“transferring non-core services to the private sector..”
Northern Ireland’s current Finance Minister, and expected next First Minister, the DUP’s Peter Robinson, asked Gordon Brown about the second Varney Review [of competitiveness], to follow his previous review of taxation, during Prime Minister’s Questions today and called for the UK government’s response in time for the upcoming US investment conference. As RTÉ reports that review has been published. NI Secretary of State Shaun Woodward has welcomed the “roadmap to prosperity” and the review itself is available here. PDF file direct link here. RTÉ gives an interesting summary.
In today’s review, Mr Varney indicates that the North’s strengths include a young population, an excellent education system and strong transport links. However, he recommends several reforms to further boost competitiveness.Recommendations include the transfer of many public sector services to the private sector and greater co-operation with the Irish Government and agencies like the IDA in the development of an all-island economy.
Adds As Mark Devenport says – “There ain’t no Sanity Clause”. Heh.From the Treasury press statement
Sir David’s Review identifies a number of core strengths that make Northern Ireland a good place to do business and attractive to a wide range of investors. These strengths include a young population, an excellent education system, macroeconomic stability, strong transport links with the rest of the UK, Ireland and Europe and ambitious plans for further infrastructure investment. These strengths – alongside a range of investment incentives – have already attracted notable inward investment, and seen some of the strongest growth in output of any UK region.
The Review makes the case that increasing globalisation will bring a number of new challenges to the Northern Ireland economy in the years ahead, as emerging economies compete increasingly in a range of sectors. To succeed in the face of this growing competition, Northern Ireland will need to continue to raise its relatively low productivity and employment rates and reduce the number of low-skilled workers in the economy.
Sir David found that the Northern Ireland Executive has responded well to many of these challenges, and welcomes the priority given to the economy in Northern Ireland’s Programme for Government and the strategies developed to support economic development. The Review concludes that the Executive should now focus on the rapid and effective implementation of those strategies.
To boost the competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy further, the Review recommends action in a number of areas, including:
deepening and intensifying public sector reform, in particular increasing the role of the private sector in the delivery of core public services and transferring non-core services to the private sector in order to help stimulate its growth;
ambitious labour market and welfare reform, aimed at increasing the employment rate and reducing the number of people on Incapacity Benefit;
more employer-led skills training to help tackle weaknesses in the stock of skills in the labour market, which is a legacy from the past;
ensuring a joined up approach between Invest Northern Ireland, UK Trade & Investment and the Irish Industrial Development Agency (IDA) to market Northern Ireland to the full; and
continuing development of the all-island economy with the Irish Government, supported by the UK Government, including increased trade, movement of labour and capital, tourism, energy markets and financial services as well as many other sectors.
Willowfield,
So you agree that the proposals to contract out “non-core” Government services to the private sector will not give effect to the aim of reducing NI’s dependency on the public purse? They are a red herring?
We seem to be talking across purposes here. I was discussing the problems NI faces as a whole. But to answer what you appear to want answered:
I said at the very start that this report was in the same category as Agenda 2010 from 1998. To quote Driftwood: Pie in the Sky.
As far as I see it, contracting out these services will not reduce dependancy but what it will do is reduce the 7 billion annual bill for your paymasters, the ones who commissioned the report.
Believe it or not, they aren’t thinking about Northern Ireland when they are coming out with these types of proposals, they are thinking about reducing the 7 billion subsidy.
So it’s not a red herring for your paymasters, it’s common sense.
The problem is either the people of Northern Ireland come up with a way to be more self-sufficient and reduce the subsidy or it will be reduced for them.
It’s no good just constantly asking why they make such recommendations.
The people in power in Northern Ireland have to come up with a solution of their own that works in the best interest of the region and which doesn’t involve needing an annual 7 billion pound grant to be put into practice.
This will involve tough decisions and economic pain. Not surprisingly, ideas are very thin on the ground because the apparatchiks aren’t used to making tough decisions.
In fact, every politician in Northern Ireland seems to be running a mile from the problem.
Northern Ireland can run but it can’t hide.
George
We seem to be talking across purposes here.
So it would seem.
I was discussing the problems NI faces as a whole.
With which I generally agree, although I don’t necessarily think the problems are as extreme as you characterise them.
As far as I see it, contracting out these services will not reduce dependancy but what it will do is reduce the 7 billion annual bill for your paymasters, the ones who commissioned the report.
How? If, in 2008, they pay x million in salaries for these services and, in 2009, they pay x million to a contractor for the services, how is the annual bill reduced?
So it’s not a red herring for your paymasters, it’s common sense.
See above – I don’t see how it’s not a red herring and your answer hasn’t addressed the point.
I suppose patients could be asked to supply and launder their own bed linen while in hospital; they could also send for a carry-out at meal times. This would massively reduce the laundry and catering budgets.
