Open to the citizens, Uk Civil Service, Code of Service

Propose to open up UK, Civil Service, Code of Service, allow citizens to bring Civil Servants to task, be challenged when decisions taken without fact and based only what within psychiatry is human experimentation. 

 

Why is this idea important?

Propose to open up UK, Civil Service, Code of Service, allow citizens to bring Civil Servants to task, be challenged when decisions taken without fact and based only what within psychiatry is human experimentation. 

 

Remove All Distinctions Between Public And Private Employees.

To remove all distinctions between public and private employees. This barrier between workers is historically based and its use is now in doubt and cannot be justified in terms of the superior condidtions and expectations now held by public sector employees.

Why is this idea important?

To remove all distinctions between public and private employees. This barrier between workers is historically based and its use is now in doubt and cannot be justified in terms of the superior condidtions and expectations now held by public sector employees.

Keep Civil Servant Details Private

The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.

This is dangerous.

And a massive breech of privacy.

There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.

By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.

Why is this idea important?

The Conservatives pledged to publish the job titles for every member of staff in the Civil Service, and presumably all other public bodies.

This is dangerous.

And a massive breech of privacy.

There are good arguments for publishing some details of top staff, who suggest top level policies and brief Ministers, but 99% do not have this level of influence. Some have good reason for being selective about who they give their details to. A cousin of mine works for a Policing body. If her children's classmates knew that they would be beaten up regularly. Her car would be vandalised or sabotaged. If it were known that her husband has access to senstive data he would be a target for terrorists and organised crime. Most people have one or two dodgy relatives, some might be tempted to ask for favours. Neither my cousin or her husband are influential (or rich) so it is difficult to see what publshing their details would achieve. And publishing their grades would tell the whole world what salary they are on. From there it is a small step to putting peoples bank details on line.

By the way, their employer does not allow out-of-office phone messages, because that would make it easy for naughty people* to impersonate them while on holiday and exercise some Policing advantages or possibly hack their computers. Their neighbours know when they are on holiday, but not who they work for. These are genuine security and lifestyle issues. Redacting data would be unreliable and error prone.

Reducing manning levels

The Civil Service has become a bloated behemoth under Mr Brown and it needs to be pegged back. Now we all know that the people who do the most useful work are amongst the lowest paid and are the front-line staff.  What is needed is to intruduce Private Sector methods as per, remove a whole layer of management and then tell those who worked for the now redundant managers 'Find better ways of doing your job'.

It happened to me and it was he best thing that ever happened to our company. We got rid of the non workers and we all did find much better ways to carry out our tasks without interference.  I recommend this to the government as if you ask the Civil Srvice to carry out the reduction policy them selves, they will naturally get rid of others rather than themselves.

Why is this idea important?

The Civil Service has become a bloated behemoth under Mr Brown and it needs to be pegged back. Now we all know that the people who do the most useful work are amongst the lowest paid and are the front-line staff.  What is needed is to intruduce Private Sector methods as per, remove a whole layer of management and then tell those who worked for the now redundant managers 'Find better ways of doing your job'.

It happened to me and it was he best thing that ever happened to our company. We got rid of the non workers and we all did find much better ways to carry out our tasks without interference.  I recommend this to the government as if you ask the Civil Srvice to carry out the reduction policy them selves, they will naturally get rid of others rather than themselves.

Repeal the ability of Parliament to change employment law where it is the employer

In the present economic climate this Government wants to "streamline" the Civil Service. Understandable. However, having made this announcement, it now also wants to change employment law to allow it to circumvent existing legislation (which it fell foul of) so it can withold entitlement to redundancy payments for the staff it's about to sack.

While Government may, indeed, have the legal right to change laws to suit itself, it has no moral or ethical right to do so. In its role as an employer it must recognise the law as being a higher precedent. The statutes already in place are there as a protection to employees as well as to employers.

