Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
..the Civil Service is what I refer to.
Before the reshuffle Justine Greening brought in PriceWaterhouseCoopers to review the controversial rail franchise for the West Coast route.
It seems they found some very basic errors in the way the Civil Service reviewed the bid, they did not allow for inflation for one thing. This was a costly mistake and all credit for Greening (an accountant herself) for calling in PWC to examine it.
This led, of course, to the new Transport Minister cancelling the process.
Time for a root and branch reform of the Civil Service. At all cost though it must not be politicised in these reforms.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
No, not 'politicised', but privatised, that would be OK?
There is already many mi££ions of pounds expended on the like of PWC & KPMG etc. Talking down the Civil Service does make it less likely that this expenditure will be questioned.
However it was these very firms who sighed-off on the audits of Banks etc. who, it has since been discovered, were trading illegally. (in many cases)
Is it not the factoring-in of 'inflation' that now richly rewards the firms involved with PFI contracts?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 693- Registered: 12 Nov 2009
- Posts: 1,266
For once I have to agree with Barry, at least partly. Although I don't think that the monumental gaffe made by some civil servants within the Department For Transport can be construed that the Civil Service is generically unfit for purpose, I do think the role of the Civil Service as the Government's 'office' (for want of a better word) needs to be looked at.
From necessity, Government Ministers look to their departments to provide the expertise that any minister, given the diversity of their backgrounds, needs from staff specifically recruited for the task at hand. If those staff fail to give that expertise, then the whole system is structurally unsafe. It seems to me, therefore, that the senior levels of the Civil Service are at fault by recruiting staff not fit for purpose: exactly as Barry says.
I hear on Auntie this morning that Sir Ian Whatshisface, some top Civil Servant, says it was wrong to point the accusing finger at the Civil Service; well, he would, wouldn't he? Clearly we should find some other scapegoat for the fiasco; it couldn't possibly be the fault of those actually recruited to do the job, could it?
True friends stab you in the front.
Jan Higgins
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 5 Jul 2010
- Posts: 13,895
I love that description "Sir Ian Whatshisface, some top Civil Servant".
All government does is set a policy, be it right or wrong, it is up to the Civil Servants to carry out that policy to the best of their ability so there is nobody else to blame but the Civil Servants.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
I try to be neutral and polite but it is hard and getting even more difficult at times.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
There is nobody else to blame? This naturally has nothing to do with ministerial reshuffling being timed to just before the bemiring of the cooling device?
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
When was the last time a minister publicly held his senior civil servants to account? How many times have things like this happened in the past and been brushed under the carpet? The MoD springs to mind, with decades of mismanagement and botched procurement yet no mandarins' heads have rolled. Remember that ministers are only the visible tip of the government iceberg; most of it is from Sir Humphrey downwards.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
All a little too neat though Peter. Lobbying is often a short-circuit to remove responsibility from Minister and Party while getting things done in a way that suits all but the public purse.
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
Let's not get to carried away here, we have ministers in charge of this lot, surely someone was over seeing such a big project,
Or shall we just blame the civil servants?
like all govts of all colours civil servants have been allowed to fill the vacuum over the years just like on a smaller scale officer led councils.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Keith - a Minister does not do the actual work of complex actuarial calculations. Indeed in this case unless the Minister has specialist professional knowledge and training of their own they are entirely dependant on what the Civil Service say. Greening is a trained accountant but even so may not have knowledge in the specialism required to do that work but fortunately she did know enough to smell a rat and called in an appropriate auditor to review it.
Like councillors Ministers are (supposedly) talented laymen who depend on the advice of their Civil Servants.
This is both a strength and a weakness of our democratic system.
Tom - no, nothing at all to do with a reshuffle, quite clearly.
