Poll: Which party will get your vote in the General Election?

[Biohazard]

Consultants are the people management/directors/governments get in when they haven't got a clue -- the consultants just basically make stuff up and sound very confident, make a pretty powerpoint diagram and spout to the management. Then take home their £800 (or whatever) a day.

I have a fair amount of experience with this in 7 years of government employment, particularly the recent pacesetter and e-service 'movements'.

The money spent on consultants and private companies is quite sickening for not an awful lot in return, except charts and buzz words/concepts. Or what could be done way way cheaper 'inhouse' given the right climate, ie not sacking people and deskilling others while getting in more consultants etc.

 

[Dolph]

Bringing someone in independent means 'consultants'. It means Andersons, or PWC, or independents. These people of course cost between £600 and £1200 a day (as Joe Bloggs from the pub wouldn't know where to start).

And believe me, this is the problem, they won't really know any more than anyone else which members of staff are watching youtube and which are working. In fact they'll know a lot less than the people who have actually worked there for 15 years!! Think about it -- you wander into a department you've never been in before -- everyone is nervous so they're madly working. You task .. 'Sack the losers'. What next? No-one admits they don't work that hard. You can't tell who has done what work. You're screwed. I know, I've worked a LOT with these guys. They just make it up, basically use gut feel to choose 'Phil stays, Gary goes', and say 'thanks very much' for the £4200 a week (and 'farm the account' -- say they need another 5 consultants in to do the job properly).

Consultants are the people management/directors/governments get in when they haven't got a clue -- the consultants just basically make stuff up and sound very confident and use words like 'PRINCE 2' and 'SYNERGY OF QUALITY AND MEASUREMENT', make a pretty powerpoint diagram and spout to the management. Then take home their £800 (or whatever) a day, thanks very much Mr Taxpayer I think I'll buy yet another plasma screen with your money from today.

I'm amazed this is your grand plan for how the tories are going to 'save money'.

oh, did I mention, I'm a consultant!

You're a consultant... I guest that why you have such a low opinion of them. If the only experience I had of consultants was you, I'd have a low opinion of them too.

How about a root and branch review of whether the service even needs to be provided by the government at all as a start?

What about the ONS efficiency reviews? Are they meaningless?

Do you think we are getting value for money from government spending?

 

[Biohazard]

You're a consultant... I guest that why you have such a low opinion of them. If the only experience I had of consultants was you, I'd have a low opinion of them too.

How about a root and branch review of whether the service even needs to be provided by the government at all as a start?

What about the ONS efficiency reviews? Are they meaningless?

Do you think we are getting value for money from government spending?

Does it sound like we are saying we are getting value for money with spending?

 

[Dolph]

Does it sound like we are saying we are getting value for money with spending?

Britboy certainly seems to be, given his general position throughout this thread, and his opposition to any cuts in government spending...

 

[Hatter The Mad]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/20/harriet-harman-class-general-election

Labour deputy leader to make inequality a key dividing line with Conservatives

Right...

Record Inequality. Inequality is now at a record high according to The Gini Coefficient – a commonly used internationally recognized measure of income inequality – it is now above the level that Labour inherited in 1997 and at the highest level since 1961.

Social Mobility Stalled. Despite Gordon Brown’s rhetoric, his policies have failed to improve social mobility. According to the Government’s very own report, Cabinet Office, Getting on, getting ahead, “Although social mobility did not fall between 1970 and 2000, policy did not succeed in increasing it”. Independent research by the highly respected Sutton Trust has found that Britain has one of the lowest levels of social mobility in the developed world.

Almost 1 million more in 'severe' poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the number of people living in severe poverty has risen by 900,000 since 1997.

Poorest Getting Poorer. According to the Department of Work and Pensions own report, Households Below Average Income 2007/08, the income of the poorest 10 percent of households has been falling for the past four years and is now £9 a week lower in real terms than in 2002. Over the same period the richest 10 percent of households have seen their incomes grow in real terms by £94 a week. The income of the poorest 10 per cent of households is the same now in real terms as it was in 1999.

