Simple ways for the govt to save money.

[maffski]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

You might be a little out of date. GDS started well but they seem to have fallen for their own hype.

For example the new online system for the Rural Payments Agency has been slated by the NAO - and is currently in 'paper assisted digital' form. Which I think means they print everything out because it might not be there when they look again tomorrow.

What they should be doing IT wise is just define the data structures and interfaces. This would allow hundreds of small IT companies to provide little bits of the system and build a marketplace.

[Countdown]

Gecko1978 said:

Well I can tell your not an economist

You'd be wrong I have a degree in Economics which was why my post was tongue-in-cheek.

Gecko1978 said:

We all use and benefit from services provided even if we do not directly consume them....thus its right we pay for them.

I completely agree. The funding of public services via taxation is one of the main reasons why we have a relatively prosperous, stable, democratic society.

[Sargeant Orange]

Ignoring savings ideas for a second, surely the biggest issue is that there are too few of working age either earning enough to pay sufficient tax or not working at all to fund those not of working age. There are less and less skilled, well paid jobs around.

Yes saving a few quid here and there may lessen the problem but I'm not sure it'll solve anything in the long run

[Gecko1978]

Countdown said:

Gecko1978 said:

Well I can tell your not an economist

You'd be wrong I have a degree in Economics which was why my post was tongue-in-cheek.

Gecko1978 said:

We all use and benefit from services provided even if we do not directly consume them....thus its right we pay for them.

I completely agree. The funding of public services via taxation is one of the main reasons why we have a relatively prosperous, stable, democratic society.

An as I said had I have refelected before my rant I might have noticed. So hope no offence taken.

An as I alluded some things should be central and everyone should pay. It's fair but harsh if your on a low income but the current house based system is illogical

[GroundEffect]

Typical PH complaint but I'm sure I've read a report that benefit fraud was hardly a drop in the ocean of government spending?

Spending is already cut to the bone as far as I can see. My Mrs is a teacher and works ~80hrs a week for £35k for a management role. Talk about value for money.

[sidicks]

GroundEffect said:

Typical PH complaint but I'm sure I've read a report that benefit fraud was hardly a drop in the ocean of government spending?

Spending is already cut to the bone as far as I can see. My Mrs is a teacher and works ~80hrs a week for £35k for a management role. Talk about value for money.

£35k which is equivalent to > £45k including benefits...

[Cfnteabag]

I personally believe that to recieve your benefits you should have to have a drugs test, fail the drugs test and no money that week.

Also anyone with a drug problem should have their children taken off them, if you don't have enough brains to stay away from drugs then you are not suitable to bring up a child and teach them how to behave.

I agree with an earlier post that prisons need a massive overhaul, should be massively uncomfortable, no telly or games only books and lessons, teaching useful skills and for young offenders a job working for a government department such as street cleaner, bin emptier etc, not a glamerous job but earning more than benefits and hopefully keeping off crime

[GroundEffect]

sidicks said:

GroundEffect said:

Typical PH complaint but I'm sure I've read a report that benefit fraud was hardly a drop in the ocean of government spending?

Spending is already cut to the bone as far as I can see. My Mrs is a teacher and works ~80hrs a week for £35k for a management role. Talk about value for money.

£35k which is equivalent to > £45k including benefits...

Like what benefits? Decent pension, sure but I don't see many other. Less pay and Fewer holidays per year than I get in private sector!

[GT03ROB]

GroundEffect said:

Spending is already cut to the bone as far as I can see.

Really? This is the bit I seriously doubt. The following came up listed on a job listing i get through via junk mail recently....

"You’ll manage a broad portfolio, focusing on a cleaner and sustainable local environment with Recycling, Residential and Commercial Waste, Street Cleansing and Public Protection. In particular, you’ll build on our achievements in recycling, with the aim of gaining us the place of the best London Authority. We’ll also look to you to bring an innovative approach to Culture and Leisure service provision. This means you’ll have a major impact on the quality of life and the environment in Harrow."

This was pretty much the job description...... salary £95k + benefits.....

GroundEffect said:

is a teacher and works ~80hrs a week for £35k for a management role. Talk about value for money.

Not having a go at your missus but why as a teacher is she doing a management role? And working 7 days a week 12 hrs a day? Whats causing her to have to do that.

[Summit_Detailing]

I agree with 95% of the points already mentioned in the thread. Cutting the 'foreign aid' bill was my first thought when I saw the thread title.

Over £11bn+ - this could go a fair way to rectifying the NHS deficit, yes they still need management/procurement with some common sense but that stating the obvious.

Cfnteabag said:

Also anyone with a drug problem should have their children taken off them, if you don't have enough brains to stay away from drugs then you are not suitable to bring up a child and teach them how to behave.

