings elsewhere. The public would support that, if only politicians had the courage to demand it. 

The main growth area has been cabinet office who also have most senior managers etc, not sure exactly what they do. Plus compliance, AML ,H&S which are unfortunately mandatory these days.

[Happier diner]

3 hours ago, Max Power said:

It hasn't stopped one government institution from buying around 15 new trucks to cover for the fact that Ellerslie can not keep to the required service safety regime, and too many are backed up awaiting safety checks? Got to be over £1m spent there! Imagine this magnified throughout government, you soon begin to see the problems.   

Yes I have seen this. Fleet shared services. Wasn't it longworths idea. Absolute joke. 

[Albert Tatlock]

Just now, Happier diner said:

Yes I have seen this. Fleet shared services. Wasn't it longworths idea. Absolute joke. 

He'll be on a £50k per annum pension...probably more.

[Derek Flint]

16 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

He'll be on a £50k per annum pension...probably more.

Notwithstanding I'm on a police pension, which was well contributed to, the money some senior CS retirees are drawing is mind boggling 

[Albert Tatlock]

Just now, Derek Flint said:

Notwithstanding I'm on a police pension, which was well contributed to, the money some senior CS retirees are drawing is mind boggling 

Very true, biggest I heard of so far (first hand) was a deputy at Social Services on £80k pension P/A. And that was at least 10 years ago we talked together about that.

[Albert Tatlock]

This is why the IOM taxpayer has been writing cheques for £40+million a year recently to top up a failed CS pension scheme.

 

[Non-Believer]

56 minutes ago, Albert Tatlock said:

This is why the IOM taxpayer has been writing cheques for £40+million a year recently to top up a failed CS pension scheme.

 

It's not failed if you're in it...

And it will never be allowed to fail. Whatever it needs will be drawn from the plebs.

[Kopek]

Whatever is legally required will be drawn..............

[joebean]

3 hours ago, Derek Flint said:

Notwithstanding I'm on a police pension, which was well contributed to, the money some senior CS retirees are drawing is mind boggling 

And you have to ask what exactly they contributed to the Isle of Man. I can think of a few leavers in the last few years who drew big salaries and then big pensions who achieved little in the way of positive outcomes and at least one whose influence had negative impacts on standards in office and senior management culture. 

[Non-Believer]

I'd like people to take a little time out to count slowly. From 1 to 700. It may take a while, admittedly.

Then to consider that each one is a recently added civil/public servant to the IoMG payroll, by Govt's own numbers.

The number is incredible. It's a new battalion.