SkyscraperCity banner
1 - 20 of 24 Posts

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Shamelessly stolen from the Brum subforum

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=39811412&postcount=1

theonly point I make is they assume that public sector job loses will be uniform across the country, they could well be, but initiatives like Whitehall of the North are trying to convience the government that the money can be saved by moving jobs away from London, hence actually increasing public sector employment in some areas.

Either way, we are fooked.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
Yes, and that is the important point. Over dependence on teh public sector stifles long term recovery as anything meaningful, especially as so much of the local public sector is there to manage the local poverty....etc!

Good find.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,167 Posts
Good point Metrolink.

I think that as the purse strings get tighter, we might see an acceleration of the Lyons review, so London may see a net loss of jobs whereas places that are cheaper to operate from could potentially see rises.

It's an interesting report anyway.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
It is stunning given how much people love to big up th smallest of tiny events in their towns and cities, such a core, enormous subject like this gets so little discussion on these pages.

I have not managed to find the raw data that made up this report, has anyone seen it?

If we are to assume that 10% of the public sector will disappear, on average, across the UK (sure some will be more, some less) but surely the fact that potentially 10% of more than half of the economy of some places totally disappearing in the space of just five years or so is going to have a much more dramatic effect than any high speed rail line, light rail line or even an ice rink!

Cannot believe most of the people on here, don't think they live on the same planet as I do.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #6 ·
Page 16...

http://www.centreforcities.org/assets/files/09-07-16 Public sector cities.pdf

Relocation, relocation
The other policy area for central government to consider is civil service
relocations. Under the Lyons programme 19,090 posts have been relocated
outside of the GSE. In the 2009 Budget, the Government extended the target
number of relocations by 4,000 jobs to 24,000. Given the small number of jobs
in question the Lyons programme has been afforded far too much prominence.
Even the Budget increase is a tiny number of posts that may largely be taken
up by the proposed new civil service campus in Manchester.27
The relocation programme has arguably been a distraction for cities. Cities,
and predominantly publicly funded organisations, have spent a lot of time
and resource effectively advertising themselves to Whitehall. Government
commitment to relocations is pro-cyclical and therefore likely to fall further in
future. Relocations are more attractive during a boom when property prices in
London and the South East diverge most widely from the rest of the country.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #7 ·
oh, and add in the table on page 6 with ...

8. A number of cities had experienced falls in public administration employment prior to 1998, . It is particularly important to
note Sheffield (-28 percent), Cardiff (-20 percent) and Manchester (-16 percent) between 1995 and 1998.
“Whichever
party forms the
next government
will need to reevaluate
public
service provision
and reduce
government
spending”
0%
20%
40%
-10%
10%
30%
50%
60%
70%
80%
Shefeld
Birmingham
Liverpool
% change in employment (1998 - 2007)
Cardiff
Manchester
Newcastle
Leeds
Bristol
Nottingham
London
Edinburgh
Glasgow
Public
administration
Education
Health &
Social work
Does not quite add up to Manchester getting everything from London really does it?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
FFS metro, it had to come out eventually. Does Eastlands show up on those statistics of Government largesse? No, it doesn't, nor will the annual costs of BBC Manchester and all the other stuff the city has been gifted over the decades.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #9 ·
No, suppose it doesn't, just like any EU money Manchester has had in those years.

But then again, any English city could have had the Commonwealth games, and all that went with that in 2002 couldn't they? If only they had bothered being involved in the bidding process.

Next thing you will tell me is the government chose the winner of the 2002 Commonwealth Games :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

Anyway, it does blow some of the myths away doesn't it Tony?

Why is there so little praise on the Liverpool boards for the great effort that has meant that Liverpool has received more 'Lyon's jobs' than anywhere else in the country?

Given the similar local tax levels, surprising to see such a disparity in the public sector size in the core cities isn't it? However, kind of blows away the idea that Manchester gets everything from London at the expense of everywhere else!

But hey, concentrate on tiny, miniscule events like the £95m for the Commonwealth Games, after all, compared against the £100m that the DfT gives MerseyTravel to subsidy MerseyRail each year those sums are so important.

You are so obsessed with what is going on in Manchester you simply cannot see the wood for the trees.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
yes, especially the one about Manchester being auniquely dynamic metropolis of the provinces. To argue that Manchester does not get hugely more public and quasi public funds is ridiculous... again, I ask, just look at the phone listings?


you started the bun fight then anyway, and as your agenda is silly boosterism for manchester I responded accordingly.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #11 ·
I am sure you will do the honours and posta link to show that I have eve suggested that Manchester is in anyway unique in the UK provinces.

Yes, I have said it has achived higher private sector growth over the last decade than most, but by no means huge growth - that report bears that out.
Go on, show me those phone listings, tell me about how Liverpool did not have the third highest growth in the public sector admin over the last decade - behind Brum (your model city) and Cardiff. Also, how at 36.0% of the work force Liverpool is not the fifth highest public sector workforce in the country - behind Hastings, Belfast, Swansea and Dundee (Oxford and Cambridge taken out for obvious reasons).

As I said, you cannot see the wood for the trees, you see the odd headline about BBC moving to Salford, yet ignore the enormous public sector already in place in places like Liverpool.