Pensioner Poverty Higher than in 1997. There are 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty (defined as living in a household with an income below 60 per cent of median income, before housing costs), 100,000 more than in 1996-97.

Is Ms. Harman sure about creating this 'dividing line'?

 

[Naffa]

What can I say? It's what you get when you elect a right wing party. Capitalism fails.

 

[Pestilence]

They just make it up, basically use gut feel to choose 'Phil stays, Gary goes', and say 'thanks very much' for the £4200 a week (and 'farm the account' -- say they need another 5 consultants in to do the job properly).

Consultants are the people management/directors/governments get in when they haven't got a clue -- the consultants just basically make stuff up and sound very confident and use words like 'PRINCE 2' and 'SYNERGY OF QUALITY AND MEASUREMENT', make a pretty powerpoint diagram and spout to the management. Then take home their £800 (or whatever) a day, thanks very much Mr Taxpayer I think I'll buy yet another plasma screen with your money from today.

The absolute truth, whether or not it's to do with official bodies.

"Consultants" are leeches, preying upon companies and bodies that quite often don't realise they have someone sitting in the lower echelons that could give them the same, if not better, service due to sheer lack of common sense or understanding.

It's ridiculously easy money. "Farming the account" is very real - like a pack, others will be alerted to "get in!".

It's refreshing that you tell it like it is, and power to you.

 

[scorza]

Consultants are the people management/directors/governments get in when they haven't got a clue -- the consultants just basically make stuff up and sound very confident and use words like 'PRINCE 2' and 'SYNERGY OF QUALITY AND MEASUREMENT', make a pretty powerpoint diagram and spout to the management. Then take home their £800 (or whatever) a day, thanks very much Mr Taxpayer I think I'll buy yet another plasma screen with your money from today.

I worked at one company where senior management would not implement any scheme unless it came from a management consultant. The result was you had middle managers hiring these consultants, then telling them to write a report that had these findings, and that the company should adopt this scheme the middle manager had thought of. Not surprisingly the consultants were more than happy to do this, and the senior management thought that they were getting outstanding value from their consultants

The sad thing is, the two consultants in the film Office Space (The Two Bobs) are realistic portrayals of modern management consultants.

 

[britboy4321]

Britboy certainly seems to be, given his general position throughout this thread, and his opposition to any cuts in government spending...

I can't remember

1) Ever suggesting we were getting value for money
2) Showing any opposition to cuts in government spending

But apart from that -- you were on the money.

 

[britboy4321]

I worked at one company where senior management would not implement any scheme unless it came from a management consultant. The result was you had middle managers hiring these consultants, then telling them to write a report that had these findings, and that the company should adopt this scheme the middle manager had thought of. Not surprisingly the consultants were more than happy to do this, and the senior management thought that they were getting outstanding value from their consultants

The sad thing is, the two consultants in the film Office Space (The Two Bobs) are realistic portrayals of modern management consultants.

Yea I've done projects like that. The fundermental problem is normally that the directors don't trust the senior managers when they should. Directors often don't know how the 'shop floor' works or even middle management -- and, worse, presume that everyone beneath them has motive to tell them porkies / be lazy / tell them bad information. Critically the directors don't know what the problems are in their own company, and don't trust their own people to tell them (or alternatively they've tried, and their own people don't know how to be diplomatic, formal, to the point, and encouraging to the directors- their staff given the chance just moan about everything (one of my basically clients asked his staff why the business wasn't working and they (including managers) came back with a load of 'er .. dunno' and 'Sharon likes the air conditioning too high' and 'Tony keeps calling me names' and 'Debbie said I wasn't allowed Monday as holiday'. Hopeless!!) In come the consultants at a massive daily wack..

So what do you do? Well some of the time the directors just want you to agree with some mad-scheme they've invented because they're unsure of themselves. Easy. Otherwise you interview all the senior managers below directors - politely ignore the ones that are numpties that can't think of what could be improved, ask the rest of them what they think should change- take what they say and basically reword it (in the poshest language you can) and change a couple of (virtually random) unimportant bits in case the directors were listening when the manager tried to talk to them.. spend a couple of days writing an extremely formal report (powerpoint is your friend - clipart isn't!), and speil it out to the directors.