I’m hearing that some local hospital meals are currently prepared in Scotland and then heated up before cooling down on their way to the ward. Another cup of cold tea, anyone?
They – or their relatives (depending on the level of incapacity caused by their illness) – could also be asked daily to scrub clean the wards in which they are staying, and the operating theatres and consulting rooms to which they are sent.
Would save on the cleaning budget.
How? If, in 2008, they pay x million in salaries for these services and, in 2009, they pay x million to a contractor for the services, how is the annual bill reduced?
Pensions and future liabilities for a start. It also means that going forward the budget can be cut easier as there are fewer fixed charges aka permanent full-time pensionable employees who can’t be sacked.
But rather than constantly asking questions, maybe you could break with tradition and actually profer a few solutions?
Pensions and future liabilities for a start. It also means that going forward the budget can be cut easier as there are fewer fixed charges aka permanent full-time pensionable employees who can’t be sacked.
Additionally, its likely that it would go out to tender, where there would be competition for the contract. A private investor might think they can do it for x-y millions.
So once ALL these Public Servants are fired who’s going to assess your parents Pensions, man the dole office front lines with all the abuse and threats, empty the bins, look after intimate geriatric nursing needs in hospitals etc. Many public sector workers do jobs others just wouldn’t do so stop this blanket negative sweep of civil servants. A lot of people are just unfairly stereotyping many of them. Go down and spend a week in the Social Security Agency in Castle Court and see just how lazy employees…..AREN’T. They deal with ten’s of thousands of people on benefit every week and don’t have time to sit on their arses. They take NOTHING but abuse, stick and threats from the public 5 days a week for awful wages and most of the time they are run off their feet;it’s no wonder so many of them end up going sick. These people actually do the rest of us a favour because if you can find a private company to do this work the first thing they will do is cut staff. Then you will REALLY see a Public Sector completely messed up. Look at the destruction the private sector has already done to NHS hygiene and the railways in Britain. Those shouting loudly about PRIVATISATION are obviously Thatcherites with self interests or naive fools who don’t know what they are talking about.
Since we have now arrived somewhere, over the rainbow, let me indulge in similar fantasy.
Take two corporate buildings, side-by-side.
Walk in.
The reception areas may welll be similar in lay-out and provision. The main observable difference might well be the logos.
There will be an important difference from the other side of the reception desk. One will be staffed at commercial rates: the other by a personage enjoying public sector levels of pay, benefits, pension rights, job tenure et al. The public sector employee, though receiving similar monthly salary tranches to that of the private sector, will therefore “cost” the employer something like 100-150% more in on-costs. A £15-20K salary will soon inflate to £40+ as a budget item cost. That is a “tax” on the whole of society. Private sector employees justifiably ask why the discrimination persists.
The same two organisations decide to up-grade or re-model their reception. In the case of the public sector, from the “customer” point-of-view, that means a layer of emulsion paint, new CCTV security system, a nice contemporary desk for the receptionist, and rows of plastic chairs for the waiting area. Behind the scenes there will be an “interview room”, complete with microwave and beverage-maker, provided after internal “consultations”: its prime function will be use by the employees for their “breaks”.
And we haven’t yet penetrated the two organisations beyond reception…
Is this a gross exaggeration?
But not as obscene an exaggeration as the parodic notions, in some of the later posts, of privatising the sharp-end of medicine or education.
Take, for example, the emotive issue (used above) of hospital hygiene.
There is no essential reason, other than prejudice, why a professional contract cleaner should be less effective and clinical than an in-house one. In either case, what may well fail — and too often does — is the management and supervision thereof: that should not be ascribed to the operatives.
Nor is all the employment moving one way. The Crown Prosecution Service, for example, is about to employ barristers “in-house”.
Which is preferable ?
67% being paid by the government – money which could be spent on schools & hospitals.
67% being paid by private enterprise – taxable income available for the public purse.
If anyone seriously believes the former is appealing to Westminster or Dublin they are dreaming. The irish government is currently struggling to control public sector wage demands and would dearly love to trim it’s own Civil Service.
Of course the turkey’s aren’t going to vote for christmas here, but come on, wake up. Our subsidy addicted, plate in hand economy is a spluttering british leyland engine. A massive overhaul is desperately needed. Public sector employment dependency must be reduced to an acceptable level in line with other successful economies. A civil service job is a massive turn off for our graduates, you might not like that, but it’s the truth. They will follow the money, they will go and work in private enterprise in the UK or Dublin. We cam continue to fund their education to let them go elsewhere or we can cop on to that fact and begin to address the matter.
Well, all I can say its bloody good fun watching the brightest of the bright young private sector things showing themselves to be completely lacking in self-awareness, charm, grace, ability to work with others and complete and utter tossers each week on The Apprentice.
In terms of income generation, a few more shows like that might almost persuade me that my licence fee is well spent.
