good stuff the tories will do?

[ymu]

One thing about a QANGO is that you will never get a QANGO recommending that it be closed down itself. So usually somebody who is not an expert in the field has to make the decision.

Quasi-non-governmental organisation. Quango or (if you insist) QNGO, but never QANGO.

 

[chainsaw cat]

I really can't think of anything good the tories will do..unless you earn over say 50k a year...having a an interest in political history I can't think of anything good they've done in the past 200yrs!

Select committees.

Challenger II

Lose the 97 election.

 

[chainsaw cat]

You right-wingers, what do you mean when you say this?

Let's look at today's

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/jobs/government/

in order, shall we, and work out which is a "non job"?

Project Surveyor

• <LI class=first>OYSTER PARTNERSHIP |
• London |
• £34000 - £41000 per annum +...

Okay, presumably this is someone going around looking at the gates in railway stations, and perhaps retail outlets, to check how the Oyster card can be used outside of LU. This makes it easier for people to buy joined-up tickets and perhpas reduces the need for cash handling operations. A good thing, surely? Socially useful? Either you have public transport or you don't. If you have it, it might as well be efficient, yes?

Unit Coordinator

• <LI class=first>LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY |
• £25,515 - £27,009

Presumably this is someone who works in some sort of adult care or children's services function. I can see why you might not like the idea of your taxes being used to support the feeble or incompetent or their children, but again, if these units exist they need to have someone to tun them. Why is that a "non-job"?


Caseworker - Part Time

• <LI class=first>POLICESKILLS.CO.UK |
• London |
• £12.99 - £15.59ph

This is a private enterprise that makes it easier and more efficient for interim coppers to be supplied. Surely you're a fan of outsourcing non-core functions like search and selection? Surely you're a fan of reducing the overall law enforcement payroll and scaling up only when needed? Then we need caseworkers at policeskills, don't we?


Identification Procedures Assistant – East Anglia

• <LI class=first>POLICESKILLS.CO.UK |
• Norfolk |
• £8/9ph

As above.

Security Guard - Kent

• <LI class=first>POLICESKILLS.CO.UK |
• Kent |
• £8 - 9.50ph

And so on.

DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE RESOURCES & FINANCE

• <LI class=first>SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION |
• £57,936 - £68,990

Now, presumably you'd agree that organisations need finance directors, so your beef will be with the existence of a sustainable development commission. And yes, we could probably survice without one. But the NDPB exists because there's a job that DEFRA needs to do, and that job is there because of legislation on sustainable development. So whine about the legislation, not the job holder, but bear in mind that Cameron is just as in thrall to the sustainability lobby as Labour. The legislation that keeps this person in office is unlikely to change.

Consultant Social Worker - Youth Offending Team

• <LI class=first>LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY |
• £42,258 - £44,910

Either we deport young offenders from Hackney to, say, Rockall - which is an eminently defensible position - or we need social workers to keep an eye on the scrotes. Saying that these people, who aren't brilliantly paid and presumably get lots of grief from unpleasant minicrims, do "non jobs" is just absurd.

Conference and Review Officer

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/employer/london-borough-of-barnet/

• <LI class=first>LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET |
• £39,789 - £42,498 pa inc.

And again, do you want local government to save money? Yes? Then unfortunately you need odd-looking cross-functional roles like this to reduce siloed working.

Senior Safeguarding Officer http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/employer/london-borough-of-barnet/

• <LI class=first>LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET |
• £42,498 - £45,153 pa inc.

Actually, no idea what these are. But whatever the postholder is safeguarding is presumably of some public value and we'd miss it should one of the young offenders from Hackney, unsupervised, come to Barnet and nick it.


And so on.


That's what irks me about the Daily Mail and the TaxPayers alliance and conservatives in general. They aren't prepared to commit to anything substantive about reducing government spend - like, say, cutting back on post-16 education, or tightening up NICE rulings on medical intervention for the elderly. They just whine about jobs that they don't understand, which exist to support legislation or outcomes they aren't prepared to challenge.

I'm so glad someone (and in this case clearly an Eye reader) has the time and wit to post like this.

I sure as fuck don't.

I had even less time when I was in the public sector on 2/3rds the money.

 

[TrippyLondoner]

the only good thing they'll do is eventually collapse like labour has

 

[ViolentPanda]

You can piece it together pretty quickly yourself just by googling...

precisely.

 

[stethoscope]

precisely.

Yeah, I did start to put some links up for Alright's benefit but frankly he can DIYFS

 

[ViolentPanda]

^^^ YESYESYES!!!!!

I hope you've read this text by Jean Luc Nancy?:

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Being-Singular-Plural-Meridian-Aesthetics/dp/0804739757

It borders on postmodern flimflam sometimes, but in my opinion it is currently the best that there is. He calls the idea of a pure individual - a pure subject - an 'implosion without any trace'.