Tell the directors they need 3 more consultants and another 4 weeks analysis. Write an invoice for £11,400 for the 3 weeks. Go home. Play computer games.

 

[Dolph]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/jan/20/harriet-harman-class-general-election

Right...

Record Inequality. Inequality is now at a record high according to The Gini Coefficient – a commonly used internationally recognized measure of income inequality – it is now above the level that Labour inherited in 1997 and at the highest level since 1961.

Social Mobility Stalled. Despite Gordon Brown’s rhetoric, his policies have failed to improve social mobility. According to the Government’s very own report, Cabinet Office, Getting on, getting ahead, “Although social mobility did not fall between 1970 and 2000, policy did not succeed in increasing it”. Independent research by the highly respected Sutton Trust has found that Britain has one of the lowest levels of social mobility in the developed world.

Almost 1 million more in 'severe' poverty. The Institute for Fiscal Studies found that the number of people living in severe poverty has risen by 900,000 since 1997.

Poorest Getting Poorer. According to the Department of Work and Pensions own report, Households Below Average Income 2007/08, the income of the poorest 10 percent of households has been falling for the past four years and is now £9 a week lower in real terms than in 2002. Over the same period the richest 10 percent of households have seen their incomes grow in real terms by £94 a week. The income of the poorest 10 per cent of households is the same now in real terms as it was in 1999.

Pensioner Poverty Higher than in 1997. There are 2.5 million pensioners living in poverty (defined as living in a household with an income below 60 per cent of median income, before housing costs), 100,000 more than in 1996-97.

Is Ms. Harman sure about creating this 'dividing line'?

What's really tragic is that many people will fall for it, especially those who have been most disadvantaged by Labour.

I do wonder whether it is the party or its supporters that lack the ability or will to actually link evidence with events.

 

[britboy4321]

What's really tragic is that many people will fall for it, especially those who have been most disadvantaged by Labour.

I do wonder whether it is the party or its supporters that lack the ability or will to actually link evidence with events.

I think that if you asked 500 people which party is more likely make the rich richer and the poor poorer (than they would be under a more left wing government), 96% would say 'the tories'. It's seen as political fact.

To say poor people have been more disadvantaged by this left wing government than they would have with 10 years of a right-wing government is simply naive. Tories reduce tax, reduce public services, reduce government. No matter how much you argue against it, this is the fundermental corner-stone of their entire organisation.

Basically they only say public services won't be affected to persuade dafties to vote for them. Read a broadsheet, and they always change it to 'FRONT LINE' services won't be affected'. Because they know they're preaching to a less-daft part of the populous, who realise cuts inevitably mean worse service..

 

[doodah]

I think that if you asked 500 people which party is more likely make the rich richer and the poor poorer (than they would be under a more left wing government), 96% would say 'the tories'. It's seen as political fact.

I love how you use the word fact when there isn't actually a single one in that sentance. Yet that article is full of facts. Finally; left wing government?

 

[Dolph]

I think that if you asked 500 people which party is more likely make the rich richer and the poor poorer (than they would be under a more left wing government), 96% would say 'the tories'. It's seen as political fact.

To say poor people have been more disadvantaged by this left wing government than they would have with 10 years of a right-wing government is simply naive. Tories reduce tax, reduce public services, reduce government. No matter how much you argue against it, this is the fundermental corner-stone of their entire organisation.

Basically they only say public services won't be affected to persuade dafties to vote for them. Read a broadsheet, and they always change it to 'FRONT LINE' services won't be affected'. Because they know they're preaching to a less-daft part of the populous, who realise cuts inevitably mean worse service..

Unfortunately, the evidence clearly shows otherwise. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason. Both parties have made the rich richer and the poor poorer, because we approach the whole problem from fundamentally the wrong direction by working to trap people via the benefits system...

As for public services, I only care about frontline services, why does anything else actually matter? Any work being done that is irrelevant to the frontline is pointless makeup work in a service driven enviroment...

You also talk about reducing government and government influence as if it is a bad thing...

