Originally posted by: jarathoon
Every department of government has to find ways of cutting back office costs and increasing frontline productivity.
Where is your evidence to show that the office work being done is not all neccessary and/or that it is taking a significant resource from the 'front line' and which would otherwise provide a solution to the current issues?
You assume that cutting one will solve the other whereas you will likely just have two areas messed up; hardly well thought out!
The UK Environment Agency seems to have significantly more resources than any other equivalent agency in Europe.
What difference does that make? Let's say you run a project and that has enough workload for 20 people and you have 20 people and yet I run a project and I have a workload for 50 people and yet have 40 people. I am struggling because I am 10 people short but your answer would be that I 'seem to have more resources' and which does not address the problem.
I have dealt with the EA and understand a bit about the changes which have come about over the last 25 years or so and what the EA have to cover and whilst they could do a bit better in some areas overall they are under resourced. Other government departments fiddle and f&rt about with things and then make changes which also impact on the EA and require it to have to do certain admin work. The EU makes legislative changes which then have to be implemented in all member states and which then impact on the EA. It's all fine and dandy for brown, blair, clegg and cameron and co who just showcase themselves and agree to just about everything without any real understanding of the workload involved, because by the time it becomes an issue they will either be able to blame it on the last lot or else will have moved on. It's like that boss who says 'I do not care what is involved, just get it done' and then later on when there is a significant failure points the finger at you and says 'well James never told me he needed more resources' even though you probably did several times over.
The EA is headed by an unqualified and inexperienced individual and is underfunded for the work it has to do.
If you want a comparable example let's talk about transport shall we; HS2, billions on the Olympics and yet the roads are full of pot holes and yet only a 3rd of the money raised by car tax is spent on the roads. They are now talking about abandoning some of the roads they are that bad. Tell me James do you hear the transport secretary screaming for more finance or should we just cut the office staff and give them shovels and ask them to fill the pot holes? Do not concern yourself too much though because once it becomes a political issue then the relevant political leaders will talk about it; but without mentioning that they were the ones who allowed it to happen in the first place; or was that the last lot.
The budgets are a mess and inexperienced people are in charge. I think the solution is for engineers and scientists etc., to become MP's. I am voting for you James and then you can head DECC, you seem to know what you are talking about.