So to meddle with laws to the detriment of its own employees while preparing for the largest unemployment boost in peacetime history is not only unethical but is also morally bankrupt and the act of a suicidal entity, intent on hastening its own demise through civil unrest etc. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Why is this idea important?

In the present economic climate this Government wants to "streamline" the Civil Service. Understandable. However, having made this announcement, it now also wants to change employment law to allow it to circumvent existing legislation (which it fell foul of) so it can withold entitlement to redundancy payments for the staff it's about to sack.

While Government may, indeed, have the legal right to change laws to suit itself, it has no moral or ethical right to do so. In its role as an employer it must recognise the law as being a higher precedent. The statutes already in place are there as a protection to employees as well as to employers.

So to meddle with laws to the detriment of its own employees while preparing for the largest unemployment boost in peacetime history is not only unethical but is also morally bankrupt and the act of a suicidal entity, intent on hastening its own demise through civil unrest etc. This cannot be allowed to happen.

Freedom from Inept Civil Servants

Freedom from inept Civil Servants – employ good Launch Managers – like AMEC plc.

Freedom from Electricity Blackouts – write clear and concise White papers. Freedom from a worsened Rail Network – start again with trains for electrification.

The Future is bleak. The DTI (or the BERR) published a White Paper in 2007 “Meeting the Energy Challenge” in which all they did was frighten everybody off investing at all, because they would not risk investment or prediction themselves. The White Paper said that we are due to lose 22.5GW of electricity generation through shut-downs of capacity by 2020, and details in para 5.1.13 that a new 25 GW of capacity is needed to be operating by 2020, and a further 10GW by 2030.

I am advised that electricity power supplies will fail in winter in five years time and we will be subject to blackouts and because these will be widespread, it may be that phone lines will also be dead. Thus crime might proliferate, and contact with the Police might be impossible. Traffic lights will not work, so accidents may occur. My freedom to enjoy the opera or the cinema, to contribute to discussion in a town hall, or even just to survive in the cold – you need electricity to open your gas or oil valve, and to light the flame on your central heating. Thus, while this is not a Law freedom, it does affect freedom in other ways, and for the future too.

This Energy White Paper presented 91 pages of waffle in Section 5.1 (Electricity Generation – Investment Framework) of the White Paper, with only one chart – showing minimal renewables growth over the last ten years and no chart at all about the predictable future. The whole section talks endlessly about the need to invest, and the support that investors need over resource prices, and that electricity market prices affect the future, but nothing is said about those prices or investment returns, presumably because there is risk in every prediction and the Government was avoiding commitment itself.

White Papers need to be brought up to Industry Standards – they need clear charts and just a few pages of clear and concise text. It took me a while to construct my simplified Investment Chart described in the Appendix below, because I had to find the data (there was nothing in the totally inadequate Energy White Paper where it should have been of course), and it was easiest to collate and draw it for nuclear power, but its concept is equally applicable to every other Project that anybody is asked to invest in. It is time the Government reduced costs by reviewing White Paper Strategy influencing as they do Law and Policy, and to start by planning for the Country clearly enough. Why is this type of clear Investment Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power?

The cost of a White paper is not just in the paper produced, nor in the investigation and writing time taken by the authors, but primarily in the way it would affect Government Policy for the future. The lack of a credible Energy Policy so far will be extremely expensive in the long run.

To maintain this different sort of personal freedom, we may even have to repeal the Emissions Laws which dictate that we shut down coal fired power stations before they are economically ineffective. And extend the life of any other Power Generation essential to avoiding blackouts.

In “A Review of the Intercity Express Programme” by Sir Andrew Foster published in June 2010, his Conclusion says – “At the end of the earlier section on value for money I asked why a programme which has passed its technical VfM tests is regarded so negatively. I have suggested that there are three types of reason for this: first there are unresolved technical questions, secondly it is not clear that all the potentially viable alternatives to IEP have been adequately assessed, and thirdly there are some issues around DfT’s management approach and its engagement and communication with the railway industry. In short, there is a good deal about the programme as it stands that is unresolved, unproven, uncertain and carries risk. I suggest a pause for reflection and a fresh, detailed VfM analysis including credible alternatives to IEP. This period of reflection should also encompass the wider questions I have raised about aspects of management and overall strategy, and the evolution of a fully fit-for-purpose delivery approach. It should be framed by aims and objectives appropriate to the current fiscal context.”