“Well, all I can say its bloody good fun watching the brightest of the bright young private sector things showing themselves to be completely lacking in self-awareness, charm, grace, ability to work with others and complete and utter tossers each week on The Apprentice. “
Yeah, and Big Brother contestants represent a cross-section of society.
Malcolm,
The reason the private contractors have proven less efficient is simple. They have put the profit motive before the good of patients, as they inevitably will. This is fine for some areas, but not in healthcare. It may be an emotive example, but it is one where NI has followed the rest of the UK, and where it has been an utter disaster. Transport has not yet been privatised, though I look forward to it becoming a part-privitisation of the Tube disaster too.
Malcolm Redfellow>There will be an important difference from the other side of the reception desk. One will be staffed at commercial rates: the other by a personage enjoying public sector levels of pay, benefits, pension rights, job tenure et al. The public sector employee, though receiving similar monthly salary tranches to that of the private sector, will therefore “cost” the employer something like 100-150% more in on-costs. A £15-20K salary will soon inflate to £40+ as a budget item cost. That is a “tax” on the whole of society. Private sector employees justifiably ask why the discrimination persists.< You forget about the simple concept of margin. The private organisation must make a margin on their activities or else they'll go out of business. While they may have lower staff costs they have to provide a profit to distribute to their owners/shareholders. In a public organisation this isn't the case.
>Take, for example, the emotive issue (used above) of hospital hygiene.
There is no essential reason, other than prejudice, why a professional contract cleaner should be less effective and clinical than an in-house one. In either case, what may well fail—and too often does— is the management and supervision thereof: that should not be ascribed to the operatives.<<
Again nonsence. The essential reason why professional contract cleaners are less effective compared to in house is because of their staff turnover and staff reallocation. The lack of instutional memory (e.g. what was cleaned yesterday, what’s due to be cleaned) when it comes to contract cleaners is the key problem.
Malcolm Redfellow>There will be an important difference from the other side of the reception desk. One will be staffed at commercial rates: the other by a personage enjoying public sector levels of pay, benefits, pension rights, job tenure et al. The public sector employee, though receiving similar monthly salary tranches to that of the private sector, will therefore “cost” the employer something like 100-150% more in on-costs. A £15-20K salary will soon inflate to £40+ as a budget item cost. That is a “tax” on the whole of society. Private sector employees justifiably ask why the discrimination persists.< You forget about the simple concept of margin. The private organisation must make a margin on their activities or else they'll go out of business. While they may have lower staff costs they have to provide a profit to distribute to their owners/shareholders. In a public organisation this isn't the case.
>Take, for example, the emotive issue (used above) of hospital hygiene.
There is no essential reason, other than prejudice, why a professional contract cleaner should be less effective and clinical than an in-house one. In either case, what may well fail—and too often does— is the management and supervision thereof: that should not be ascribed to the operatives.<<
Again nonsence. The essential reason why professional contract cleaners are less effective compared to in house is because of their staff turnover and staff reallocation. The lack of institutional memory (e.g. what was cleaned yesterday, what’s due to be cleaned) when it comes to contract cleaners is the key problem.
This long since became a dialogue of the deaf. So, let’s let it go.
My bottom line:
Malcolm
This long since became a dialogue of the deaf. So, let’s let it go.
I’m sympathetic to some of your arguments, but this appears to be a two way deafness.
* with out-sourcing, the need is to specify comprehensively, to manage the contract appropriately, and to ensure guaranteed compliance. When a public service fails to do all that (and the public service is frequently at fault in these cases), don’t necessarily pass the buck to the contractor: managers in the public service are remunerated adequately to be held responsible.
In a lot of cases this is true. But I think with regards cleaning in hospitals there is some merit in the argument that it should be kept in house. Agency work is useful for a lot of situations, but for mission-critical stuff most companies like to keep it well under their own control. And cleanliness is critical for a hospital, because it costs lives if it is not done. A poorly cleaned office is an inconvenience and an annoyance. In a hospital it’s a potential catastrophe. There is a difference.
High turnover of staff is a problem and not simply due to the loss of “transactive memory” suggested above. You lose control over who is hired and fired, and even in cleaning there is a difference between high and low quality staff, and a difference if you are they are not your direct report. Problems can be surmounted with contractors, but given the level of hassle, given where the public lays the blame and given the risk to lives that ultimately falls out of bad cleaning in hospitals, I think it’d be much better to 1. keep it under your own control 2. pay higher than market wages to get people that will do the best job.
December 2007.
All persons aged 16 and over – 1,362,000
Total economically active – 814,000
Total in employment – 780,000
34,000 unemployed people aged 16 or over.
Unemployment rate is 4.2%
28% of the workforce are apparently in the public sector. If “the workforce” is the 814,000 economically active people above, that equates to 227,920 people.
