bluemonday Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 So the entire exercise consisits of restructuring and rebranding No redundancies No change Just different names Mr Brown said: 'The reduction in the Island's share of VAT revenue has created an urgent need for us to renew the drive for new business and new income. I see the Chief Hobbit doesn't seem to mention any possibility of making savings Wonderful Perhaps an additional department, working title - Department For Pissing Taxpayers Money Up Against The Wall On Grandiose Schemes Carry on Arkwright Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mutley Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 that leaves Martin Quayle and the Dept of Health! Is there anyone who can come in from outside? I've a pot plant surplus to requirements that would do a better job than him. Vote Yucca! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Slim Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Those who can, do. Those who can't reorganise.Tony Brown (no relative of mine I hope) - you're a waste of space! He's head of government. You don't think he actually drew the diagram do you? This has been a pretty well documented process, most of the recommendations make perfect sense if you consider Would it kill you to say something nice? Does it make you feel special looming over the forums bleating about how bad the IOM is? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bluemonday Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 You don't think he actually drew the diagram do you? That'll be Martins job as he's got the colouring book ( ref Manx Downfall ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 If you want more background on how this will achieve the aims, read the review document:http://docs.google.com/viewer?url=http://w...ureofgovern.pdf Under sections 2.3 and 2.4 they comment on the earlier report's sensible suggestions for the efficient savings and service improvements in national & local government. The response to almost every point is - The Committee does not support the Review Report recommendation. They've spent three years deciding not to do anything. Also interesting that in some instances DAFF have decided not to wait for them to report on the original report and acted it upon the recommendations, and they describe DAFF's actions as successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt W E Johns Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 I'd like to see Alan Bell move to Economic Development Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 Also despite having two departments focused on economic matters, the OFT (including, I assume the Financial Services Ombudsman scheme) is under Department of Community, Culture and Leisure Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave Hedgehog Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 I'd like to see Alan Bell move to Economic Development Probably best that our only competent politician remains in charge of the pursestrings I reckon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pragmatopian Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 An excellent example of shuffling deck chairs on the Titanic. Keep up the good work, Tony! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Shoe Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 • The re-structuring is not being undertaken as a means of making staff redundant.• Almost all of you will see no real change to how you work, where you work or who you report to. where exactly are the savings? as far as i can see, this will COST not SAVE having the same people doing the same jobs in the same location doesn't suddenly enable us to bring home more bacon. this is bizarre. just "shaking" the system doesn't make it better. and if you shake it now, you can't then shake it again for, oooo, ages. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 Those who can, do. Those who can't reorganise.Tony Brown (no relative of mine I hope) - you're a waste of space! He's head of government. You don't think he actually drew the diagram do you? This has been a pretty well documented process, most of the recommendations make perfect sense if you consider Would it kill you to say something nice? Does it make you feel special looming over the forums bleating about how bad the IOM is? The recommendations only make perfect sense IF they work! One problem with changing things along lines drawn up some time ago is that these days things move along so rapidly they might already be out of date. Just an observation, nothing more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Terse Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 3. Where's Local Government? Local government, planning, highways, airports and responsibility for the utilities will be overseen by a new Department of the Infrastructure. The thought of someone like Anderson in charge of that is a truly terrifying thought. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Capt W E Johns Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 I'd like to see Alan Bell move to Economic Development Probably best that our only competent politician remains in charge of the pursestrings I reckon. Take your point but we do need an enterprising individual to drive economic development in a sensible manner Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Declan Posted February 1, 2010 Author Share Posted February 1, 2010 The Dept of the Environment seems rather lightweight, when compared to the others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sarahc Posted February 1, 2010 Share Posted February 1, 2010 • The re-structuring is not being undertaken as a means of making staff redundant.• Almost all of you will see no real change to how you work, where you work or who you report to. where exactly are the savings? as far as i can see, this will COST not SAVE having the same people doing the same jobs in the same location doesn't suddenly enable us to bring home more bacon. this is bizarre. just "shaking" the system doesn't make it better. and if you shake it now, you can't then shake it again for, oooo, ages. They've got to say that though to give it a chance of being approved. It's quite a good way of trimming staff. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.