The potential collapse of public services

[Ari]

Started writing this in answer to a post in another thread but it was wildly off topic and probably worth a discussion on its own so thought I'd start a new thread on the subject. Here you go:

rich1231 said:

Deva Link said:

My wife's job has gone.

OK, so this is PH and I'm billy big-bks so I'm going to say the timing was perfect for us as our daughter is just about to hatch a sprog and wifey only ever worked 18hrs so it was only pin-money, but to some / many of her ex-collegues the income was important.

There's a lot of people being quietly chopped but it doesn't seem to be being widely reported. Her department lost about 25% its staff (600 people) and that was on top of two lots of 10% cuts last year. It's at the point now where it can't funtion, but maybe that's the idea.

I bet it does stll function.

Speaking as someone with a partner and bro in law in the public sector, actually no, many departments are gradually failing to function.

What's happening is that as people leave or are made redundant they're not replaced and the pressure is put onto those left. The conscientious ones are working evenings and weekends to try and cope but they're just fire fighting, they're not keeping up. And many of those are going off sick with stress or more fundamental illnesses.

Add to this the fact that the slash and burn tactics are removing huge swathes of very necessary and often short term irreplaceable experience and many parts of public service are in fact in meltdown.

Seems the policy is keep slashing till things start to collapse then stop. Problem is, at that point the cracks will be too big to repair and the collapse unstoppable.

I suspect we're in for a rough time in many very necessary public service areas such as NHS, councils etc.

[Puggit]

I suspect the problem is that public sector management is doing what it needs to protect itself.

They are making big noises about cutting important services because it's easiest just to sack people, instead of managing out the massive amount if waste in public sector.

[eharding]

Ari said:

Add to this the fact that the slash and burn tactics are removing huge swathes of very necessary and often short term irreplaceable experience and many parts of public service are in fact in meltdown.

At what point do you think the rest of us will actually notice?

[Ari]

At the point where it's too late to do anything about it...

[eharding]

Ari said:

At the point where it's too late to do anything about it...

...and at what point will the rest of us care?

[Elroy Blue]

My wife (a trained nurse) worked part time as a social care worker for the elderly. (Note elderly, not Chav Wayne and Waynetta). The whole department has been binned. She has lost her job along with everyone else. The elderly now have to find their own care and 'Private' companies have stepped and are offering 'services' at ridiculous prices.

As a Police Officer, the 20% cuts we are suffering are having a major impact on our ability to work.

Nobody was more pleased than me to see the back of the criminally incompetent Brown, but slashing essential services while we poor billions into 'overseas aid' and bloody windmills is inexcusable.

[Elroy Blue]

eharding said:

...and at what point will the rest of us care?

When you're old, incontinent and alone (assuming you're not already ) and there's absolutely no-one to look after you.

[grumbledoak]

Unfortunately, the unions and their pet political party have rammed the public services to levels we cannot afford. Just to buy votes. But when you tell the upper management to make cuts they won't choose themselves. So the stuff we need gets binned and the waste remains.

[GT03ROB]

Puggit said:

I suspect the problem is that public sector management is doing what it needs to protect itself.

They are making big noises about cutting important services because it's easiest just to sack people, instead of managing out the massive amount if waste in public sector.

Well you'd hardly see turkeys voting for Christmas! AS ever the softest targets will always be cut, irrespective of need.

[eharding]

Elroy Blue said:

eharding said:

...and at what point will the rest of us care?

When you're old, incontinent and alone (assuming you're not already ) and there's absolutely no-one to look after you.

On the contrary. I'll be able to hire a substantial domestic staff comprised of ex-public sector workers - at very, very reasonable rates - to look after me in my dotage.

Now, try not to punch the screen, there's a good lad.

[Ari]

eharding said:

Ari said:

At the point where it's too late to do anything about it...

...and at what point will the rest of us care?

Oh, well I don't know.

At the point where the streetlights and traffic lights stop working, roads stop being repaired, and your bins aren't emptied?

At the point where your house is on fire and the fire brigade don't come?

At the point where a member of your family dies from not being treated properly in hospital?

At the point where you're burgled and the police don't care? (Some may argue we've already past that one).

At the point where you're too infirm to look after yourself and there's no where to turn?

At the point where a child is being abused and there's no one to help her?


What do you care about?

[Ari]

eharding said:

On the contrary. I'll be able to hire a substantial domestic staff comprised of ex-public sector workers - at very, very reasonable rates - to look after me in my dotage.

Now, try not to punch the screen, there's a good lad.

Hmmm...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-13668797

[grumbledoak]

Ari said:

Some may argue we've already past that one.

The Fire Brigade aside, and best wishes to any of them reading, we're past all of those.

[mattviatura]

And round and round the argument goes again.

The public sector (I exclude the army, navy and air force but not the MOD) has been wildly overfunded for years.

Those funds have been stupidly and borderline criminally mismanaged over those years. A big part of this has been the creation of far too many roles in the public sector.

There are no longer lavish funds (if there ever were) to pay for this. Public spending needs to be immediately and drastically cut.

It would appear that some of the cuts that are necessary are being made in inappropriate places for various reasons, be it management wanting to protect it's cushy lifestyle or city councils like Manchester wanting to make political points.

The country as a whole needs to accept we can't go on. At that point there needs to be some sort of far reaching (maybe cross-party - the political sniping isn't helping) office to work out what can and can't be spent.

Before anyone comes on and attacks me with "my wife is a nurse and..." or whatever have an honest think about what I'm saying. I am not advocating sacking nurses, but I know I could spend a few days in my local hospital and suggest substantial savings.

We are in a time of national crisis but can't seem to accept it. We should be dealing with it as we would an outside threat.

Rant over.

