Reply to: Can we have a government shutdown as well?

[petergriffin]

Would we notice?

Sooner than many think.

[SussexSeagull]

Would we notice?

[hyperD]

Maybe MPs should be volunteers? Volunteering to help your country, I mean how patriotic is that?

I think in the past they were unpaid and did this through what they thought was best for their country. Their experience in the real world, the lessons learnt (uuurgh, hate that phrase).

Now we have these bunch of lawyers, privileged and career parasites that think only of themselves and pay the piper to sit and nurture within the belly of the beast.

Hideous scum the lot of them.

[sasguru]

It's the poor who are ruining this country because they earn too much.

There's an element of truth in this: in Germany exporters have prospered at the expense of capping workers pay, with the result that for the first time in Germany poverty and income inequality is increasing even as the country's stats show it doing well.

[darmstadt]

Volunteers are replacing paid workers at an alarming rate.

Maybe MPs should be volunteers? Volunteering to help your country, I mean how patriotic is that?

[Jog On]

Volunteers are replacing paid workers at an alarming rate.

My last gig was putting in a Citrix desktop for a local authority so that anyone (read: unpaid volunteers) could access it from any device anywhere.

I think this is getting rolled out across more govt departments.

The pushback from the permies for anything to do with this project was unbelievable. I suppose to them it was like helping dig their own graves...

[petergriffin]

It's the poor who are ruining this country because they earn too much.

[darmstadt]

WHS and when the money's up, it's up. I'd add that the BoE should never hand government more than 95% of the revenues to ensure a reserve is built up, possibly in a Norwegian style sovereign wealth fund. I think the time has come to seperate the buggerers from the spunkers.

FTFY

[scooterscot]

We already have

Volunteers are replacing paid workers at an alarming rate.

[Mich the Tester]

Because there are tasks which need to be done, but aren't essential.

For example, if you are at war, you have essential staff such as those doing the actual fighting. You also have civilian staff who do the payroll, who aren't essential in the same way, but are necessary for the essential staff to get the job done. Same with everyday policing - you have essential staff on the beat, and non-essentials doing the rest of the work to support the front-line staff.

Maybe front-line is a better term than essential.

Yes; the rest you've described are 'essential'.

[DirtyDog]

Why does the government employ 'non-essential' people?

Because there are tasks which need to be done, but aren't essential.

For example, if you are at war, you have essential staff such as those doing the actual fighting. You also have civilian staff who do the payroll, who aren't essential in the same way, but are necessary for the essential staff to get the job done. Same with everyday policing - you have essential staff on the beat, and non-essentials doing the rest of the work to support the front-line staff.

Maybe front-line is a better term than essential.

[DirtyDog]

That was the debt ceiling, which is the one that's up in a couple of weeks. This is the budget.

It would be good to have some kind of restrictions on future UK governments that they at least have to make the books balance. Perhaps it's another area where the BoE need to get involved to ensure the long term future of the economy isn't sabotaged by politicians looking to buy votes: I.e. the BoE dictates the total budget, and the politicians get to decide where to spend it, rather than the current system where a party with a majority can flip everything up for decades and nobody can stop them.

You need a strong, elected upper house to do that. Even so, that doesn't guarantee it will happen - George W Bush had a republican house and senate which meant that he could push through massive tax breaks for the rich, turning a surplus into a deficit.

Having regular elections for different portions of the houses of parliament would be handy, though, so rather than the regular replacement of the whole house of commons, you replace a quarter each year, so that the current opinion is reflected in the commons. The downsides of that are that you have politicians constantly campaigning, rather than doing work, and you need a separate head of government.

[suityou01]

Well, I did a stint at the Dutch social security office and one at a Dutch provincial government and concluded that both could be closed down with minimal effect and replaced by a Bob that kicks off a batch job once a month.

<Rubs chin>Plan B? bobsbatchjobs.com</Rubs chin>

[Mich the Tester]

Cheaper than keeping them in a home for 'special people' (You really do have to see some of these 'civil servants' at work to understand).

This is a replay of a conversation I overheard in the smoking area ...

"Hello, I thought you were on leave."

"No, I've been on a training course for the last two days."

"Oh lovely, what's the course about?"

"I don't know."

Well, I did a stint at the Dutch social security office and one at a Dutch provincial government and concluded that both could be closed down with minimal effect and replaced by a Bob that kicks off a batch job once a month.

[bless 'em all]

Why does the government employ 'non-essential' people?

Cheaper than keeping them in a home for 'special people' (You really do have to see some of these 'civil servants' at work to understand).

This is a replay of a conversation I overheard in the smoking area ...

"Hello, I thought you were on leave."

"No, I've been on a training course for the last two days."

"Oh lovely, what's the course about?"

"I don't know."