If we reduce it to be on a par with the UK average, which is apparently 20%, that would be a reduction of 65,000 jobs.
Like I said before – 15 years, folks. Oh and by the way, perhaps someone could let me know which:
doctors
nurses
teachers
bin men
environmental health officers
building control officers (red herring, it pays for itself)
front office staff
cleaners
etc
…they’d like to see laid off first. Oh yes, and into which industry you’d like them to go into.
What the thread shows is how intellectually meagre was the Varney consideration of NIs economy.
I think the contract should have been given to Sluggerites who would at least have considered more than the laziest way out to earn their money.
Now, who is going to ask, under FoI, how much these reports cost?
I,quoth the Raven, I with my little FOI, I’ll ask the question.
Well done, Mr Poe
I feel that it is in the public interest that such questions be asked.
The amount spent on establishing the GoCo for water and sewerage was the subject of an AQ and lest Mr Raven’s request be denied, I think a MLA should ask it. Now, speaking of w and s…is a resignation at hand?
Raven,
“Like I said before – 15 years, folks. Oh and by the way, perhaps someone could let me know which:
doctors
nurses
teachers
bin men
environmental health officers
building control officers (red herring, it pays for itself)
front office staff
cleaners
etc
…they’d like to see laid off first. Oh yes, and into which industry you’d like them to go into.”
Maybe you’d like to explain how Northern Ireland will be albe to pay for these 65,000 extra jobs going forward as the 7 billion a year subsidy is slowly but surely reduced?
There is no difficulty finding people in Northern Ireland who say how all these posts are needed but very few who are able to provide an idea as to how they can be paid for.
Well?
As long as NI remains part of the UK, entitled to the standard of living of all other residents of the Uk, ths status quo will be maintained.
Now, if the status quo can only be maintained by united with the RoI, that unification will be brought about.
Those who want unification in the south (such as are left) should signify preparedness to fund us up here.
Until you do, hands off!
But (health warning) declaring a refusal to ever contemplate a UI might be a tad dificult for any RoI party.
And there is such a thing as political reality…
So George, unequal development still goes on. We wont vote for it (including Shinners) and neither will they/you. Lets continue as we are.
BTW could we have stats for GPs per head (RoI) and GPs per head (NI)?
Maybe you’d like to explain how Northern Ireland will be albe to pay for these 65,000 extra jobs going forward as the 7 billion a year subsidy is slowly but surely reduced?
There is no difficulty finding people in Northern Ireland who say how all these posts are needed but very few who are able to provide an idea as to how they can be paid for.
Well?
We could start with the 11 departments being reduced to 5 or 6 and cut the MLA’s by 70%. Then the battalions of “community workers” and groups who do fuck all. Then the quango fiefdoms including Monica, the ‘equality’ commission, the 4 so called victims commisioners and the whole bureaucracy of Invest NI, the NITB, feel free to add to the list….it’s bloody endless.
But, as someone pointed out, Turkeys don’t vote for Xmas, especially those in well feathered nests.(I realise turkeys don’t have nests as such, but you know what I mean.
You know when you’ve been quangoed!
“We could start with the 11 departments being reduced to 5 or 6 and cut the MLA’s by 70%. Then the battalions of “community workers” and groups who do fuck all. Then the quango fiefdoms including Monica, the ‘equality’ commission, the 4 so called victims commisioners and the whole bureaucracy of Invest NI, the NITB, feel free to add to the list….it’s bloody endless.”
Driftwood, I’ve read your stuff before, you’re a reasonable chap. Hear me through on this one, and don’t cut the tripe out of me figures here – I’m using an abacus!!
I postulated above that there are about 65,000 public sector more than we need – according to some, may I add as a caveat.
Well, let’s say they are earning 20% over the Northern Ireland average wage of £16,000 per annum. £19,200 x 65,000. I’m being VERY generous with the figures here, and using the generalisation, not taking into account all the MYRIAD little grade 1′s on an unbelievably low £11,000 per annum, which are not by ANY means balanced out by the handful of civil servants, local government officers and others on £70-100k per annum, or the average Doctor’s pay of £125,000 per annum. By the way, I am not counting in employers costs or pension contributions. For that, add around a total of 25%.
But if you are willing to accept these assumptions and figures, we’re looking to find savings of £1248,000,000.
104 MLAs? each earning around £44,000 pa, and allowing each of them an average of £20,000 for (ahem) costs… You wish to cut it around 35? OK! You’ve just saved £4m! Only £1244,000,000 to go!
The cost of the departments will not shrink according to number. The same agendas and work needs to be done. Merge DfEL and DENI? You still need to administer schools, FE colleges, Jobs & Benefits and so on. But let us assume that in cutting 11 to 6, you save £10m per department, per annum. Bingo! Another £50m per annum saved! Only £1196,000,000 to go!
