Britains Trillion Pound Horror Story!

[Guest JudgeMental]

watched this last night on C4 and what a thought provoking program...one of the best on TV I have seen regards economics, and the state of the nation.

 

Can I say if you have not the interest to watch the whole thing at least watch the last 30 minutes. the bit where they pour liquid into a jugs to show the percentage of bureaucratic wasters we are all supporting is a revelation! and when they question some of them in a parody of a game show is well...you see for yourselves, its incredible

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od#3139408

[Guest pelmetman]

I saw it Judge 8-) 8-) 8-) 8-)

 

I'm glad I dont pay the amount tax that I used to or I would be really miffed >:-)

[Guest JudgeMental]

It was a real eye opener.........this country is in real deep s**t :-S

[Brian Kirby]

However, he completely missed out the cost of the armed services, who are also public employees, and he assumed you can run schools with just teachers, the NHS with just doctors and nurses, the police with just bobbies, and the fire service with just firemen.  There have to be some back office staff somewhere, or if there are not, you have to divert the "front line staff" (those who were counted) to doing the back office functions.

I'm not quibbling with his argument that there may be excessive back office staff, but IMO, he ruined his case by serving up duff figures and totally failed to demonstrate the scale of the excess. 

I was also hugely put off by the fact that his experts, whose individual expertise I don't doubt, all kept using such similar phrases.  It all seemed rather rehearsed, even allowing for the fact they were obviously like minded.

There was an obvious agenda, with which I have no problem, but I do think the case was needlessly exaggerated, very short on facts, and very long on rhetoric.  Endless repetition of an assertion doesn't convert it into a fact, and for me, his antics and exaggerations just discredited his case.  Shame, because somewhere in there was a serious and important argument trying to get out.

[Guest pelmetman]

He might of left out the armed forces, but even if you include a couple of hundred thousand service people, you are still left with nearly 5 million back office staff 8-)

 

[Brian Kirby]

Indeed, but if he makes glaring errors of that kind, it is dificult to be confident he has included only what should be included, to just the same extent as being sure he has excluded everything that should be excluded.

Fine for a bit of "frighten the punters" telly, but not a properly informative basis for arriving at any conclusions, surely?  My concern is that he was trying to influence public opinion to his agenda.  His agenda was, roughly, that one could run the UK along the same lines as Hong Kong, with very much lower taxation and if one did, everyone would be better off. 

That scale of change carries enormous risks, and would need very careful and detailed examination before being adopted, whatever the timescales.  It may bepossible, it may not.  But trying to frighten people with big numbers, and then confuse them with shoddy calculations, is a pretty poor basis for marshalling public opinion to a so radical a cause.

I'd like to see someone have a go at the same arguments, but using properly scrutinised figures, backed by opinions from at least some manistream players.  Then, we might actually learn something useful.

[Guest pelmetman]

I think Brian, when it comes to glaring errors and mind numbing incompetence then our bureaucrats and politicians all have a first class degree with honours >:-)

 

We have all heard about the thousands of civil servants with out any work, the so called "pool of talent" (lol) who are too expensive to sack >:-(

Not to mention the thousands of non jobs invented by Labour.

 

Hopefully things will change, but I doubt it >:-( I suspect we will get the usual lip service from the politicians, but its the civil servants that really run the shop and their not going to let anything change >:-(

[CliveH]

The figures re the cost of the public sector compared to income were truly shocking. And yes Brian - I agree you need back up staff for the front line.

 

But that is not the point. You only have to see the job adverts in the Guardian to see that the "Facilitator" type non jobs exemplified in a very amusing but thought provoking "what’s my line" skit are, in contrast, a very unfunny joke indeed.

 

Then do not forget the statistics on our NHS. Which despite being the biggest employer in Europe manages to provide a significantly sub standard service overall compared to other EU countries. Other EU countries rely on an insurance based scheme where rather than the state taking NIC's as we do in the UK and the civil servants then mess up in providing a one size fits all single option with no choice, the EU insurance based schemes simply insist that individuals must have insurance and if you are out of work the state maintains your premiums.

 

Competition at the point of delivery means that patient care and access to modern drugs and treatments is far superior to the post code lottery care we have in the UK.