Edited for apostrophe stupidity.

Edited by mattviatura on Thursday 9th June 15:09

[Ari]

mattviatura said:

And round and round the argument goes again.

The public sector (I exclude the army, navy and air force but not the MOD) has been wildly overfunded for years.

Those funds have been stupidly and borderline criminally mismanaged over those years. A big part of this has been the creation of far too many roles in the public sector.

There are no longer lavish funds (if there ever were) to pay for this. Public spending needs to be immediately and drastically cut.

It would appear that some of the cuts that are necessary are being made in inappropriate places for various reasons, be it management wanting to protect it's cushy lifestyle or city council's like Manchester wanting to make political points.

The country as a whole needs to accept we can't go on. At that point there needs to be some sort of far reaching (maybe cross-party - the political sniping isn't helping) office to work out what can and can't be spent.

Before anyone comes on and attacks me with "my wife is a nurse and..." or whatever have an honest think about what I'm saying. I am not advocating sacking nurses, but I know I could spend a few days in my local hospital and suggest substantial savings.

We are in a time of national crisis but can't seem to accept it. We should be dealing with it as we would an outside threat.

Rant over.

I agree with you entirely actually.

However what we seem to have is a situation where those at the top are indiscriminately saying "right, make 25% redundant". And then "make another 10% redundant", and so on, waiting for the cracks to appear.

So what's happening is a situation whereby, and I use this just as an analogy, say there are 25 ambulance drivers covering a 250 mile area. They get rid of one, the rest find a way to spread the area out amongst themselves and top brass say "hey that worked, cool".

So then they get rid of another three. So those that are left start working longer hours unpaid because they can't leave people dying.

And top brass say "hey cool, the workers are still doing the job and we're making savings".

So they get rid of a few more.

And when they reach the point where the drivers say "we can't do this, it's not possible to cover a 250 mile area with just 10 drivers" the top brass say "ah, well don't work harder, work smarter". And consider their management job done.

That, it seems to me, is the approach.

The problem comes when you're getting rid of people in senior school management or senior health care management or senior child protection management and you've not just got rid of a job, you've lost years and years of experience. So when, three months down the line, there's a serious crisis, the people they'd have traditionally approached to handle it are gone.

And the cracks get wider...

[gtdc]

They're managing to keep many layers of management.

[sjg]

Potentially playing devils advocate, but when dealing with a public sector that has massively bloated over the years, how else can you effectively gauge how much they can be cut and still operate? Why not take this approach of cutting, cutting a bit more, cutting a bit more until things aren't being done, then recruit back in some of the harder-working and useful ones?

And for all the hand-wringing over cuts in public services, how much more tax are you willing to pay to keep all these people in jobs? A 30% rise in your council tax? Add 10% on every income tax bracket?

[GT03ROB]

Ari said:

I agree with you entirely actually.

However what we seem to have is a situation where those at the top are indiscriminately saying "right, make 25% redundant". And then "make another 10% redundant", and so on, waiting for the cracks to appear.

So what's happening is a situation whereby, and I use this just as an analogy, say there are 25 ambulance drivers covering a 250 mile area. They get rid of one, the rest find a way to spread the area out amongst themselves and top brass say "hey that worked, cool".

So then they get rid of another three. So those that are left start working longer hours unpaid because they can't leave people dying.

And top brass say "hey cool, the workers are still doing the job and we're making savings".

So they get rid of a few more.

And when they reach the point where the drivers say "we can't do this, it's not possible to cover a 250 mile area with just 10 drivers" the top brass say "ah, well don't work harder, work smarter". And consider their management job done.

That, it seems to me, is the approach.

The problem comes when you're getting rid of people in senior school management or senior health care management or senior child protection management and you've not just got rid of a job, you've lost years and years of experience. So when, three months down the line, there's a serious crisis, the people they'd have traditionally approached to handle it are gone.

And the cracks get wider...

It doesn't make it right but this is the way it happens in the private sector too, unless & until the politicians & management sit down & start being honest with each other we don't have a chance.

[mattviatura]

GT03ROB said:

It doesn't make it right but this is the way it happens in the private sector too, unless & until the politicians & management sit down & start being honest with each other we don't have a chance.

You're quite right, but it is much less likely to lead to injury or death in the private sector, it's a poor way of doing things in vital (key word) public services.

The second part of your point is absolutely spot on though. Politicians of all colour need to come out together and force the unions and media to accept the problem.

As I said before, this situation needs to be treated like a major war. Politics should be put aside.

[jains15]

sjg said:

Potentially playing devils advocate, but when dealing with a public sector that has massively bloated over the years, how else can you effectively gauge how much they can be cut and still operate? Why not take this approach of cutting, cutting a bit more, cutting a bit more until things aren't being done, then recruit back in some of the harder-working and useful ones?

And for all the hand-wringing over cuts in public services, how much more tax are you willing to pay to keep all these people in jobs? A 30% rise in your council tax? Add 10% on every income tax bracket?

This is it. Whatever way you look at it we can't afford the public sector so something has to change.

The way I see it, we have 3 massive money pits in the country. The Forces, The Welfare State and The NHS. Can we only actually afford to run two out of these three? I think so. So what do we drop?

Also WRT to the NHS, we all pay NI to pay for it, which is what we are told. So if you have a 'fault claim' (like car insurance) why do you not pay excess? So if you have a heart attack directly caused by smoking or having an appalling diet, an excess should be sought. Got into a drunken fight and need stitching up? Excess. Bugger your liver because you drink all the time? Excess. And we need draconian measures for those who don't pay as well. Think about it not only might you claw back some cash off those who take the most and pay the least NI, you might even improve the health of the nation so that NHS isn't clogged up for when it is genuinely needed.