Skip to main content
Labour’s job cuts fraud

New hiring spree makes a nonsense of Brown’s cuts pledge, says Shadow Chancellor, Oliver Letwin.

The Government has embarked on a summer jobs hiring spree – despite Gordon Brown’s pledge to cutback on civil service jobs.

In the four weeks since the Chancellor announced plans to slash more than 100,000 bureaucratic posts, nearly 1,000 public sector jobs - with salaries adding up to £36 million – have been advertised.

These include 830 posts advertised in the Guardian newspaper’s Society section, plus another 158 in other national newspapers.

Included are jobs like a “liveability manager” at Havant Council on a salary of more than £45,000, and an “integrated enforcement co-ordinator” at the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister earning £33,642 a year.

One of posts is a regional “performance manager and risk officer” for the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health – which ministers announced in July would be scrapped. Others include an “improving working lives co-ordinator” for the North Central London Strategic Health Authority, on a salary of £29,000; a “cycle programme manager” for Transport for London, paid almost £50,000 a year; and a “diversity manager” for Walsall Council on £44,000.

Protested Shadow Chancellor Oliver Letwin: “These figures are yet more evidence that the Government's claim to be cutting back on the bureaucracy is fraudulent. In just four summer weeks, the public sector is hiring back-office staff, who will cost £36 million a year in salaries alone.”

He told conservatives.com: “The funniest and, at the same time the saddest, element of this fraud is that people are being hired to add to the numbers in a quango that the Government recently announced it was abolishing. Adding staff to quangos that do exist is bad enough; adding staff to quangos that don't exist is the ultimate sign of a government that has grown so fat it can't even see its own flab.”

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Civilisational Data Mining

It’s a new expression I haven’t heard before. ‘Civilisational data mining.’

Let me start by putting it in some context. Every character, you or I have typed into the Google search engine or Facebook over the last decade, means something, to someone or perhaps ‘something,’ if it’s an algorithm.


In May 2014, journalists revealed that the United States National Security Agency, the NSA, was recording and archiving every single cell-phone conversation that took place in the Bahamas. In the process they managed to transform a significant proportion of a society’s day to day interactions into unstructured data; valuable information which can of course be analysed, correlated and transformed for whatever purpose the intelligence agency deems fit.

And today, I read that a GOP-hired data company in the United States has ‘leaked’ personal information, preferences and voting intentions on… wait for it… 198 million US citizens.

Within another decade or so, the cost of sequencing the human genome …

The Nature of Nurture?

Recently, I found myself in a fascinating four-way Twitter exchange, with Professor Adam Rutherford and two other science-minded friends The subject, frequently regarded as a delicate one, genetics and whether there could exist an unknown but contributory genetic factor(s) or influences in determining what we broadly understand or misunderstand as human intelligence.

I won’t discuss this subject in any great detail here, being completely unqualified to do so, but I’ll point you at the document we were discussing, and Rutherford’s excellent new book, ‘A Brief History of Everyone.”

What had sparked my own interest was the story of my own grandfather, Edmond Greville; unless you are an expert on the history of French cinema, you are unlikely to have ever hear of him but he still enjoys an almost cult-like following for his work, half a century after his death.

I've been enjoying the series "Genius" on National Geographic about the life of Albert Einstein. The four of us ha…
The Mandate of Heaven

eGov Monitor Version

“Parliament”, said my distinguished friend “has always leaked like a sieve”.

I’m researching the thorny issue of ‘Confidence in Public Sector Computing’ and we were discussing the dangers presented by the Internet. In his opinion, information security is an oxymoron, which has no place being discussed in a Parliament built upon the uninterrupted flow of information of every kind, from the politically sensitive to the most salacious and mundane.

With the threat of war hanging over us, I asked if MPs should be more aware of the risks that surround this new communications medium? More importantly, shouldn’t the same policies and precautions that any business might use to protect itself and its staff, be available to MPs?

What concerns me is that my well-respected friend mostly considers security in terms of guns, gates and guards. He now uses the Internet almost as much as he uses the telephone and the Fax machine and yet the growing collective t…