 

The Coalition has done a good thing in proposing to get rid of the PCT's that dictated to GP's what they could do and what hospitals they could use; a real example of bloated admin departments dictating to the "front line" what was best for patients rather than the medical profession.

 

So whilst I agree we do need some back office staff - the reality is and it was demonstrated in spades by Durkins programme, that the back office staff are more in number and more in influence than the "front line".

 

I thought Britain's Trillion Pound Horror Story was excellent TV. Certainly was not just saying 'Tories good and Labour bad', in fact highlighted that the whole political set-up in this country has sat back for a century borrowing from those yet to be born, while allowing inflation to run rampant and the economy to turn to mush.

 

Putting our heads under the pillow and hoping the problem will go away is not an option, and you can bet your life it will be the poorest and most vulnerable that suffer most when the wheels on the economy do fall off.

 

Like his conclusions or not, it's the most serious issue facing the country today and the figures involved are terrifying.

 

http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od#3139408

 

[Patricia]

This sounds an interesting thread. I have just tried to play the video, however, and a notice came up saying "the service is currently not available in yoour area". I know that I am in France but how does that affect the internet?

[Guest JudgeMental]

Patricia - 2010-11-13 10:19 AM

 

This sounds an interesting thread. I have just tried to play the video, however, and a notice came up saying "the service is currently not available in yoour area". I know that I am in France but how does that affect the internet?

 

can you wach other I player/TV type catch up services from France? I did not think this posssible......You have to use a UK proxy server dont you?

[Guest JudgeMental]

well I think while it was a typically sensationalised TV program, I have to agree with Clive I found it very revealing regards the dire straights this nation has got itself into, and completely damning of Politicians and the mega state in general. delivered in a fresh and entertaining way.....

 

The kids holding placards with "greedy grownups" and "grandpa stole my pension" are classics:D (you know who you are!)

 

In the interests of balance here are some criticisms :-D

 

http://tinyurl.com/2b4e8zk

 

http://tinyurl.com/2bgjf59

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-11-13 8:39 AM ............... Like his conclusions or not, it's the most serious issue facing the country today and the figures involved are terrifying. http://www.channel4.com/programmes/britains-trillion-pound-horror-story/4od#3139408

I don't disagree with any of that Clive.  My objections are to the tenor of the programme, not its core message, and are far more eloquently made in the two links Eddie posted (thanks Eddie) than I managed above.  I think it is the word "terrifying" that typifies it, and is what worries me most, inasmuch it it suggests to me a reflex reaction, in which the proverbial baby is in danger of going out with the bathwater, rather than a considered and rational reaction. 

I am absolutely sure there are layers of staff whose jobs are of little value, and indeed whole departments in the same position.  For example, quite a few such have as their function covering the backs of their political masters, so it will be interesting to see if they, too, go.  'Though, on the evidence of Cameron's personal photographer, who is apparently a national, rather than a party, necessity, I has me doots! 

I think the situation is very serious, but that surely means it needs speedy, but also serious and balanced, consideration.  So much so that in truth, I am a just a little surprised the programme went out in its broadcast form in a peak time slot.  In a number of ways entertaining but, IMO, a dangerously poor response to so serious a problem.

[CliveH]

Please don't think I support any particular party - though in many areas I do think the Coalition has done much to right the wrongs of the past and they did it with refreshing speed.

 

The main one we have been calling for for years was the ridiculous compulsory annuitisation at age 75. Thank goodness an interim law was brought in within weeks of the election to extend this to age 77 and within the next two years the law will be changed. This was an election pledge and I am pleased to say they did it/are doing it.

 

However, the expenses scandal still rankles and I was calling for people to vote for a good local independent candidate. And whilst that is what I did the electorate did otherwise but did indicate that they saw s*d all difference between the r*ddy lot of them.

 

And I agree with that.

 

My concern and it is a real one is that as someone who understands economics to a fair degree both macro and micro - I am deeply concerned at the pyramid sales techniques of all governments whereby the last lot secured jobs (and by inference - votes) by expanding the Public sector to such a degree that the money going out exceeds the money going in.

 

The banking crisis was the straw that broke that particular camels back (compounded as we know by the Public sector FSA being asleep at the wheel) and now we in the Private Sector have to pay pay and pay again whilst the public sector go on strike because they don't like the idea of their salary and pensions being reduced!