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
tom is right in that ministers do get moved around and never really get to understand their brief. having said that a minister should be street wise enough to suspect something is not right(as ms greening has done) and get independent advice.
the buck has to stop with the minister, if he/she does not have full confidence in the civil servants around they should wield the axe.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
barryw;
lets pass the buck then
the ministers should show no guilt at costing us over £40 millino its fine the poor will pay again for others mistakes
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
This is not passing the buck, it is identifying the need for Civil Service reform and the faults in the machinery behind government. This is not a party political issue.
Guest 710- Registered: 28 Feb 2011
- Posts: 6,950
Not fit for purpose...
"History of the Charity Commission
Prior to the 1840's body of Commissioners had been established by the Statue of Charitable Uses 1601 however these proved ineffective. The Charity Commission was first established by the Charitable Trusts Act 1853. There had been several atempts at reforming charities before that which had been opposed by various interest groups including the church, the courts, the companies, and the universities.[8] The power of the commission was strengthened by amendments to the act in 1855, 1860, 1862.[9]
The Charities Act 2006 established its current structure and name.[10]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charity_Commission_for_England_and_Wales
Don't you just love those dates? 18-this and 18-that all the way up to 2006. All terribly sexy stuff.
Let's try 1903.
In 1903 a certain Lt Colonel Charles Newman Kidd gave 'in perpetuity' a land legacy to the townspeople of Dartford. Over many years and with the good-offices of a string of local worthies this land legacy was added to, to become Dartford's Central Park.
-The Council sold a lump of it to a developer. [2004]
-Locals complained to the Charity Commission who determined that the Council had had no right to sell the land. [2009]
-The Tribunal ordered that the cash was to be earmarked for the purchase of other recreational land and that the Council appoint independent trustees, to avoid any conflict of interest. (too late to get the land back)
Now, over to you dear reader. Imagine yourself as one of the selfless public-spirited folk entrusted with the decision as to what to do next...
-The Council spent the money on buying another part of Central Park from itself.
Local residents took the matter of the Councils non compliance with the Tribunal's order to appoint independent trustees back to the Charities Commission Tribunal who had made the order in the first place.
However...the judge said, [that under the legislation that created the tribunal, it had...] "no power to intervene where it is alleged that a party is acting in breach of it's earlier decision"
Let's blame the Civil Service, or Jimmy Saville, or Saadam Hussein, or Lawyers, or...
Ignorance is bliss, bliss is happiness, I am happy...to draw your attention to the possible connectivity in the foregoing.
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
# 10......totally agree...
# 11....the bill is now likely to be £ 300 million..
All ministers only deliver`` the civil servants words but the name of the game is the ``politicians `` are in
`charge` and must carry the can.......but now the blame game has started.....so are all this government`s ``U`` turns over
the last two and a half years down to civil servants ?
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,942
of course the minister is to blame
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
No Keith - you want to paint the Minister with the blame whereas the truth is the Minister commissioned PWC to audit the bid that exposed the problem.
The Minister is responsible, that is different to being at fault personally.
Guest 698- Registered: 28 May 2010
- Posts: 8,664
Seems to me the previous minister acted correctly in appointing auditors and the new minister acted correctly in holding his mandarins to account. Blame belongs with the people who screwed up and, vicariously, with whoever appointed them to their roles in the first place.
I'm an optimist. But I'm an optimist who takes my raincoat - Harold Wilson
Guest 716- Registered: 9 Jun 2011
- Posts: 4,010
The Whingers........for time immemorial all politicians have demanded the head of any Minister who had cocked-up big time
Now the Tories and closets say it`s ``unfair``....for months they have been asking for a definition of ``Fair``...even Bankers
fall on their sword.....
A Prime Minister is responsible for what happens on his watch.... responsibility goes down the line to his Ministers.....
this happened on the Ministers watch.....QED..........
Guest 655- Registered: 13 Mar 2008
- Posts: 10,247
Tell Messrs Brown and Blair that... QED
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
that's the main point reg is making barry, the buck has to stop at the top irrespective of who is in power.