Lord Tombs carried out a survey of the civil service a couple of years ago, and he found that there were very few professional engineers employed, and none at the highest level. No wonder the Energy and Transport White Papers/Policies are so poorly conceived.

Just how much more expensive can Government make their job? Clearly, to write a White Paper badly can cost a fortune in misinforming Policy, and in delaying the introduction of solutions.

There is therefore a need to sack many senior Civil Servants (those who have overseen such dreadful White Paper and policy shortfalls, and who obviously have no technology understanding at all – how could they possibly have been sycophants to Ministers if they were qualified?), and to recruit more competent qualified people. This is now very much a Technological World, and you must recruit Technologists to understand and control appropriate inputs from Industry. I use the word Technology in its widest sense, so you need big engineers to talk to big engineering industry, in several disciplines. Electrical Engineers for electrical power distribution, Mechanical Engineers for generating that power, and Civil Engineers for building big projects. You do not need Scientists, except for Scientific projects, and Electrical Power Supply is Engineering not Science.

The Civil Servants Government employed in 2007 constructing and writing Energy White Papers were clearly not Engineers. If you saw last night's BBC2 programme "How to Build a Jumbo Jet Engine" for example, you will know how competent Big Industry has become – I think you should ask them to help you reconstruct big chunks of the Civil Service, and thus reduce your costs enormously. It is not just waste you need to tackle, but ability and competence, thus to achieve low cost over the life of a Project.

Importantly, costs hugely escalate if you have to correct thinking later on (eg. correcting already built parts) or to launch something in an emergency, so get it right first time, in time, and right at the start. This has not happened in Government Energy or Transport Policy so far.

I would suggest that you ask AMEC plc to help you start again.

Appendix
Simplified Investment Chart

The chart helped me to understand why Investment in Energy of any sort is so slow – the returns shown are simply not good enough in comparison with other investments.

I find the "Your Freedom" website will not allow me to add the chart – so I describe it here – the vertical axis is minus six to plus 10 billion pounds, the horizontal axis is zero to twenty five years.
There is a bottom line running from zero pounds at zero years to minus two billion at eight years, which is the build cost investment line. This line continues at a slightly different slope indicating the continuing running cost to about minus six billion at twenty five years.
From the minus two billion eight year point, there is an income (from the consumer) line, rising to plus three billion at twenty five years, and a doubled income line rising from that minus two billion at eight years to plus ten billion at twenty five years. The cruncher is the FTSE 100 Investment Line which rises from zero pounds at zero years to ten billion at twenty five years, based upon investing the 2 billion cost of the Project in other averaged FTSE 100 Stock. Only a DOUBLED income approaches that return.

Why is this type of clear Investment Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power? A few percent change in the data would not make any difference to the conclusions.
 

Why is this idea important?

Freedom from inept Civil Servants – employ good Launch Managers – like AMEC plc.

Freedom from Electricity Blackouts – write clear and concise White papers. Freedom from a worsened Rail Network – start again with trains for electrification.

The Future is bleak. The DTI (or the BERR) published a White Paper in 2007 “Meeting the Energy Challenge” in which all they did was frighten everybody off investing at all, because they would not risk investment or prediction themselves. The White Paper said that we are due to lose 22.5GW of electricity generation through shut-downs of capacity by 2020, and details in para 5.1.13 that a new 25 GW of capacity is needed to be operating by 2020, and a further 10GW by 2030.

