woolley Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 45 minutes ago, Non-Believer said: My feeling is that Govt maintains high PS numbers (relatively) in order to maintain economic "critical mass" on the Island. It's part of a gamble with the reserves until the next finance sector or e-gaming sector arrives to be our saviour. An arrival that is as yet unannounced and has yet to happen If we engaged in a swift cull of what are considered to be excess, superfluous numbers (and I do think they exist) and axed, say, 3000 quickly; the effect on the economy would be devastating. 3000 straight on the dole as the private sector couldn't absorb that number, benefits to be paid, a glut of housing on the market as some of the unemployed departed whence they came, which might lead to a property prices crash. We are currently still trying to keep inflated the artificial bubble that we have been for so long and which so many regard as the norm, it is fighting natural economic gravity, so's to speak. How long we can continue to do it is the big question. So you believe this is all part of some cunning plan? You might be right, but I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on it. I tend to think it's more likely clueless politicians being led by the self-interested. Or possibly, as I've suggested before on here, they know more about the future funding of the Island than they are prepared to divulge. Call me cynical. But between the extremes of axing 3,000 jobs, as you mention, and merrily continuing growing the numbers as we are currently, there is a massive gulf for a bit of creative thinking. My suggestion in a post above of aspiring to a 10% reduction over a few years through natural wastage would be a step in the right direction. A statement of intent that we are serious about dealing with the problem, without frightening too many horses or derailing the economy. It might even boost the economy and inward investment if people can see that we aren't as totally bat shit crazy as we appear to be right now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Non-Believer Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 45 minutes ago, woolley said: So you believe this is all part of some cunning plan? You might be right, but I certainly wouldn't bet the farm on it. I tend to think it's more likely clueless politicians being led by the self-interested. Or possibly, as I've suggested before on here, they know more about the future funding of the Island than they are prepared to divulge. Call me cynical. But between the extremes of axing 3,000 jobs, as you mention, and merrily continuing growing the numbers as we are currently, there is a massive gulf for a bit of creative thinking. My suggestion in a post above of aspiring to a 10% reduction over a few years through natural wastage would be a step in the right direction. A statement of intent that we are serious about dealing with the problem, without frightening too many horses or derailing the economy. It might even boost the economy and inward investment if people can see that we aren't as totally bat shit crazy as we appear to be right now. I'm not sure that there is a cunning plan either but there has to be a reason why we continue to draw huge sums from the reserves in order to feed the growing thing that is consuming them as part of its diet of £600M per year without any apparent means of alternative funding on the horizon. It's like blowing your savings in order to maintain a now unaffordable lifestyle without adjustments in the nebulous hope that you'll find a better paid job from somewhere. Nobody in their financial right mind would be doing that. 5 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, woolley said: No they're not. We simply waste far too much. It's both. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
piebaps Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 (edited) This from an FOI (excluding MUA and IOM Post) Around 50% are employed in either Health or Education Edited June 11 by piebaps Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, HeliX said: It's both. So let's deal with the waste first then. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 1 hour ago, woolley said: So let's deal with the waste first then. Or do both at the same time and have world-beating public services? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 6 minutes ago, HeliX said: Or do both at the same time and have world-beating public services? In a tax haven? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 4 minutes ago, woolley said: In a tax haven? According to proponents of our tax strategy, loads of HNWI flock here to provide jobs and huge amounts of trickle-down cash so that should be fine. 1 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 12 minutes ago, HeliX said: According to proponents of our tax strategy, loads of HNWI flock here to provide jobs and huge amounts of trickle-down cash so that should be fine. Yes, because it's a tax haven, i.e, it has low tax. Fiscal responsibility by the government is needed in the amount it spends on bureaucracy then we'll be fine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 3 minutes ago, woolley said: Yes, because it's a tax haven, i.e, it has low tax. Fiscal responsibility by the government is needed in the amount it spends on bureaucracy then we'll be fine. You implied a tax haven cannot have world-class public services. If so we should change our tax strategy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
woolley Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 22 minutes ago, HeliX said: You implied a tax haven cannot have world-class public services. If so we should change our tax strategy. Then we'd have nothing at all to spend on them. Of course we can have good services, but we can't do that and waste millions at the same time, and that's what they are trying to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeliX Posted June 11 Share Posted June 11 Just now, woolley said: Then we'd have nothing at all to spend on them. Of course we can have good services, but we can't do that and waste millions at the same time, and that's what they are trying to do. Capital flight is a boogeyman propogated by the wealthy to stop us from merely suggesting they not be complete cunts. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Roger Ram Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 3 hours ago, HeliX said: You implied a tax haven cannot have world-class public services. If so we should change our tax strategy. Jeez. They did a 2 percent increase on the higher rate and look at the uproar that caused despite still leaving us less taxed than most of the rest of the world. People want it all for nothing. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
manxman1980 Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 18 hours ago, Albert Tatlock said: I have no particular grievance, but I do know what I am talking about here. You need to ensure HR is fit for purpose first, before starting any regrading, restructuring and downsizing projects. If things are as bad as you suggest then you need to start by changing top leadership. If those ultimately responsible are not providing effective leadership and decision making then you start there. Otherwise you might as well give up as things will not change. 17 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: You're really arguing against yourself here. If you need an HR Department to restructure an organisation and that HR is incompetent and inefficient or corrupt or whatever, then by definition the place you have to start is with HR. And IOMG HR haven't even managed to produce their own (legally-obligated) Annual Report for two years. The most recent is for 2020-21. That is a PCS report isn't it? Looks like a senior leadership issue not solely HR. 17 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: But the one thing we know from Ranson and other cases is that HR and the AG's Office are completely ineffective in such things as well. They have seen their roles an enabling such managers, no matter how legally incorrect or ineffective such help turns out to be. Leaders are not bound to accept guidance from HR. Neither are they bound to accept any other form of legal advice. You are not bound to accept legal advice from a solicitor or subject matter expert either. Obviously ignoring advice can lead to bad outcomes. I am nor familiar enough with the Ranson case to comment but didn't the Senior HR person leave following that? 17 hours ago, Roger Mexico said: There's actually a very good argument for saying that most HR functions should be returned to Departments with only payroll related functions and legal monitoring being central. The current system just allows everyone to evade responsibility. Centralisation isn't necessarily the issue if there is effective business partnering and visibility. Again I am not close enough to the public sector to know if this happens. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairy Poppins Posted June 12 Share Posted June 12 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.