I believe there are around 160 quangos in Northern Ireland? I also believe that some of their work will be subsumed into the new Councils under RPA. Another excellent start. Except…Council budgets only account for 5-7% of the NI pie. (Yes folks – next time you gurn about your rates, I am sorry to tell you that your Council is NOT the bogeyman you’d like to make it out to be.) And they will rise to 9-12% AFTER RPA.
Community Workers? Well…after demonstrating the MLA cut above, do you think THAT will make much of a dent? Believe me, outside of Belfast, Derry and one or two select other places, there aren’t very many “community workers.”
Invest Northern Ireland is a thoroughly USELESS organisation, I will grant you. However, in terms of its operational budget, half goes to FDI companies, while the other half goes to growing local ones. Which half would you like to cut first, especially given that we’re trying to grow the private sector. And actually, in terms of their administration budget, they aren’t all that dear.
Nope, there’s a bit more to all this budget cutting stuff than meets the eye, isn’t there…?
Having seen, personally, at 11am, a couple of women clean up the vomit and shit of an elderly woman, wipe down her anus and vagina – and help her down a 20 ft corridor to her recently changed bed, for which task no-one could be paid sufficiently, I am staggered at the ignorance about what is encompassed in the public sector.
Having witnessed this sight, I handed over the bundle of monthly cheques to the employees of this Belfast Health Board unit.
I knew the value of these cheques to be about £800 for that month.
Then again, only on this blog could I read about a man who, visiting his dying father, chose to make a political point about the “overpaid jobsbodies” caring for his father, whom he couldnt leave soon enough to write his fucking blog, castigating the Health Service and the bloated public sector.
Jo,
As long as NI remains part of the UK, entitled to the standard of living of all other residents of the Uk, ths status quo will be maintained.
Is this the same entitlement that leaves the people of Northern Ireland with per capita 80% of GDP compared with the rest of the UK?
The same one that gives the people of Northern Ireland half the capital infrastructure investment as the rest of the UK?
The same one that gives the people of Northern Ireland the lowest average weekly earnings for any region in the UK?
The same one that spends 50% per capita less on healthcare than the UK average?
You may be cocooned in your full-time pensionable job with all its benefits but things are changing and Northern Ireland is being left behind.
Hang on to the belief that in 20 years time the UK will still be writing the blank cheques and all with be rosy in the garden.
50% less on mental health, not health.
george
Youi miss the fuckin point: there is a need for public expenditure. No private firm could do what I have seen done for a profit motive.
Those images will stay with me forever
Forever those things will need to be done.
It is to the everlasting shame that comments on those people who do those things on behalf of us all – go uncommented except for the comments that I have mentioned.
I do this in memory.
Jo,
You miss the fuckin point: there is a need for public expenditure. No private firm could do what I have seen done for a profit motive.
Those images will stay with me forever.
You sound like Rutger Hauer in Blade Runner.
Back to the point of thread. As you have failed to address a single point I have raised, and I have brought up quite a few on this thread, I suppose I might as well repeat something that I have already written:
There is no difficulty finding people in Northern Ireland who say how all these posts are needed but very few who are able to provide an idea as to how they can be paid for.
That pretty well sums up the totality of what you have had to say on this thread so far.
Well Jo, are you up to the challenge of moving to the next level and putting forward some possible solutions?
How will Northern Ireland pay for these wonderful people going forward?
Or is the height of your argument that you believe the 7 billion pound cheque will keep coming indefinitely and that everything is rosy in the garden when everything patently isn’t?
It is a moral imperative, both Godly and worldly, that we look after the weakest in our society.
If it isn’t a priority, then you may indeed win your argument: if you govern allocation of wordly resources.
You will rule over a nation that buries people that should have been alive to enjoy their children and grandchildren.
I hope not to be alive in such a world.
Such a world will see profoundly unhappy people, both governing and governed.
What will be the point?
I only had to look at the aged right winger on tonight’s “Hearts and Minds” to see how much hatred of others pushes people towards an early grave.
Jo, I don’t normally go with you, but I do here, albeit with caveats. Forget about the Godly shite, the worldly stuff is what matters, and George does have points which you seem to evade.
I don’t like to seem mean spirited, but getting off a high horse sometimes, can give you a different view.
Anyway, well said. Didn’t see H&M;.
Morality is very subjective. Left wingers can be prone to myopia also.
Have a good weekend!