I am advised that electricity power supplies will fail in winter in five years time and we will be subject to blackouts and because these will be widespread, it may be that phone lines will also be dead. Thus crime might proliferate, and contact with the Police might be impossible. Traffic lights will not work, so accidents may occur. My freedom to enjoy the opera or the cinema, to contribute to discussion in a town hall, or even just to survive in the cold – you need electricity to open your gas or oil valve, and to light the flame on your central heating. Thus, while this is not a Law freedom, it does affect freedom in other ways, and for the future too.

This Energy White Paper presented 91 pages of waffle in Section 5.1 (Electricity Generation – Investment Framework) of the White Paper, with only one chart – showing minimal renewables growth over the last ten years and no chart at all about the predictable future. The whole section talks endlessly about the need to invest, and the support that investors need over resource prices, and that electricity market prices affect the future, but nothing is said about those prices or investment returns, presumably because there is risk in every prediction and the Government was avoiding commitment itself.

White Papers need to be brought up to Industry Standards – they need clear charts and just a few pages of clear and concise text. It took me a while to construct my simplified Investment Chart described in the Appendix below, because I had to find the data (there was nothing in the totally inadequate Energy White Paper where it should have been of course), and it was easiest to collate and draw it for nuclear power, but its concept is equally applicable to every other Project that anybody is asked to invest in. It is time the Government reduced costs by reviewing White Paper Strategy influencing as they do Law and Policy, and to start by planning for the Country clearly enough. Why is this type of clear Investment Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power?

The cost of a White paper is not just in the paper produced, nor in the investigation and writing time taken by the authors, but primarily in the way it would affect Government Policy for the future. The lack of a credible Energy Policy so far will be extremely expensive in the long run.

To maintain this different sort of personal freedom, we may even have to repeal the Emissions Laws which dictate that we shut down coal fired power stations before they are economically ineffective. And extend the life of any other Power Generation essential to avoiding blackouts.

In “A Review of the Intercity Express Programme” by Sir Andrew Foster published in June 2010, his Conclusion says – “At the end of the earlier section on value for money I asked why a programme which has passed its technical VfM tests is regarded so negatively. I have suggested that there are three types of reason for this: first there are unresolved technical questions, secondly it is not clear that all the potentially viable alternatives to IEP have been adequately assessed, and thirdly there are some issues around DfT’s management approach and its engagement and communication with the railway industry. In short, there is a good deal about the programme as it stands that is unresolved, unproven, uncertain and carries risk. I suggest a pause for reflection and a fresh, detailed VfM analysis including credible alternatives to IEP. This period of reflection should also encompass the wider questions I have raised about aspects of management and overall strategy, and the evolution of a fully fit-for-purpose delivery approach. It should be framed by aims and objectives appropriate to the current fiscal context.”

Lord Tombs carried out a survey of the civil service a couple of years ago, and he found that there were very few professional engineers employed, and none at the highest level. No wonder the Energy and Transport White Papers/Policies are so poorly conceived.

Just how much more expensive can Government make their job? Clearly, to write a White Paper badly can cost a fortune in misinforming Policy, and in delaying the introduction of solutions.

There is therefore a need to sack many senior Civil Servants (those who have overseen such dreadful White Paper and policy shortfalls, and who obviously have no technology understanding at all – how could they possibly have been sycophants to Ministers if they were qualified?), and to recruit more competent qualified people. This is now very much a Technological World, and you must recruit Technologists to understand and control appropriate inputs from Industry. I use the word Technology in its widest sense, so you need big engineers to talk to big engineering industry, in several disciplines. Electrical Engineers for electrical power distribution, Mechanical Engineers for generating that power, and Civil Engineers for building big projects. You do not need Scientists, except for Scientific projects, and Electrical Power Supply is Engineering not Science.

The Civil Servants Government employed in 2007 constructing and writing Energy White Papers were clearly not Engineers. If you saw last night's BBC2 programme "How to Build a Jumbo Jet Engine" for example, you will know how competent Big Industry has become – I think you should ask them to help you reconstruct big chunks of the Civil Service, and thus reduce your costs enormously. It is not just waste you need to tackle, but ability and competence, thus to achieve low cost over the life of a Project.

