Re healthcare that is not the way it works, sometimes it does but there are flaws in the state policy of providing free secondary care, in some cases insurance is only needed for care which is not already provided by the state.

Deputy Sandra James also mentioned on a radio phone in that when we sign for the grant in the doctor surgery this is claimed from the States even for those who have private insurance.

Same with education, as Capita identified, those who wish to educate their children privately are nevertheless still given an unnecessary grant by taxpayers. (We don’t need to go back over this as we have just reiterated and summarised the two different points of view in our debate)

Report abuse

The attached report might help answer some of your questions.

Scrutiny committee review of the Staff Number Policy
http://www.gov.gg/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=74627&p=0

Page 15 has some examples in relation to 2008/2009.

“Reasons for new posts varied from increasing staffing to meet additional demand for existing services, the introduction of new services, requirements to implement legislative changes, and management restructuring.

Increased staffing to meet additional demand and requirements to implement legislative changes, both seem valid reasons for staff increases. Introduction of new services always requires justification and I think this is the point you are making and I agree.

I believe critics of the civil service are mostly concerned with increased staffing due to management restructuring.

Report abuse

Oh yes, I have one all right, but your posts are usually barbed and lack humour so I wasn’t expecting any different from you :)

Report abuse

That will be the jobs that we did perfectly well without prior to 10 years ago when the public sector was around 20% smaller. What ARE all those extra jobs for?

Report abuse

An independent time and motion study throughout the public sector would be the best way to assess it, but can you see the union welcoming that?

Not sure what point you are trying to make re private health insurance. Most people who have private health insurance surely claim off that and go private rather than claim from the States. That surely saves the States money, because the person is also paying into the Social Security scheme and not claiming on it, and so is subsidising those who do.

Just like those who pay income tax but who don’t educate their children in the States’ system, and who are therefore subsiding the States on a net basis. I think we’ve been there before!

Report abuse

It obviously didn’t appeal to your sense of humour – you do have one don’t you?

Report abuse

You seem to have all the answers on this topic, maybe you can tell us what all the ‘non-essential’ jobs in the public sector might be?

Report abuse

No one would wish for excessive public sector staffing but who is qualified to judge this?

Maybe it is better to look at excessive services for savings.

Many people have private health insurance which is under-utilised because of universal state benefits.

Education could make savings without the costly 11+ system and grant maintained colleges.

Report abuse

Well – every non-essential job in the public sector costs the taxpayer money, and that means there is less money for other taxpayer-funded services.

I don’t think there is anything wrong with having a leaner public sector, cutting waste where necessary, so that core health and education services don’t have to suffer, do you?

All taxpayers should want value for money, as then we won’t begrudge paying it.

Report abuse

And your point is?

Report abuse

Good concise answer but what has changed? All that has changed is life expectancy. The liabilities are therefore potentially higher but are no less controllable due to this factor.

Report abuse

so the States have tax money as the only option to pay in their contribution of the scheme, so all these people moaning about the states paying tax money into the fund as though there is another option available need to rethink their arguement and maybe reword their input on here a little.

I guess some of the doom sayers on here will be moaning the states use tax money to pay wages next and how that shouldnt come out their tax contributions, seems certain posters on here are misleading us into believing something which possibly isnt as they describe, are they press employees trying to sensationalise their next big story before it hits print.

I guess we will find out soon one way or another, in the meantime we have the press and hours of reading on here.

:)

Report abuse

Best I can do with 10 words.

Report abuse

A couple more posts on this and you will have broken the three hundred barrierwith a large proportion being just between the two of you.

Congratulations!

Report abuse

I can’t quite manage under 10 words but you asked how else it could be funded if not by the taxpayer. I was agreeing with you. It can ONLY be funded by the taxpayer as there is no other funding source available.

Report abuse