David
Jo
You write a lot sense and I share your outrage at some of the cold, uncaring, unemotional comments I read on here. These Thatcherites have the world divided into a profit & loss ledger where the end justifies the means i.e. the fat bloated owners, investors & shareholders of these conglomerates & multinationals MUST come BEFORE society and doing the right thing. Only this week we seen the profits of BP & SHELL rise to record levels as they are force us to pay even more for their stockpiled oil. Our groceries bills are sky high as the supermarket giants also post even higher profits too. The Tories came into power in 1979 and set about selling off public assets and turning Britain into a greedy selfish land of Loadsamonies & Tory Boys. The inner cities and not so well off were abandoned to their own devices AND Britain now wonders WHY many of it’s young people are so violent and selfish. They are the by-products of this ME ME ME system. I am sick to the back teeth with self righteous economists and right wing capitalists telling us all that there MUST be an underclass and suffering, pain & sacifice amongst the plebs so that these greedy obscene Gordon Gekko leeches can order £15000 bottles of wine in their private clubs and societies. No, get to f**k, it’s not right and I don’t care who it offends or annoys. They hide behind this ‘competitiveness’ crap that they tell us about which is only an excuse to cut wages and make people redundant, squeezing the work out of the already stressed out employess. The CBI, Tories and Right wing press told us, nay screamed and shouted, that the minimum wage would make industry and the private sector less competitive & 1000′s would be laid off. It was ALL scaremongering bull of course so when I see or listen to an economist, major banking figure or business ‘spokesperson’ telling us all how we need to restrict wage demands, put up with extortionate bank rates, live with record high prices etc. I feel like putting my boot through the screen. What they are saying is “know your place, serf”.
“Is this the same entitlement that leaves the people of Northern Ireland with per capita 80% of GDP compared with the rest of the UK?”
We *used* to have Objective One Status. Remember that? We *are* getting there, despite your prophet of doom tone…
“The same one that gives the people of Northern Ireland half the capital infrastructure investment as the rest of the UK?”
And you’re the one saying the “subsidy” should be cut? The Government should be *increasing* it to make up past wrongs.
“The same one that gives the people of Northern Ireland the lowest average weekly earnings for any region in the UK?”
So shouldn’t the private sector be encouraged to redress the wage imbalance, as opposed to blaming the woes of the world on the public sector?
Some of us have also put forward several points in this thread that have gone unanswered. 15 years is *my* point. So while it remains an undesirable situation, I for one, am quite happy to back Jo’s status quo for the foreseeable future.
Gotta love these people that think that 40 years of underinvestment can be undone in 24 months…
By the way: having worked with, but not for, the public sector for some years now, I would ask you to keep your comments about “full-time pensionable job with all its benefits” until you’ve spent a few weeks in the public sector. It’s not the gravy train you may think.
Thanks to those who agree – and to those who criticise, with reason.
BUT: there is hypocrisy and exploitation and ripoff on a scale which involves billions of ordinary peoples money.
Then, there is a DLA problem in Derry (and Donaghcloney)
Actually up here in the north North, we call it “Derry Living Allowance”.
Well…not “we” really. I certainly wouldn’t approve of people mocking Derry. Ahem.
GEORGE
Pensions and future liabilities for a start. It also means that going forward the budget can be cut easier as there are fewer fixed charges aka permanent full-time pensionable employees who can’t be sacked.
That makes sense, although I genuinely doubt whether the savings would be significant.
But rather than constantly asking questions, maybe you could break with tradition and actually profer a few solutions?
I’m not an economist, George. I agree that there are too many administrative jobs in the public sector, which can be cut with few social consequences, but I think people make the mistake of assuming that public spending is largely about salaries for civil servants. The vast bulk of it goes on important services like the health service and I don’t see how it would be of benefit to Northern Ireland to cut the health budget – it is under-funded at present!
The emphasis, in my (perhaps ill-informed) view, should be on “growing” the private sector rather than cutting the public sector.
MALCOLM REDFELLOW
I find it depressing that your solution to the NI economy is to depress the wages of those already in the lower end of the salary scale.
GOOD GRIEF
Which is preferable ? 67% being paid by the government – money which could be spent on schools & hospitals. 67% being paid by private enterprise – taxable income available for the public purse.
This doesn’t make sense. The majority of people are employed in the private sector!
The Raven,
We *used* to have Objective One Status. Remember that? We *are* getting there, despite your prophet of doom tone…
You shouldn’t judge yourself against the accession states who are coming out of 40 years of Communist rule. You judge yourself against the rest of the UK and the Irish Republic. Your *are not* getting there. That is a fallacy.
The gap to the rest of the UK is virtually the same as it was 10 years ago and the gap to the Irish Republic has grown.
And you’re the one saying the “subsidy” should be cut? The Government should be *increasing* it to make up past wrongs.
Wouldn’t that be wonderful but the money isn’t there going forward and I am asking where you envisage the money coming from to maintain services and what you think is needed to make Northern Ireland more self sufficient so that they can be improved. Well?
So shouldn’t the private sector be encouraged to redress the wage imbalance, as opposed to blaming the woes of the world on the public sector?
You have to cultivate a private sector so it is capable of creating high-end jobs not pander to a non-wealth generating public one.