Importantly, costs hugely escalate if you have to correct thinking later on (eg. correcting already built parts) or to launch something in an emergency, so get it right first time, in time, and right at the start. This has not happened in Government Energy or Transport Policy so far.

I would suggest that you ask AMEC plc to help you start again.

Appendix
Simplified Investment Chart

The chart helped me to understand why Investment in Energy of any sort is so slow – the returns shown are simply not good enough in comparison with other investments.

I find the "Your Freedom" website will not allow me to add the chart – so I describe it here – the vertical axis is minus six to plus 10 billion pounds, the horizontal axis is zero to twenty five years.
There is a bottom line running from zero pounds at zero years to minus two billion at eight years, which is the build cost investment line. This line continues at a slightly different slope indicating the continuing running cost to about minus six billion at twenty five years.
From the minus two billion eight year point, there is an income (from the consumer) line, rising to plus three billion at twenty five years, and a doubled income line rising from that minus two billion at eight years to plus ten billion at twenty five years. The cruncher is the FTSE 100 Investment Line which rises from zero pounds at zero years to ten billion at twenty five years, based upon investing the 2 billion cost of the Project in other averaged FTSE 100 Stock. Only a DOUBLED income approaches that return.

Why is this type of clear Investment Chart NEVER in any UK Government White Paper for any Energy Source, whether coal, gas, oil, fission, wave or wind power? A few percent change in the data would not make any difference to the conclusions.
 

Redundancies before reformation

From the point of view of Public Servants, most of whom are very committed to helping the country, it is sad that cut-backs need to be made, but they try to understand. However, to then follow such an announcement by another that is trying to limit their redundancy payouts is, to my mind, insanity.

Surely those who have served under designated terms and conditions must be legally entitled to keep those terms and conditions as you unceremoniously consign them to the scrapheap. This seems like the previous Government at work – sly and underhanded with no respect for the country. I hope I'm wrong, but……

Redundancies, where they are required, must take place first, giving an equitable chance to those who feel they can move on to have an equitable settlement. the terms can then be changed for those who have kept their jobs – a much more meaningful trade-off.

Why is this idea important?

From the point of view of Public Servants, most of whom are very committed to helping the country, it is sad that cut-backs need to be made, but they try to understand. However, to then follow such an announcement by another that is trying to limit their redundancy payouts is, to my mind, insanity.

Surely those who have served under designated terms and conditions must be legally entitled to keep those terms and conditions as you unceremoniously consign them to the scrapheap. This seems like the previous Government at work – sly and underhanded with no respect for the country. I hope I'm wrong, but……

Redundancies, where they are required, must take place first, giving an equitable chance to those who feel they can move on to have an equitable settlement. the terms can then be changed for those who have kept their jobs – a much more meaningful trade-off.

Abolish all Taxation other than Income Tax and Abolish Regional Government

This may seem an extreme suggestion, but let me explain.  I'm not sure how many different taxes there are in the UK, but whatever number I guess at, it's sure to be wrong because new taxes are invented pretty regularly. Suffice to say there are hundreds.

The problem is that for every tax, and for every function of Government both nationally and regionally, there is a massive civil servant empire to be funded before the tax actually does what is intended.

The costs pile up, not only is there the obvious infrastructure, buildings to be bought, refurbished, offices to be built and equipped, there are also staffing costs, supervisory staff costs, and of course the obligatory higher staff with a group of directors who get paid annually what most of us will never see in our lifetimes.  In addition, there are the costs of their pensions which in the case of all, is index linked.  If any directors that are found to have done a less than satisfactory job, they are usually paid off with a few million pounds.

We have to pay for Scottish, Irish and Welsh regional governments, and of course the thousands of local government offices and staff, not to mention the biggest quango of them all – The EEC.