I own it but haven't got round to reading it. It's in the "to read" pile along with about 60 other books at the moment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

The Tories will get rid of a few QANGOs. One or more of these closures might be justified in terms of ' "value" for money '

Historically, they don't "get rid of" so much as "replace, and staff with unaccountable board members who are more to our liking than Labour's appointees".

 

[ViolentPanda]

Do you mean just get rid of the police?

Getting rid of the Met is hardly "getting rid of the police", it's getting rid of a moribund structure that has more to do with politics than with policing criminal activity in the Greater London area. If "community policing" is indeed as important as the grand poobahs of the Met and the politicians tell us, why do we need a massively expensive management-heavy power structure in place across the service area to supposedly "enable" community policing?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Quasi-non-governmental organisation. Quango or (if you insist) QNGO, but never QANGO.

Quasi-Autonomous Non-Governmental Organisation.

 

[trevhagl]

i think they won't quite be as obsessive with prying into peoples lives as New Labour, and more true to their supporters (which means OH FUCK for the rest of us)

but thats about it

 

[bemused]

Bring back sex scandals, goodness I miss them.

 

[_angel_]

i think they won't quite be as obsessive with prying into peoples lives as New Labour, and more true to their supporters (which means OH FUCK for the rest of us)

but thats about it

Not for people who they deem need or deserve the interference!


I don't imagine it will make that much difference when it comes to social services/ education nosiness and where it's targetted. If you mean they will leave the middle classes alone a bit more, perhaps.

Their only sensible policy is no ID cards I think.

 

[ViolentPanda]

i think they won't quite be as obsessive with prying into peoples lives as New Labour, and more true to their supporters (which means OH FUCK for the rest of us)

but thats about it

I think you're wrong.

I strongly suspect that the Tories will engage in just the same sort of intrusive justified-by-risk-management nosiness as new Labour have legitimised. After all, a lot of this crap did actually originate from their last period in government.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Bring back sex scandals, goodness I miss them.

I reckon we're too jaded to be shocked by workaday sex scandals anymore, in these post-Stephen Milligan and Mark Oaten days.

 

[Giles]

Scrapping ID card would be good.

And getting rid of those pointless "regional assemblies" and associated nonsense. And lots of other Quangos and nosey-parker busybody outfits.

Giles..

 

[_angel_]

I think you're wrong.

I strongly suspect that the Tories will engage in just the same sort of intrusive justified-by-risk-management nosiness as new Labour have legitimised. After all, a lot of this crap did actually originate from their last period in government.

just thinking about the 'nosiness' that's been in the press, quite a lot of it is done by local councils (fining people for not shutting bins, using anti terrorism laws to snoop on people) has this kind of behaviour been used across the board of political parties?

 

[trevhagl]

just thinking about the 'nosiness' that's been in the press, quite a lot of it is done by local councils (fining people for not shutting bins, using anti terrorism laws to snoop on people) has this kind of behaviour been used across the board of political parties?

give bureaucrats laws and they will run riot with em. new Labour are still keeping up the big brother stuff even though they know it's pissing off their own supporters before the election.
The Tories will be absolute CUNTS to the unemployed and disabled (ie the same as Labour) but when it comes to their natural supporters the rich they will let them away with murder

 

[trevhagl]

I think you're wrong.

I strongly suspect that the Tories will engage in just the same sort of intrusive justified-by-risk-management nosiness as new Labour have legitimised. After all, a lot of this crap did actually originate from their last period in government.

there will probably be a different kind of intrusion but i don't think even THEY would give DVD counterfeiters harsher sentences than paedophiles, which is happening at the minute.

 

[Pickman's model]

there will probably be a different kind of intrusion but i don't think even THEY would give DVD counterfeiters harsher sentences than paedophiles, which is happening at the minute.

example?

 

[bemused]

I reckon we're too jaded to be shocked by workaday sex scandals anymore, in these post-Stephen Milligan and Mark Oaten days.

Oh come on, there is nothing like some ugly Torie being caught shagging some 25 year old below average girl and then trying to get his missus to support him.

Although temporarily gay Oaten seems to be trying to crave up a career as a serious political journalist.

 

[Alright]

Who needs a link? Go check out directgov. Look at the current unemployment figures (just under 2.5 million) and match them against current vacancies) around 600,000 if you discount "seasonal" (i.e. "Christmas only") vacancies. Even an idiot can work out the ratio, so why not have a try?

That's only the advertised vacancies. Anyone who works in personnel will tell you that, for every advertised vacancy, there are 4 unadvertised.

 

[Pickman's model]

there will probably be a different kind of intrusion but i don't think even THEY would give DVD counterfeiters harsher sentences than paedophiles, which is happening at the minute.

example?[/quote]*taps watch*

 

[trevhagl]

example?

well different targets really. dealing with their enemies like the sick and disabled, i imagine it'll be like New Labour's Hitlerite dole policy mixed with New Labour snooping policy, i dread to think...

 

[Pickman's model]

well different targets really. dealing with their enemies like the sick and disabled, i imagine it'll be like New Labour's Hitlerite dole policy mixed with New Labour snooping policy, i dread to think...

so this bit about dvd counterfeiters getting harsher sentences than paedos is a load of eyewash, eh?