I for one, am quite happy to back Jo’s status quo for the foreseeable future.
But there is no status quo and there certainly won’t be for the foreseeable future. Northern Ireland is falling behind.
The infrastructure deficit will grow, the wealth per capita deficit will grow, the educational attainment deficit for those at the lower end of the socio-economic scale will grow.
Gotta love these people that think that 40 years of underinvestment can be undone in 24 months…
It’s not only about underinvestment. It’s about structural issues. There has been little or no attempt to tackle these problems in the last 10 years.
Northern Ireland is full of people who see the answers to their problems as being in the hands of others but you have to do something yourselves.
Demanding more money for perceived “wrongs” does not a coherent policy for the future make.
Here we are in 2008 and 67% of GDP is based on public cash. That means zero improvement in the last decade. In fact, things have probably got worse structurally.
I ask, what do you envisage being done in the next decade to address this problem not what others such as the UK exchequer can do for you?
By the way: having worked with, but not for, the public sector for some years now, I would ask you to keep your comments about “full-time pensionable job with all its benefits” until you’ve spent a few weeks in the public sector. It’s not the gravy train you may think.
I worked in the public sector for a whole two years in a couple of departments. I know all about the great work done by some and the accompanying great wastage perpetrated by others. Gimps and geniuses side by side.
And even if I hadn’t, it wouldn’t negate a word I have written.
So, George, what are you saying should happen.
You’re saying that the NI block vote is reducing (or at least not increasing) and, therefore, public spending has to reduce. That’s a fairly obvious conclusion.
But how will a simple reduction in public spending improve the economy?
Surely something more than that needs to happen?
Willowfield,
I refer you back to post number 55, addressed to you:
“But rather than constantly asking questions, maybe you could break with tradition and actually profer a few solutions?”
And I refer you back to my response to that post.
Surely my inability to offer anything more than the blandest of solutions does not preclude you – apparently someone with a considerable knowledge and understanding of the economic situation – from offering something more substantial?
I am disappointed. You complain that I don’t offer solutions, yet you offer none yourself?
willow
The classic right wing argument would be that a oversized public sector crowds out the private sector. Simply reducing the size of the public sector is a positive goal, and should result in increased incentives for people to start private enterprises.
Not particularly right wing myself, but I am a pragmatists and think along with the idea of the Laffer curve it’s something that people can generally agree with in principle, but have vastly different ideas of what “too large” is. I think with 70% of GDP being reliant on the public sector it’s difficult to argue, though.
And no, its not the only thing that needs done. But it could remain a necessary step.
“28% of the workforce are apparently in the public sector”
Does anyone happen to know how many of these public sector workers are NICS and how many are part of the ‘Home’ Civil Service?
For example, that massive Child Support Agency facility on Great Victoria Street deals almost entirely with child support claims from iirc Scotland and the North of England. Are they counted as part of the Northern Ireland public sector or are they included in the GB figure?
Willowfield,
as you don’t feel up to the onerous task of offering a single solution to any of the many problems I have highlighted on this thread, perhaps we could start by you giving your own analysis of the current situation, including a list that succinctly outlines the major problems you feel need to be addressed.
Then at least we will know where both of us think Northern Ireland stands at this time.
Kensei
Thanks. I understand the right-wing argument, but it seems to me that more is needed than simply shrinking the public sector, i.e. something needs to be done to boost the private sector.
I also think that the right-wing argument needs to address the issue of the social consequences of public sector shrinkage (assuming that shrinkage is to encompass not merely administration but actual public services).
George
Thanks for nothing.
You criticise me for offering no solutions, yet – in response to my entirely genuine question – you refuse to offer any yourself . Bizarre.
Willowfield,
in my experience there are times when your general method of argumentation amounts to asking a neverending series of questions until you get a reply or find a sentence that you feel you can pick apart for no other reason than you feel you can.
You say that your question was genuine but I remain suspicious of your reason for asking it because not only do you refuse to profer any solutions when asked, you also even refuse to list what you think are the problems.
Hardly the basis for a genuine discussion in my view when I neither know what you think nor what you want.
More a case of you lurking in the long grass with your semantic shotgun.
Whatever, George.
If you don’t want to answer a genuine question I can’t force you.
Disappointing.
“You shouldn’t judge yourself against the accession states who are coming out of [SNIP] Your *are not* getting there. That is a fallacy.”
Actually we are. I refer you to DETI’s website, specifically statistics and analysis – regional trends to be specific. I refer you again to the unemployment stats I quote in this thread from the 80′s and 90′s.
They aren’t ALL employed in the public sector. You yourself noted that business starts are on a par with the UK; I would contest that in the next 24 months, they will outstrip the UK. Kensei doesn’t like anecdotal evidence, so pop an FOI into INI and ask them for a quick report on the Business Start programme for the last three years, and their projections over the next three, *in spite of* the current economic climate.
