Meet Swingers

Entertainment

Latest Members

Fun and Games

Information

Shopping

Site Stats

Members:
1,389,800
Online Now:
1,999
Msgs Sent:
157,443,049
Photo Ads:
745,626
User Pics:
579,536
Video Chat:
170
Search
Next »
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
< >

 

15th Oct 2010 - 9:48pm
Dave__Notts's AvatarDave__NottsSite Moderator
Joined:
4 Jun 2004
Posts:
5788
Location:
Nottingham
ProfilePM
GnV wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:

GnV wrote:

All those Quango's being chopped....

Lovely thumbup.gif


Sounds good in theory GnV but will the workforce and roles be incororated into where they originally came from?

Take the HPA for example. They came from the NHS and formed the HPA to make it more central. Now they'll get rid of the quango but the roles are still required so the NHS will have them back again.

In theory it sounds good, in practise it may not be. So at present you have one CCDC in a HPA that covers a whole geographical area. Now if that role reverts back to the NHS then each area the NHS covers will require a CCDC. This doesn't look like job reduction in my eyes but increasing the jobs and having duplication.

At least it looks good on paper but I do hope the people who put these changes in are not pulling the wool over the eyes of the tax payer when they could be costing us more in the long run.

Dave_Notts

Hmmmm bit lost here. HPA? CCDC? I think I know what the NHS is.

Isn't the real point that the quango's were answerable to no-one, very expensive to run and that as accountability is at the heart of the Government's plan, they had to go?

Take for example the one dealing with poverty. If newspaper reports were correct, some senior members of this one were living it up extremely large at the expense of the public purse. Diabolical!


HPA = Health Protection Agency.

CCDC = Consultant in Communicable Disease Control

These people were reduced in number to cover the East Midlands for example, by having the HPA. Now with getting rid of the HPA each NHS trust will now have to employ a CCDC, so in effect for this position they have just increased the number of those employed. How many more jobs will have to be duplicated by getting rid of this quango I do not know. I hope this does not end up costing me more money just for a political soundbite.

The job still needs to be done so it will be swallowed up either at local NHS or Local Authority level.....either way it doesn't save money.

Dave_Notts
 

 

16th Oct 2010 - 2:56pm
GnV's AvatarGnVGodlike
Joined:
13 Dec 2005
Posts:
5973
Location:
j'aime la France
ProfilePM
Dave__Notts wrote:

HPA = Health Protection Agency.

CCDC = Consultant in Communicable Disease Control

These people were reduced in number to cover the East Midlands for example, by having the HPA. Now with getting rid of the HPA each NHS trust will now have to employ a CCDC, so in effect for this position they have just increased the number of those employed. How many more jobs will have to be duplicated by getting rid of this quango I do not know. I hope this does not end up costing me more money just for a political soundbite.

The job still needs to be done so it will be swallowed up either at local NHS or Local Authority level.....either way it doesn't save money.

Dave_Notts

Aha! thanks for the HUD on the ANOGA
just so I don't forget, Head Up Display on the Abbreviated Names Of Govt Agencies

They must employ someone full time to come up with those mnemonics - surely a saving there!

However, isn't the point that some of these roles will be contracted out between NHS Trusts with an overall saving?
 

 

17th Oct 2010 - 12:47am
Dave__Notts's AvatarDave__NottsSite Moderator
Joined:
4 Jun 2004
Posts:
5788
Location:
Nottingham
ProfilePM
GnV wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:

HPA = Health Protection Agency.

CCDC = Consultant in Communicable Disease Control

These people were reduced in number to cover the East Midlands for example, by having the HPA. Now with getting rid of the HPA each NHS trust will now have to employ a CCDC, so in effect for this position they have just increased the number of those employed. How many more jobs will have to be duplicated by getting rid of this quango I do not know. I hope this does not end up costing me more money just for a political soundbite.

The job still needs to be done so it will be swallowed up either at local NHS or Local Authority level.....either way it doesn't save money.

Dave_Notts

Aha! thanks for the HUD on the ANOGA
just so I don't forget, Head Up Display on the Abbreviated Names Of Govt Agencies

They must employ someone full time to come up with those mnemonics - surely a saving there!

However, isn't the point that some of these roles will be contracted out between NHS Trusts with an overall saving?


Sounds a great idea in theory, but will they though. I just hope they haven't gone from few to many and cost us more when they said they would cost us less.

Dave_Notts
 

 

17th Oct 2010 - 1:03am
Dave__Notts's AvatarDave__NottsSite Moderator
Joined:
4 Jun 2004
Posts:
5788
Location:
Nottingham
ProfilePM
http://www.number10.gov.uk/wp-content/uploads/402906_CommonSense_acc.pdf

Full report by Lord Young. Contrary to popular belief, he has supported the legislation and those that enforce it. He has attacked a number of areas that I agree in principal but could lead to a dangerous precedent by making a job for the boys situation. That I am not in favour of........even though I fall into that club it is unfair to a lot of my colleagues in the same the line of work. I think he has missed a trick to get the cowboys out of the field.

The report was supposed to be thorough but it is full of basic schoolboy errors in understanding the legislation and also where it applies. I wonder who the advisors were who let it be published without checking.

Dave_Notts
 

 

17th Oct 2010 - 5:26am
kentswingers777's Avatarkentswingers777Godlike
Joined:
14 Dec 2005
Posts:
8462
Location:
-
ProfilePM
Dave__Notts wrote:

........even though I fall into that club it is unfair to a lot of my colleagues in the same the line of work. I think he has missed a trick to get the cowboys out of the field.

