Comments on: The government is a rotten employer

By: Adrian Peirson

Adrian Peirson — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 16:46:31 +0000

A Fees office Quango, sounds like Problem Reaction Solution again, first create the problem, wait for the public to cry ’something must be done’ then propose what you always wanted in the forst place…….Destroying the Sovereignty of Parliament, now parliament is Answerable to a Quango.

as for Ted Heath.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qy7wvvqBad8

http://worldreports.org/news/6_e.u._treaties_procured_by_payola_corruption

By: jean baker

jean baker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:45:08 +0000

Blair reportedly changed the rules which capped claims – a few hundred pounds – to thousands. The Fees Office is 100% responsible for authorizing ALL alleged ‘improper claims’.

It was the ’system’ and those operating it which was (bad -ed).

” …. no politican will be trusted” …. you only have the right to speak for yourself, not the electorate per se.

The whole ‘expenses fiasco’ was Nulabor’s way of dealing with ‘opposition’, including Labour dissidents. Predictable, given their poll ratings.

By: jean baker

jean baker — Fri, 03 Jul 2009 09:31:53 +0000

APL,

“Heath’s … decision to FORCE the UK into the EU …. ”

Not so, unlike Nulabor’s betrayal over the Lisbon Treaty, Heath acted on the principles of democracy; the British VOTED on the basis of information given to Ted Heath. The true purpose/aim of the EU has been shown to be vastly difference since that time.

By: adam

adam — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:09:22 +0000

speak for us all why dont you.

it has made little impact of the polls

By: adam

adam — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 17:05:42 +0000

More likely that it was done to provide a smokescreen/justification for constitutional reform. Not much evidence though.

By: APL

APL — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 06:52:55 +0000

Jean Baker: “Ted Heath appears to have been gravely misled by the EU ..”

Not good enough Jean. Heath showed not one atom of remorse about his decision to force the UK into the EU, nor any of the others he made including local government re organization. He was not misled, his action were not a mistake, he perfectly knew his intent.

By: THE ESSEX BOYS

THE ESSEX BOYS — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 00:01:53 +0000

Could it be that the employees of the stricken National Express will join the public payroll with gold-plated pensions?

Surely not…but there again we’re talking about the Brown government here….

What a week to return from hols accompanied by all those NuLabor chickens coming home to roost!

Education U-turns, ID cards, Rail franchises and now the Royal Mail.
And what fun to see GB flanked at PMQs by Harman and Jowell, togged out in white outfits (no doubt selected for purity by Mandy!) sitting there with instructions to nod vigorously like 2 of Procul Harum’s 16 vestal virgins!

For the umpteenth time, do they think we’re bloody barmy!

By: Cynical

Cynical — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:58:29 +0000

So what are the “costs of set up” – on past form of this tawdry administration they will include -
plush new offices
a new IT system, which will be delivered late and over budget
a team of inapporpriate senior employees, recruited because they look good rather than function well

With any new Government body/reorganisation, Parliament should insist on the presentation of a proper project plan for the implementation, showing, costs, timescales and governance arrangements – so that the delivery team can be properly held to account.

As this is a new quango rather than a Parliamentary office, presumably it will come within the ambit of the NAO for audit and efficiency reviews, and therefore under the scrutiny of the PAC rather than a Speaker chaired committee!

By: Jon

Jon — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 21:28:00 +0000

Beggars belief and how much has this government spent on consultants to advise them over the years? I don’t expect that the government can be as efficient as the private sector but this is ridiculous.

By: Snegchui

Snegchui — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:59:43 +0000

Well, the Govt’s avowed intentions were good – but as in so many other cases the implementation is perverting the aims. An independent Fees Office is what is required, not the bother of a new “independent external body”.
These reforms under Labour are not going to work. These reforms are being executed in order to exculpate Labour’s many failings in this area and not to improve the management of expenses. Labour just so don’t get it, they must be dunned out at the earliest opportunity.

By: jean baker

jean baker — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:24:03 +0000

Ted Heath appears to have been gravely misled by the EU, and their ultimate aims, unlike his successor Margaret Thatcher, a true Stateswoman and patriot and, therefore, loathed by the EU.