“Wouldn’t that be wonderful but the money isn’t there going forward [SNIP] more self sufficient so that they can be improved. Well?”
And I have answered your question, that this is a fifteen year process. You chose to ignore that. I have certainly noted that a status quo must be maintained *for the medium-term future*. To do otherwise will absolutely sink us. That is my answer to you. And that is what I lobby for in my job. INCREASED direct business investment and NOT through INI, is exactly the ticket. Oh yeah, that means more cash from Mummy Westminster.
Oh, by the way – growing businesses doesn’t mean subsidising them – it means better product, process, personnel – it means kickstarting.
If you want to see how it works, check out DARD’s LEADER+ programme to see what can be accomplished from £15m. 1500 f/t, private sector jobs. A further £15m in private investment. Over 200 businesses safeguarded and grown. Millions in extra orders, just from a small grant towards a small bit of new equipment, or an extra member of staff. I work with those businesses first hand. That’s EXACTLY the kind of extra money we need.
“You have to cultivate a private sector so it is capable of creating high-end jobs not pander to a non-wealth generating public one.”
High end jobs? Do you really know what you are talking about? Wage improvement doesn’t have to be through high-end jobs. What IS a high end job, anyway? Bet you’re one of these chaps that thinks contact (call) centres are a good thing?
Did you not read the part where I noted the difference between public and private sector here? The £16.5k vs £19k? I’m talking about taking small businesses and improving their profitability to the point where they can afford to pay an extra (on average) £3000 to their workers. I’m talking about the over-90% of businesses in Northern Ireland that employ less than 5 employees.
I’m talking about opening new markets to them, looking at their processes and how they can improve them, how they can take small amount of GOVERNMENT funding, match them with their own reserves and take that next step. And I’m talking about doing it over 15 years. THERE’S your answer. It’s called nursing a fledgling economy. And it works.
“But there is no status quo [SNIP] Northern Ireland is falling behind.”
Well it fucking will be if we leave it to you. You’d think that there was no business development in this region at all, to hear you.
“It’s not only about underinvestment. It’s about structural issues. There has been little or no attempt to tackle these problems in the last 10 years.”
…..of direct rule. So now, as part of the UK, like it or lump it, we have politicians who should be fighting for the increases we need to put our house in order. No one said this was going to easy or cheap. But again – this is a minimum 15 year process. Someone will have to pay for it. I see this as no different from block grants to Scotland or Wales or other regions in the North of England. I have no difficulty in reducing that subsidy – but anything other than maintained investment for that period of time is not going to help.
“Demanding more money for perceived “wrongs” does not a coherent policy for the future make.”
Yes it does. Because that is what’s going to be needed to make up for the past. They aren’t perceived wrongs. They are REAL wrongs. They are mismanagement of the highest order. And if you let your politicians off even just once with “ah sorry…cut our grant before we really got going…can’t do much about that one”, then you are as complicit in the failure as they are. This is a medium term investment for long term gain.
“I ask, etc etc etc”
My position is clear. As is Jo’s. As is yours. Sure we should just leave now. Last one out, lights off, etc.
willow
Thanks. I understand the right-wing argument, but it seems to me that more is needed than simply shrinking the public sector, i.e. something needs to be done to boost the private sector.
I’m sure right wingers would also tell you of a need to cut taxes and regulation and a number of other things. I’m sure that left wingers and centrists might tell you a number of others. No one is really arguing that more doesn’t need done.
But it cutting the public sector might be a net good in and of itself, even if nothing else was done. We have been told for generations taht we must simply improve the size of the private sector here. I tend to lean left but the vastness of our public sector is such I see no option other than cutting: if we want to have good public services, not just for ourselves but for our children and grand children, it has be built on a sustainable economic basis.
Happy to see a mixed economy and public provision where it can be shown to do a more effective job. I also dislike that much privatization is ideological: there are little penalties and no talk of taking things back into public ownership if they are poorly handled in the private sector. Nordic countries do a decent job with higher taxes and a bigger public sector, but we warf even them. It can’t go on.
I also think that the right-wing argument needs to address the issue of the social consequences of public sector shrinkage (assuming that shrinkage is to encompass not merely administration but actual public services).
Both the UK and the Republic have had to go through periods of pain to get out the other side. I doubt it is possible to get through it without any, but happy to see people treated a little better and more done, even if it means reductions take a bit longer.
I do think I could be convinced of a right wing ecomnomy based argument if it didn’t always seem to dismiss the less well-off or those who cannot through no fault of their own, compete.
We are not just competitors, machines fighting for advantage, appendages of flesh on pieces of plastic, steel and circuitry.
I believe that everyone, by virtue of born of woman, has rights and one of those rights is to have, in all senses of the word, a decent life.