 

[britboy4321]

I think that if you asked 500 people which party is more likely make the rich richer and the poor poorer (than they would be under a more left wing government), 96% would say 'the tories'. It's seen as political fact.

I love how you use the word fact when there isn't actually a single one in that sentance. Yet that article is full of facts. Finally; left wing government?

If I say 'I think the world is flat' and I actually do -- then the sentence is correct, and does contain a fact (about what I think). Therefore you lose on a technicality. Sorry.

 

[britboy4321]

Unfortunately, the evidence clearly shows otherwise. Argumentum ad populum is a fallacy for a reason. Both parties have made the rich richer and the poor poorer, because we approach the whole problem from fundamentally the wrong direction by working to trap people via the benefits system...

As for public services, I only care about frontline services, why does anything else actually matter? Any work being done that is irrelevant to the frontline is pointless makeup work in a service driven enviroment...

You also talk about reducing government and government influence as if it is a bad thing...

Don't you remember, You said we can reduce costs without reducing any part of the service the public sector provides.

Me, and the conservatives, say at least second-line services the public sector provides will be affected.

Who is wrong? You? Or me AND the conservatives? :\



incidentally the tories haven't come up with any formal definition what constitutes a 'front line service' of course. For 10 points .. why would they not specify what they actually mean by 'front line services unaffected'? Lol?

 

[Mr-White]

The quality of candidates must be pretty high when nearly 18% of people don't give a **** lol

MW

 

[DominicStar]

Both parties have made the rich richer and the poor poorer, because we approach the whole problem from fundamentally the wrong direction by working to trap people via the benefits system...

Maybe I am wrong or it just doesn't read right, but every time you make that point, you seem to imply everyone on benefits has no incentive to work. You have to be at a certain point in the benefits system to be trapped by it.
People on minimal salaries in single households, especially people too young for tax credits, people with mortgages etc don't have this kind of disincentive.

Benefits (for the unemployed at least) in real terms are stingier than ever and people who want anything other than a basic subsistence, have every incentive to work. The problem with that hardcore of people is that they will live in poor circumstances with next to nothing because they have no aspiration and are lazy. Though there are far too many of them, reducing benefit won't hurt them a great deal, whilst having a much more detrimental effect on those who just use the system to fall back on until they get on their feet again.

 

[Dolph]

Don't you remember, You said we can reduce costs without reducing any part of the service the public sector provides.

Me, and the conservatives, say at least second-line services the public sector provides will be affected.

Who is wrong? You? Or me AND the conservatives? :\

incidentally the tories haven't come up with any formal definition what constitutes a 'front line service' of course. For 10 points .. why would they not specify what they actually mean by 'front line services unaffected'? Lol?

Frontline services are the customer facing aspect of the service, the rest of it is not. Given that these agencies and services exist to provide the service to customers (albeit with an inefficient split between recipients of services and those who pay for them), that has to be their focus.

Anything else is the priority to cut, with the aim of not impacting the overall customer facing service (or frontline service).

Is everything the NHS, or the DSS, or the CSA undertakes necessary to maintain the frontline service given?

Maybe I am wrong or it just doesn't read right, but every time you make that point, you seem to imply everyone on benefits has no incentive to work. You have to be at a certain point in the benefits system to be trapped by it.
People on minimal salaries in single households, especially people too young for tax credits, people with mortgages etc don't have this kind of disincentive.

Benefits (for the unemployed at least) in real terms are stingier than ever and people who want anything other than a basic subsistence, have every incentive to work. The problem with that hardcore of people is that they will live in poor circumstances with next to nothing because they have no aspiration and are lazy. Though there are far too many of them, reducing benefit won't hurt them a great deal, whilst having a much more detrimental effect on those who just use the system to fall back on until they get on their feet again.

There is no incentive to work in the level of employment most long term benefit claimants are likely to achieve. This is what is known as the benefit trap, and it is caused by the number of means tested exemptions built into the system and the approach to withdrawing support rather than providing support to everyone...

This doesn't mean everyone on benefits is in that position, but I'm a firm believer in equality, so if the state has to provide a minimum level of support, it should provide it for everyone...

 

[Technika]