 

Little wonder then that when the Private sector has to bear more taxes (NIC in particular) it is staring to spit its dummy out and say enough is enough.

 

This programme was typical Durkin - but none the worse for that. After all - his last C4 Documentary was "The Great Global Warming Swindle" - to which the establishment spluttered its predictable outrage only to find a year later that just about everything Durkin covered in that documentary was true because it was confirmed in the leaked CRU emails from the University of East Anglia!

 

His analysis of how Hong Kong was set up and how the Chinese now revere a Scottish Civil Servant who realised that growth and wealth DO NOT come from taxes and so introduced a tax regime for Hong Kong whereby there is not CGT, no IHT and high personal allowances and then only 20% income tax, was pretty much spot on!

 

Especially to those of us who keep our ear to the ground re the world economy and can see with our own eyes how the Chinese mainland have taken to heart the Hong Kong example and rejected their previous heavy handed governance of pre Communist China.

 

Which incidentally - in case you missed it; our civil servants still name themselves after by the term "Mandarins". Just how obnoxious is that!

 

With all due respect to you Brian - in one of your posts above you say you would like to see the figures reworked as you don't trust them as they were presented on the programme. That is fine - but from where I am standing the figures looked pretty damn accurate to me!

 

So are you calling far the typical Public Sector trick of constantly re-working the data until the document is spun out of all recognition so that the answer you get is the one you want? :-S :-D

 

The ability of the public sector to place their respective heads in the sand and fiddle with the figures whilst arround them "Rome" burns, is possibly the most terrifying aspect of what confronts us now, here, in the UK.

 

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-11-14 9:16 AM .......... So are you calling far the typical Public Sector trick of constantly re-working the data until the document is spun out of all recognition so that the answer you get is the one you want? ...............

No, not at all.  I should just like to see the figures presented fully, eliminating all the Durkin spin and histrionics, and debated by some serious economists.  As I have said, I'm sure there is a lot of truth underlying Durkin's points, but I really don't trust his presentation of them, because I think it is skewed to his agenda. 

For example, his selection of "Front Line" staff was very narrow.  As I said above, it omitted mention of the armed services, who I would assume must be included as public employees, but it also omitted Tax (and council tax) collectors, highways engineers, dustmen, sewage workers, planning officers, building inspectors, benefits office employees, ditto unemployment offices, even MoD procurement functions, etc etc.  Not everyone's idea of front line in the sense of doctors and nurses, but still generally essential to the way our society functions.

These people do not all work to support his narrowly selected group of front line staff, only a proportion of them do.  There are arguments to be had regarding the extent of the above, and how the controls etc should be provided, or even whether they should exist at all, but lumping them all into an amorphous "back office" function is, IMO, a huge distortion.

It seems to me there are two issues that Durkin conflated.  First: do we want all/any of these functions or not, and if we do, to what degree do we want them?  Second: are they being delivered with reasonable efficiency?  By implication, through his reference to Hong Kong, he would sweep away many (but unspecified) functions, to enable the state to function within its much reduced tax take.  Doing that may, or may not, result in efficiency.  His main gripe appeared to be that, apart from being too big (but without saying what he thought should actually be cut to reduce its size), the public sector was grossly inefficient (based upon his comparison of front line to back room staff).  I'm not arguing here that it isn't inefficient, just that his basis for argument doesn't illustrate how/where the inefficiency lies.

I was disappointed, because I was hoping for something genuinely informative.  He could have produced something of genuine value, that contributed to the arguments and to broader understanding of the issues, but all he seemed to me to create was noise, and rather misleading noise at that.    So, sorry, but overall I only mark him at 3 out of 10!  :-)

[CliveH]

I hear what you say Brian - but feel you are only scratching at the edges of the problem hoping the big issue will go away.

 

As regards the Armed Forces - when you look at the procurement department for the armed forces - surely this exemplifies further the point that the Public sector administrative burden in the UK is excessive. A couple of examples previously mentioned

 

A rifle that ejects its cartridge in to the eye of the firer if held "left handed"

 

8 Chinook helicopters bought from Boeing with the cost saving idea that we could put in our own avionics - a decade later and they still are not given a certificate of airworthiness because the whole thing is a cock-up. Boeing cannot help because the technology needed to fix the problem is now a decade old and things have moved on.