We are currently in a recession, and depending on who you listen to, the light at the end of the tunnel is still a long way off, we can no longer afford these regional quangos

Why is this idea important?

This may seem an extreme suggestion, but let me explain.  I'm not sure how many different taxes there are in the UK, but whatever number I guess at, it's sure to be wrong because new taxes are invented pretty regularly. Suffice to say there are hundreds.

The problem is that for every tax, and for every function of Government both nationally and regionally, there is a massive civil servant empire to be funded before the tax actually does what is intended.

The costs pile up, not only is there the obvious infrastructure, buildings to be bought, refurbished, offices to be built and equipped, there are also staffing costs, supervisory staff costs, and of course the obligatory higher staff with a group of directors who get paid annually what most of us will never see in our lifetimes.  In addition, there are the costs of their pensions which in the case of all, is index linked.  If any directors that are found to have done a less than satisfactory job, they are usually paid off with a few million pounds.

We have to pay for Scottish, Irish and Welsh regional governments, and of course the thousands of local government offices and staff, not to mention the biggest quango of them all – The EEC.

We are currently in a recession, and depending on who you listen to, the light at the end of the tunnel is still a long way off, we can no longer afford these regional quangos

Too Many Chiefs, Not Enough Injuns

It is quite obvious that in order to save money, the Government have to reduce jobs in the public sector. Local councils, the NHS, education currently are all suffer from over-management. The old joke about one council workman digging a hole in the road, while three managers, plus now of course the obligatory Health and Safety expert, stand and watch holding their clipboards is sadly today very true, and can longer be afforded. We need staff to actually do the job in hand. Too many justify their positions simply overseeing others, compiling useless statistics, attending 'important' meetings etc. The per head savings would also be greater for management reduction, so less jobs would be lost.

When considering staff reductions therefore, I suggest lay-offs should fall heaviest on the management/administration, thus keeping more of those who actually get the job done whilst making the greatest cost savings.

Why is this idea important?

It is quite obvious that in order to save money, the Government have to reduce jobs in the public sector. Local councils, the NHS, education currently are all suffer from over-management. The old joke about one council workman digging a hole in the road, while three managers, plus now of course the obligatory Health and Safety expert, stand and watch holding their clipboards is sadly today very true, and can longer be afforded. We need staff to actually do the job in hand. Too many justify their positions simply overseeing others, compiling useless statistics, attending 'important' meetings etc. The per head savings would also be greater for management reduction, so less jobs would be lost.

When considering staff reductions therefore, I suggest lay-offs should fall heaviest on the management/administration, thus keeping more of those who actually get the job done whilst making the greatest cost savings.

No Civil Servant or Quango Head Earns more than the Prime Minister

That no civil servant or Quango head (Quango head is not verbal abuse or an insult…..although…'Oh! Quango 'ed' does have a certain ring) anyway, they should not earn more than the Prime Minister.

Feel free to use the phrase above when addressesing overpaid civil servants. I wave all copyright.

Why is this idea important?

That no civil servant or Quango head (Quango head is not verbal abuse or an insult…..although…'Oh! Quango 'ed' does have a certain ring) anyway, they should not earn more than the Prime Minister.

Feel free to use the phrase above when addressesing overpaid civil servants. I wave all copyright.

End discrimination on the grounds of current security clearance status

Despite Cabinet Office rules to the contrary, many Government organisations require applicants to hold security clearance to the required level prior to being considered for even non-urgent work and this is often explicitly stated in advertisements.  This discriminates against those with no or lapsed security clearance.  Furthermore, applicants who wish to apply for such work cannot pay to have themselves cleared in advance.

Why is this idea important?

Despite Cabinet Office rules to the contrary, many Government organisations require applicants to hold security clearance to the required level prior to being considered for even non-urgent work and this is often explicitly stated in advertisements.  This discriminates against those with no or lapsed security clearance.  Furthermore, applicants who wish to apply for such work cannot pay to have themselves cleared in advance.