The report was supposed to be thorough but it is full of basic schoolboy errors in understanding the legislation and also where it applies. I wonder who the advisors were who let it be published without checking.



Understandable then why you have written off most of the report it seems?

Seeing as you are obviously such an " expert " in this field.....maybe they should have given it to the " expert " to check...............YOU???

Sounds to me though as though it could be that a person commissioned to do a report for the Government, who obviously DOES know what he is talking about, is being answered by somebody who the changes will affect, of which does not like???

Sorry but on this issue I have to agree with everything I have read in the report......As it is called.... " Common Sense, Common Safety ".

Something a lot of Health and Safety people and the local council operatives fail on in many basic levels.
 

 

17th Oct 2010 - 6:09am
GnV's AvatarGnVGodlike
Joined:
13 Dec 2005
Posts:
5973
Location:
j'aime la France
ProfilePM
Dave__Notts wrote:

Sounds a great idea in theory, but will they though. I just hope they haven't gone from few to many and cost us more when they said they would cost us less.

Dave_Notts

But again, that's the point. With the public at large in charge, if services don't deliver it is available for them to take people to task.
 

 

17th Oct 2010 - 11:27am
foxylady2209's Avatarfoxylady2209Godlike
Joined:
6 Jan 2005
Posts:
4181
Location:
Derby
ProfilePM
GnV wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:

Sounds a great idea in theory, but will they though. I just hope they haven't gone from few to many and cost us more when they said they would cost us less.

Dave_Notts

But again, that's the point. With the public at large in charge, if services don't deliver it is available for them to take people to task.


Really? What would be the mechanism for that? If I don't like what the local council or the government do, what exactly can I do about it? Vote them out - isn't that all we have already?

This is a serious question - not a criticism - please describe what 'the public' (by which I mean ME) can actually do to change or control what the 'powers that be' do.

Obviously I am ignoring voting them out cos a) that is already available theoretically and b) that is rubbish anyway cos it takes tens of thousands of votes to do that and my vote is worth bugger all in that scheme.
 

 

17th Oct 2010 - 12:14pm
kentswingers777's Avatarkentswingers777Godlike
Joined:
14 Dec 2005
Posts:
8462
Location:
-
ProfilePM
You will not I believe get a proper answer, from someone who is a part of that very system.

You have a bunch of muppets which you vote out, but along comes another bunch of muppets, that get voted in.

In councils it really is a case of the blind leading the blind.

The report listed above is common sense.
 

 

17th Oct 2010 - 2:16pm
Dave__Notts's AvatarDave__NottsSite Moderator
Joined:
4 Jun 2004
Posts:
5788
Location:
Nottingham
ProfilePM
kentswingers777 wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:

........even though I fall into that club it is unfair to a lot of my colleagues in the same the line of work. I think he has missed a trick to get the cowboys out of the field.

The report was supposed to be thorough but it is full of basic schoolboy errors in understanding the legislation and also where it applies. I wonder who the advisors were who let it be published without checking.



Understandable then why you have written off most of the report it seems?

Seeing as you are obviously such an " expert " in this field.....maybe they should have given it to the " expert " to check...............YOU???

Sounds to me though as though it could be that a person commissioned to do a report for the Government, who obviously DOES know what he is talking about, is being answered by somebody who the changes will affect, of which does not like???

Sorry but on this issue I have to agree with everything I have read in the report......As it is called.... " Common Sense, Common Safety ".

Something a lot of Health and Safety people and the local council operatives fail on in many basic levels.


What a load shite you have just wrote Kenny boy. Did you actually read the report? Have you read anything I have wrote?

He obviously knows what he is talking about? How has he made basic mistakes and assumptions in the report then?

The report changes nothing for my role or the majority of the colleagues I work with, yet it will have an impact on many businesses out there. The majority of his recommendations involving H&S and the enforcement arm has either just been introduced or has been available for years. So "his" recomendations are already available and in being. This information has been freely available for small businessmen to use, unfortunately it is their failure not to use it that is the common sense issue. This is what he is trying to get across to the business out there. Your responsibility to implement the laws in your own workplace. He has already stated that the legislation is fine, it is the implementation by business that has cocked up. That dear Kenny boy is your area and not local councils or central government. Business has to start looking in rather than out at common sense.

His biggest gripe it seems is the insurance and civil side including compensation. That is something that makes me wonder as this is his original area of work. H&S is not interested in this as this is the realms of solicitors.

The reason I broadly accept the recommedations is because they are already available so it means no change at all in my role.

Dave_Notts

Last edited by on 17th Oct 2010 - 2:23pm; edited 1 time in total
 

 

17th Oct 2010 - 2:21pm
Dave__Notts's AvatarDave__NottsSite Moderator
Joined:
4 Jun 2004
Posts:
5788
Location:
Nottingham
ProfilePM
GnV wrote:

Dave__Notts wrote:

Sounds a great idea in theory, but will they though. I just hope they haven't gone from few to many and cost us more when they said they would cost us less.

Dave_Notts

But again, that's the point. With the public at large in charge, if services don't deliver it is available for them to take people to task.


We the taxpayer want these services and at less cost. That is great and what I want but if these changes go back to the days when there are extra people doing the same work by bringing it in house, how is that saving me, the taxpayer, money?

I am not saying all quangos are the same but we need to look at what they do now compared to in the past and is there going to be duplication. If there is then that is more staff and not less, hence more waste in taxpayers money.

Dave_Notts
 
Next »
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  6. 6
  7. 7
  8. 8
< >
Search