 

The renovation of the Nimrod - using a handful of what were hand built Comet based fuselages such that the wings made to fit the first one would not fit the rest of the fuselages. Result - £billions overspend for which if a new aircraft was sourced from Airbus or Boeing we could be in the air now with it rather than our forces now having nothing - AND other nations would be interested in purchasing their own versions from us.

 

So really - I am not sure that missing out the overstaffed and mind bogglingly inefficient MOD procurement dept. is helping you get your point across Brian.

 

As for his depiction of front line staff numbers being "narrow" - I am not sure that those you cite would constitute "frontline".

 

For my part - I think the NHS is the example that sums it all up. The service we get here in the UK is not controlled by the "Frontline" - it is controlled by the back office system that dictates what the Doctors can prescribe and what treatments the admin staff decide is "cost effective".

 

Again the Coalition have recently said that NICE is to be disbanded - a step in the right direction.

 

But when you look at the monolith that is the NHS that has been shown to give treatment that is NOT comparable to the treatment available in other Western Countries where the Government does not provide the care - entrusting that to the Private Sector and Government input is restricted to enforcing the regulation of said providers and insisting that all individuals have an insurance scheme membership - you begin to wonder what is the tail and what is the dog?

 

And to be fare, we are going down that route now. It is a regular occurrence where we live for operations and treatment under the NHS to be carried out at our local Private Hospital. The reason for this is that having costed the treatment via the NHS, the Hospital Trust now realise that many procedures can be carried out at less cost if they subcontract the work to the Private Hospital.

 

How soon it will be for the rest of us to then ask the question of the Administrators of the Trust, why exactly we need them selecting our treatment for us when our NIC's could be paid into an insurance scheme for Hampshire, for example, such that our GP could select the Hospital him/herself without reference to a stonking great monolithic administration system, is anyone’s guess.

 

But clients of mine who live in France are amazed that when diagnosed with a problem in France, their GP arranges hospital treatment then and their and treatment is arranged between the GP and the Hospital in days not weeks or months and hardly a PCT or Hospital Trust administrator in sight!.

 

This love of administration is a very British Establishment thing - and something that really does need to change. Keep looking for reasons not to change is not really an option anymore. :-S

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Our armed forces have allways had two enemies, the ones in front and the ones behind called the MOD >:-(

[Guest JudgeMental]

Criticisms of our National health service in program, born out again at weekend in papers where it seems that 1 in 4 cancers are only discovered when you are rushed into hospital as an emergency case! :-S

 

National health in a shocking state, just look at Mid Staff hospital

 

I know the Chandlers just released are probably wishing they where French and released ages ago...but as you age and medical problems grow, possibly become acute...are you better of being French or German or even Spanish! anything but Britsh! :-D

[Brian Kirby]

CliveH - 2010-11-14 12:51 PM I hear what you say Brian - but feel you are only scratching at the edges of the problem hoping the big issue will go away. ................

An wholly unjustified suspicion on your part!  :-)

For example, re NHS, I think we should look to our neighbours for what works, and then copy the best of their ideas.  The problem with the NHS, is that it is far too big, and far tool complex, ever to be managed efficiently as a single entity, leave alone managed efficiently from Whitehall with party politics riding shotgun!

Re MoD procurement, I have a little experience of them from some years back.  Sssshhh!  :-) 

Main problem?  The forces identify a need for a new military widget, and someone in MoD tries to put a cost against it.  They will inevitably be wrong, because the shape of the solution is, as yet, unclear.  They will take that cost + statement of need to ministers for approval.  The ministers will fall from their chair, and will question both need and cost.  Reasons for need will be explained, along established Sir Humphrey lines, of this or that being vital to government policy, as expounded by the minister himself in the house only last March, and news of the new military widget being essential to morale among the troops etc etc.  Attention will now focus on cost.  Outcome will be a slowing of the projected development programme, so that costs will fall to later years - ideally after the next election.  Minister can then announce new military widget under development to public and troops.  Military temporarily happy, until timescale for entry to service revealed.  Project commences development with manufacturer.  Costs are refined as objectives are clarified.  Consequence: costs rise.  Minister further delays programme, definitely until after election!  New international crisis develops, requiring change to objectives for widget.  Change notified to manufacturer's development team.  Consequential cost increase and delay notified to MoD.  Minister briefed.  Further delay to programme to spread costs etc.  Should we now abandon it altogether and just buy similar American model?  Uncertainty over whether Americans would support us using it (spares, replacements, etc) at our choosing, rather than at theirs.  Debate causes uncertainty, which in turn delays programme: further cost increase notified to MoD. 