Keep up those tinted glasses Tony - you really are one hell of a blind scouser.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,481 Posts
One thing that this report seems to disragard is that not all public sector jobs are created equally. For instance it is easier to get rid of support staff than operational staff. It's easier to reduce numbers of individuals where work can be spread among the remaining staff (nurses, teachers) than positions where individuals are the only ones trained in their job. It's easier to get rid of agency staff than the unionised public sector workforce. It would be interesting to see a breakdown of cities public employees by sector and grade to see where will be worst hit.

With these difference in mind I would guess that cities with large numbers of civil service back offices are likely to be hard hit. The health service seems to be being protected (it seems to be considered politically unfeasible to go back to the old Tory policy of underfunding health) but expensive facillities are going to be rationalised. Schools are now responsible for their own budgets and I would imagine teachers will be sacked. Similarly universities should soon be shedding staff and university towns may suffer in the short term.

The 'regional capitals' might fare a bit better than average as efficiency drives are going to lead to a lot more collaboration across local boundaries. Local government is probably going to not be renewing contracts as the short term funded projects come to an end and services are going to have to work outside their traditional work areas. I would also imagine the whole regeneration aparatus will be cut back severely as its funding dries up.

However this isn't entirely a bad thing. Any investment in the public sector will produce duplication and redundacy that needs eventually to be cut back. If those people let go are highly motivated and skilled employees then when growth does begin again they will be an asset to the cities they live in. The danger is low skilled staff trained in a specific area who will find it hard to transfer those skills across. But since we don't know where they're working its hard to predict which cities are in the best or worst position.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #13 ·
Che - the report actually discusses the different roles, and how they are spread.

You talk about 'regional' centres, yet their dependency, and hence (RELATIVE) 'success' in recent times is very mixed.

For example, why has Tony's 'beacon' city of Brum seen a decline in private sector employment despite being a regional centre, likewise Newcastle.

Whereas places like Swindown and Milton Keynes have fared incredibly well, despite being nothing like their 'regional capital'.

For too long people on these pages make massively over simplistic assumptions, based on tiny pieces of evidence that simply do not stack up when compared to the entire economy / stratergy of the UK / regions / subregions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
18,269 Posts
why do you hate Brum so?

You may play with the 'evidence' but you cannot change the substance, so you ignore it.

As I've said to you countless times, I do not have a fixation with Manchester of a victim mentality about all things Liverpool, we are all pissing from the bottom of the economic cliff as far as relevance goes. Some contest that Manchester is a beacon of entrepreneutrial dynamism, I've just suggested that it isn't, it has just been provided with a box to stand on from the government so it can appear to be pissing slightly higher up the wall!
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #15 ·
I ain't pissing on Brum, just questioning why you suggested it was the model city to copy if you wanted to regenerate a city.

I'll ask again, if Manchester has been given this helping hand, how come it managed to make better use of this advantage than say Birmingham, or Newcastle? Both of which would surely also be considered to have had an advantage over the last decade as far as you are concerned, but the report linked above suggests they are in a very vunerabal position.

Likewise, Swindow, Milton Keynes and half a dozen of the most successful cities were not 'regional capaitals' if your theory that you had to be the 'regional capital' to get this helping had was true, I would have expected all the 'regional capitals' to have done better on average than the other places - looking at the data that does not appear to be the case!

Oh, and you were going to post that link to any posting that I have ever made that suggested Manchester was a centre of entrepreneutrial dynamism - I have never said it was. Sure if out performs the UK non-London cities on average, 2nd highest VAT registrations for the core cities as the report states, however, that is not exactly claiming much in UK terms.

Wood for the trees Tony, you are obsessed by teh idea that somehow the government have handed Manchester this great chance by somehow creating the evil regional setup, totally ignoring the much more important goings on further afield across teh entire country, and the actual level of support than Manchester gains compared to other cities.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,481 Posts
Che - the report actually discusses the different roles, and how they are spread.

You talk about 'regional' centres, yet their dependency, and hence (RELATIVE) 'success' in recent times is very mixed.

For example, why has Tony's 'beacon' city of Brum seen a decline in private sector employment despite being a regional centre, likewise Newcastle.

Whereas places like Swindown and Milton Keynes have fared incredibly well, despite being nothing like their 'regional capital'.

For too long people on these pages make massively over simplistic assumptions, based on tiny pieces of evidence that simply do not stack up when compared to the entire economy / stratergy of the UK / regions / subregions.
I only read the Exec Summary and skimmed the rest so I probably missed it. Have they done any mapping of roles to particular cities then? I didn't see any when I skipped through, but I would be interested in looking if someone has a page reference.

By regional centres doing well I mean in the sense that they will likely lose relatively fewer public sector workers over the next 5 years than other cities; not that they will gain more public sector workers or that they will attract disproportionate private investment. Simply that people in the GOs will find their roles more important in a time of streamlining local services. For instance a call centre could probably shed 10% of staff without having a hugely negative affect on its service quality. But if you want to save money from integrating regional services you can't get rid of the officer at the GO who is responsible for that because you won't be able to complete the task without them.
 

·
ßANNED
Joined
·
4,234 Posts
Absolutely nothing wrong with public sector employment expansion in the regions.
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
1,779 Posts
Discussion Starter · #18 ·
Except that is will probably massively decrease in the (very) near future given the stress on the public purse.

The report argues that cities like Barnsley, Newcastle and Swansea that have benefitted from large public sector investment have rested on their laurels, as such they have very low private sector growth - Birmingham's private sector shrank during the boom years!!!.

Now we are going to see the public sector shrink, these cities could be in a very dire position.
 
1 - 20 of 24 Posts
Top