The 12.5% economic growth handed to Labour in 1997 has been decimated to around – 30% since Blair abolished financial regulation on his arrival. Having ‘broken Britain’, he awaits his aim of EU President, having betrayed the British – he was elected on ’spin and empty rhetoric’ on route to Federal Europe.

Germany didn’t fool Churchill, nor does Brussels or Nulabor fool those who hold his democratic, humane beliefs.

By: James

James — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 20:10:08 +0000

The Fees Office should be staffed and run by the Inland Revenue. Preferrably those who forensically examine my self assessment every year.

By: alan jutson

alan jutson — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:38:43 +0000

Seemed to me you asked very sensible and relevent questions.

Once again it shows your experience of business outside of politics.

Once again you gained no answers.

It really is no surprise that this Parliament (and the last two) have lost most of the people.

This Government it would seem is at least consistant, as it treats everyone with utter contempt, including the opposition Party’s.

It is consistant in wasting money.

It is consistant in fouling up even the most simple task.

It is consistant in refusing to answer questions.

It is consistant in wishing to remain in power at any cost.

It is consistant in refusing meaningful debate on any subject matter.

It is consistant in making poor law.

It is consistant in following the EU doctrine.

It is even consistant in bringing the Country to the point of bankruptcy (now for the fourth time).

So why are you surprised.

On a positive note:

At last George Osbourne has got himself in the papers by asking a relevent question about seeing the books, so you can prepare a relevent policy.

Think this still has some mileage in it, so let us hope he pushes this further.

George should really be on the attack now, or make way for someone who can !!!

Think there is certainly a case for a public type enquiry over the National debt should you get in next June, in order to hammer home the mismanagement of UK PLC for the past 12 years.

By: Ad

Ad — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:54:28 +0000

John, please blog on the governments renationalisation of the East Coast mainline. As a true defender of privatisation your views would be hugley welcomed.

By: Lola

Lola — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:32:21 +0000

Socialists, as their grand – and enitirely flawed – idea of a planned political economy crashes and burns around them, again, always seek refuge in bureaucratism.

Their is one bound and certain way to accelerate the destruction of wealth or the failure of an enterprise, and that is to love your bureaucrats.

By: APL

APL — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:04:01 +0000

Jean Baker: “I recently read that Ted Heath introduced the system allowing MP’s to claim for ‘expenses necessary to do their job’ ..”

Why am I not surprised to hear that.

Heath, the rotten Primeminister.

There isn’t much that can be identified wrong today that doesn’t have its malignant root is something Heath did.

Abolishing the counties
Bringing in unitary authorities.
Lying to Parliament – ” There will be no essential loss of National Soveriengty”

Judging the man by his actions, he was (not a good thing-ed)

By: Frugal Dougal

Frugal Dougal — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 12:03:10 +0000

It’s not a quango’s job to sack MPs – that job belongs to parties and, intermittently, voters.

No doubt this body will be immune to FoI requests…

By: A.T

A.T — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:55:21 +0000

In the context of current discussions on budget cuts to be made by an incoming Tory government, a bonfire of the quangos looks like a no-brainer to me.

By: Ruth

Ruth — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:31:23 +0000

Speaking as a former HR Director, can I just say what good points you make? If I were planning such a big change, there is no way the plan would be published without having addressed all these issues first – I would expect to spend 3 months working on it before any announcement.

Yes, the staff in the fees office would be subject to TUPE, without doubt, something that Labour has been very keen to insist on in similar public sector changes.

To put out an announcement without any thought to the people concerned in the current system, the cost (including accommodation, siting, etc) is an appalling way to treat people. If I had ever done this, I would have been pilloried and quite rightly. People have a right to know what is going to happen to them, they all have mortgages to pay.

The hypocrisy of the government knows no bounds – they have introduced massive quantities of regulation in order to “protect” and implement “fairness” for employees, yet they treat their own with contempt.

By: jean baker

jean baker — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 11:11:04 +0000

Those with more than half a brain cell were neither disgusted or angry; the Fees Office being 100% responsible for it’s actions.

MP’s expenses are trifling compared to the three generational debt incurred by this government.