How one can break that spiral, I don't know, but I suspect it has something to do with stopping trying to be a world policeman, and having the armed forces we can truly afford to support, but for purely defencive purposes.  Result: loss of international status for the politicos, loss of that awful little phrase about "punching above our weight", and a lot of screeching from retired admirals at home.  So, I guess it won't happen!

[CliveH]

 

I don't doubt that happens Brian - but when dire warnings are ignored re just the three examples I quoted from the people "on the front line" when they tested the suitability and the procurement dept. just carries on saying that what they bought is the wonderful phrase "fit for purpose" when the reality becomes very clear very quickly that the item is anything but - you have to question the process and the procedure.

 

The SA80 rifle was unreliable and had to be redesigned and rebuilt by the German firm Heckler & Koch at great expense – not a bad rifle now – but why was a substandard product allowed to be issued to our troops?

 

The Chinook debacle has cost lives in that trop movements had to be done by snatch Land Rovers designed for Northern Ireland and mad a sitting target for our troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

 

Finally the coalition has pulled the plug on the Nimrod upgrade after £millions spent trying to make it work. So all that money wasted.

 

http://www.spyflight.co.uk/MR4A.htm

 

I don't think it has anything to do with our wanting to be one of the world policemen - I think it is all about certain people in certain positions being incapable!

 

In all cases as I understand it - the MOD was warned against going the route it did.

 

The cost to the tax payer is bad enough - but the lack of proper equipment as exemplified by the death toll from IED's re the Chinooks / Land Rovers and the Coroners verdict on the airworthiness of the existing Nimrods still flying because of the delays to the MRA4 programme that cost the lives of 14 airmen is a cost that should sit with those responsible for the rest of their days.

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Trouble is the incompetent civil servants never gets sacked, at most a sideways move to another department, or worse still promoted >:-(

 

I agree with the worlds policeman idea, it just a ego trip for our politicians, if we stopped trying to force our version of democracy on the rest of the world, then perhaps we would not be a target :D

 

 

[Brian Kirby]

There is clearly, and has been for years, a big flaw with MoD procurement.  The problem is to fix it, and to do that one has to identify where the fault really lies.  It ain't the ability to shoot that is in question, it is the ability to hit the (correct) target!

[malc d]

pelmetman - 2010-11-15 5:23 PM

 

Trouble is the incompetent civil servants never gets sacked, at most a sideways move to another department, or worse still promoted >:-(

 

I agree with the worlds policeman idea, it just a ego trip for our politicians, if we stopped trying to force our version of democracy on the rest of the world, then perhaps we would not be a target :D

 

 

 

Trouble is that civil servants don't need to be competent.

 

If they do anything wrong, the left or right wing media, depending who is in government at the time, will just start calling for a minister to resign.

 

Ministers come, ministers go - but incompetent civil servants go on forever, unchallenged.

 

:-(

[flicka]

Brian Kirby - 2010-11-15 5:55 PM

 

There is clearly, and has been for years, a big flaw with MoD procurement.  The problem is to fix it, and to do that one has to identify where the fault really lies.  It ain't the ability to shoot that is in question, it is the ability to hit the (correct) target!

 

And that's why we shouldn't lumber our forces with American equipment

They must hold the worst record for "friendly fire" incidents.

[Syd]

 

flicka

And that's why we shouldn't lumber our forces with American equipment

They must hold the worst record for "friendly fire" incidents.

 

 

They hold the world record for this and it stems from them, as a nation, being of a very febrile nature and bloody trigger happy.

 

More dangerous behind you, in front of you, alongside you, or anywhere near you in a fire fight than the French ever were

[CliveH]

I think I am correct in saying that in the first Gulf War - we Brits lost more personel to American friendly fire than we lost as a result of Iraqi actions.

 

However friendly fire is not a unique US pronlem - tho I agree they can be trigger happy cowboys -

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-11759146

 

And we Brits have been guilty of it in the case of some Danish soldiers;-

 

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article3070875.ece

 

For a comprehensive list of incidents:-

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friendly_fire