Â£142k for a Twitter Tsar By the Government so much for Austerity

mertle · 08-04-2011, 10:08

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/04...ment_twit_pay/

So we told the government cant afford public sector cutting services and jobs (well jobs at the bottom feeder).

This just Makes you so angry so they advertisng for a Twitter Director who will be payed Â£142.000 a year.

The problem with public sector too many top jobs milking the cow.

Its a sham but people will still believe the government.

**Damien** · 08-04-2011, 10:15

Rather misleading title as it seems the job is for a Digital Director, whose role would cover a range of different responsibilities. The advert itself doesn't even mention Twitter. Just another rubbish article from The Register.

mertle · 08-04-2011, 10:27

maybe misleading but at time we supposed be cutting back theyre creating these jobs for there buddies.

Thats what making me so angry its seems one rule for us mortals but another for them and there chums.

That would keep 4 jobs in the frontline from needing to be CUT.

**Hugh** · 08-04-2011, 10:43

Who are "their buddies"?

btw, from the actual job ad

Quote:

manage the budget of the central group within the Government Digital Service;
direct all government online spending in a way that delivers value for money, makes use of best existing technology, that is both available commercially and also free and results in an improvement of the user experience across all government online services (websites and APIs)
reduce the cost of providing the Directgov platform itself in line with efficiency plans; and
work closely with the Government Chief Information Officer to direct, set and enforce standards across government departments in areas such as technical, content, design, process and customer standards.

So, it could end up saving money by efficiencies..

Totally misleading article from El Reg, imho....

**Damien** · 08-04-2011, 10:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by mertle

maybe misleading but at time we supposed be cutting back theyre creating these jobs for there buddies.

Thats what making me so angry its seems one rule for us mortals but another for them and there chums.

That would keep 4 jobs in the frontline from needing to be CUT.

I am not convinced that this is a pointless job. It would appear a rather wide ranging job covering the entire range of the governments public-facing digital properties, such as the direct gov website amongst others. Quite a big role and the pay is probably quite low for such a responsibility.

There is a massive difference between running a Twitter account and running a government department responsible for a large website and being responsible for any new projects the government may undertake.

To dismiss the entire thing as 'Oh they are in charge of the Twitter' is horrific reporting from a site which is meant to understand and specialise in the medium. I can't find any justification for their spin on the story and can only conclude they intentionally misreported it to support their own bias. Something the Register is quite keen to do the moment something goes against their own beliefs/agenda. It's truly Daily Mail style reporting.

peanut · 08-04-2011, 10:57

More info here as well.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13011445

mertle · 08-04-2011, 11:10

Cant believe people support a whopping Â£142k job another QUANGO when we supposed to be cutting. It shows quite clearly they protecting the jobs for rich.

Read it on the BEEB know that its to replace 3 JOBS no doubt lesser mortals on quarter the wage with one person. It may have widespread work than just twitter but to kill three jobs for this is crazy.

I know what I would want if its not saving money in pay wise is 3 people doing the job in work than one troughing all the cash.

Quote:

The new post replaces three existing jobs including the government's director of digital engagement, introduced in 2009, and the director general of Directgov.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-13011445

How can you justify those sort of wages is beyond me. I think very few people deserve such wages I dont think Cameron desrves that or any leader. MP's overpayed and councillors. So not going think some Director on government payroll desreves that sort of wage whatever he does.

**Hugh** · 08-04-2011, 11:30

It's not a QUANGO, it's in the Cabinet Office, and if it's replacing three senior jobs with one, it must be saving money (before any efficiencies are introduced).

Can't see the problem, myself.....

Ignitionnet · 08-04-2011, 12:32

If it's doing the same or better functions for less money I'm fine with it. Our taxes are there to allow the government to provide services at as high a quality and as reasonable a cost as is feasible not, contrary to previous policy, to keep people in employment.

Osem · 08-04-2011, 14:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

Can't see the problem, myself.....

Well that's because you aren't trying hard enough. Come on man, give that analytical brain of yours a day off and stimulate your politically biased kneejerk reaction gland for a change....

**Hugh** · 08-04-2011, 14:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by Osem

Well that's because you aren't trying hard enough. Come on man, give that analytical brain of yours a day off and stimulate your politically biased kneejerk reaction gland for a change....

[img]Download Failed (1)[/img]

(Actually, if it wasn't in London, I might be tempted to apply for the job....)

Osem · 08-04-2011, 14:26

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

(Actually, if it wasn't in London, I might be tempted to apply for the job....)

I already have....

Ignitionnet · 08-04-2011, 15:23

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hugh

(Actually, if it wasn't in London, I might be tempted to apply for the job....)

Hmmm.

What exactly is wrong with London?

It's quite civilised in some parts here I'll have you know!

**Hugh** · 08-04-2011, 15:30

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ignitionnet

Hmmm.

What exactly is wrong with London?

It's quite civilised in some parts here I'll have you know!

I love London (to visit and to work) - I would just have to take a huge drop in living standards/quality of life to work there (I have worked there lots in the past, but someone else paid the hotel bills and I commuted home at weekends).

At the moment, I am either 10 minutes or 35 minutes (depending on which site I am on) from my office (public transport and shanks pony, door to door), and I live in a four-bed detached house in a leafy green suburb - I couldn't afford the equivalent in Central London, and I don't want to commute 1-2 hours a day each way.

Quality of life wins (in my case).