 

[Alright]

You right-wingers, what do you mean when you say this?

Let's look at today's

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/jobs/government/

in order, shall we, and work out which is a "non job"?

Project Surveyor

• <LI class=first>OYSTER PARTNERSHIP |
• London |
• £34000 - £41000 per annum +...

Okay, presumably this is someone going around looking at the gates in railway stations, and perhaps retail outlets, to check how the Oyster card can be used outside of LU. This makes it easier for people to buy joined-up tickets and perhpas reduces the need for cash handling operations. A good thing, surely? Socially useful? Either you have public transport or you don't. If you have it, it might as well be efficient, yes?

Unit Coordinator

• <LI class=first>LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY |
• £25,515 - £27,009

Presumably this is someone who works in some sort of adult care or children's services function. I can see why you might not like the idea of your taxes being used to support the feeble or incompetent or their children, but again, if these units exist they need to have someone to tun them. Why is that a "non-job"?


Caseworker - Part Time

• <LI class=first>POLICESKILLS.CO.UK |
• London |
• £12.99 - £15.59ph

This is a private enterprise that makes it easier and more efficient for interim coppers to be supplied. Surely you're a fan of outsourcing non-core functions like search and selection? Surely you're a fan of reducing the overall law enforcement payroll and scaling up only when needed? Then we need caseworkers at policeskills, don't we?


Identification Procedures Assistant – East Anglia

• <LI class=first>POLICESKILLS.CO.UK |
• Norfolk |
• £8/9ph

As above.

Security Guard - Kent

• <LI class=first>POLICESKILLS.CO.UK |
• Kent |
• £8 - 9.50ph

And so on.

DIRECTOR OF CORPORATE RESOURCES & FINANCE

• <LI class=first>SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION |
• £57,936 - £68,990

Now, presumably you'd agree that organisations need finance directors, so your beef will be with the existence of a sustainable development commission. And yes, we could probably survice without one. But the NDPB exists because there's a job that DEFRA needs to do, and that job is there because of legislation on sustainable development. So whine about the legislation, not the job holder, but bear in mind that Cameron is just as in thrall to the sustainability lobby as Labour. The legislation that keeps this person in office is unlikely to change.

Consultant Social Worker - Youth Offending Team

• <LI class=first>LONDON BOROUGH OF HACKNEY |
• £42,258 - £44,910

Either we deport young offenders from Hackney to, say, Rockall - which is an eminently defensible position - or we need social workers to keep an eye on the scrotes. Saying that these people, who aren't brilliantly paid and presumably get lots of grief from unpleasant minicrims, do "non jobs" is just absurd.

Conference and Review Officer

http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/employer/london-borough-of-barnet/

• <LI class=first>LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET |
• £39,789 - £42,498 pa inc.

And again, do you want local government to save money? Yes? Then unfortunately you need odd-looking cross-functional roles like this to reduce siloed working.

Senior Safeguarding Officer http://jobs.guardian.co.uk/employer/london-borough-of-barnet/

• <LI class=first>LONDON BOROUGH OF BARNET |
• £42,498 - £45,153 pa inc.

Actually, no idea what these are. But whatever the postholder is safeguarding is presumably of some public value and we'd miss it should one of the young offenders from Hackney, unsupervised, come to Barnet and nick it.


And so on.


That's what irks me about the Daily Mail and the TaxPayers alliance and conservatives in general. They aren't prepared to commit to anything substantive about reducing government spend - like, say, cutting back on post-16 education, or tightening up NICE rulings on medical intervention for the elderly. They just whine about jobs that they don't understand, which exist to support legislation or outcomes they aren't prepared to challenge.

Yes, but "today's" was a Saturday. Not exactly a representative day for the advertising of non-jobs, is it?

 

[trevhagl]

so this bit about dvd counterfeiters getting harsher sentences than paedos is a load of eyewash, eh?

No. This happens under New Labour, and i am not sure if the Tories would be that bad in this respect, but they will be even worse in others.

 

[Maurice Picarda]

Yes, but "today's" was a Saturday. Not exactly a representative day for the advertising of non-jobs, is it?

See you here Wednesday, then.

 

[_angel_]

That's only the advertised vacancies. Anyone who works in personnel will tell you that, for every advertised vacancy, there are 4 unadvertised.

That's funny cos for every "official" unemployed person job seeking there are loads more who don't count in the official statistics!

( I thought public sector jobs had to be advertised, even if they have been unofficially allocated already??)

 

[ymu]

Also worth pointing out that you frequently see a series of jobs advertised, all in a rough hierarchy. Internal candidates have already been identified, but the posts have to be advertised. They're only intending to take on one new person, on the bottom rung, whilst a few other people who already work there get shuffled up.

And of course, our HR never seems to manage to fill a post inside 12 months, they're so gloriously good at saving money for management whilst we take the brunt. The number of jobs advertised at any one time is not the same as the number of new jobs being advertised.