I don't disagree but the issue would be then where and who do the removed children go to? - the current social care system is already at breaking point due to a combination of factors.

If only the PH collective formed a government party around election time...

[highway]

As much as the amounts saved via changes, charges etc I'm interested in the fairness angle. I haven't read a valid critique of why those who are late/skip doctors appointments, shouldn't be charged. It's reasonable and fair. A suggestion that it would cost more to administrate than it would deliver can't be the case as a similar system has worked for years re parking fines.

I don't understand why significant public funds to the opera and arts compared to how many people use them. I don't grasp why museums aren't free to those presenting a UK passport but charged for tourists. Anomalies and savings are hard to miss yet no one seems to care.

I mentioned the problems with council properties being sublet earlier, a massive issue which no one has commented on. Not reasonable or fair and ripe to be dealt with. Apathy....

[GroundEffect]

GT03ROB said:

GroundEffect said:

is a teacher and works ~80hrs a week for £35k for a management role. Talk about value for money.

Not having a go at your missus but why as a teacher is she doing a management role? And working 7 days a week 12 hrs a day? Whats causing her to have to do that.

That is the reality of being a teacher these days. By management, I mean middle-management (i.e. a Key Stage leader) so she has the responsibility for her own class as well as all others in Key Stage 1. It's a huge, huge workload and the reality is:

Mon-Fri: 7am to 9pm with a 30 minute stop for dinner
Sat: 8am to 6pm
Sun: sometimes a day off

Week in, week out.

That's all I'll say before I completely derail the thread - just pointing out that the government already saves a tonne of money through this bullst.

[Ian Geary]

Gecko1978 said:

Council Tax lol lol FFS how is the value of your house relevant to the services you use etc (most likley inverse in fact)

Tsk tsk

as an economist, you must know about the concept of taxation being progressive?

The value of your home is not used as an indicator of the services you use, merely a proxy as to your ability to pay.

Simple stuff really.

Is that fair?

Phht, a meaningless question - most people's definition of "fair" is simply the scenario in which they get the most whilst contributing the least.

As a mid-level finance manager in a £1bn turnover public body, I see daily attempts to find ways to save money.

My observations would be:

1) if you could set the public sector up from fresh tomorrow, you'd never do it the way it is now. But it's virtually impossible to make anything but tiny incremental changes because a) it's relied upon by millions every day, and b) it's gradually been starved of capacity to change.

Example: our ICT was outsourced to a cheapo private sector company, because annual budget setting legislation means we have to snap at the small carrot being dangled in front of us, and aren't able to really act on the medium term cost position. So we now pay them £1k a go to install free software on our PCs, and our fairly decent ICT team (i.e. who could develop software packages in house) was asset stripped and replaced by call centre staff who barely comprehend the problems with whatever buggy patch has been thoughtlessly released and conflicted with legacy systems (which they won't replace). The ability to get ourselves back onto a pro-active ICT footing is virtually nil.

You take a young, dynamic company who have identified a gap in the market. They will invest heavily in an ICT system that's fit for purpose to deliver. They can borrow this cash from investors who are confident they'll get a return.

The public sector: yes, we can borrow cheap, but nearly £100m a year is going on building new school places (for academy schools of course), and we're up against the debt ceiling as we can't generate headroom in the revenue budget to pay back the cost of borrowing. And will this borrowing generate profit? No, it's just investment in replacing aged assets, or meeting demand. So virtually zero is going into actually upgrading systems unless they're on their knees.

2) Cost shunting: much of the public sector, and even within organisations is fixated with shunting costs around to "prove" a saving for "their" bit. It doesn't get bonuses of course, but does get brownie points, which help with the next promotion, or carry you through the next restructure. It usually ends up costing more.

I would put money on exactly the same thing happening in the private sector of course, but then they're much better at keeping things secret, and after all it's "their" money, not "your" money (though obviously someone will have had to hand it over to them, and they're probably sitting pretty close to where you are now)

Solution? See step 1. It's impossible to just break down the different functions, and stick them all back together. It's being tried in local areas (Manchester) and is particularly key in adult social care / NHS care (a common symptom of this problem is bed blocking). But we're in the situation where NHS still have to bear VAT whereas councils can reclaim it all (to a point), but the NHS can set a deficit budget (ie funded from borrowing) whereas it's illegal for a council to do so. And everyone is out to effectively "raid" the other's budget, whilst the Treasury look over from upon high to make sure no-one wins too much, else they'll have the gains back anyway.

3) Demand. Someone posted above about "social protection" increases over the years. There are stats on public spend going back to the 70s but I'm not going into that now. Spending massively increased under new labour. Massively. Doctors in particular got a huge pay rise around 2003-4. The Jeremy Hunt cuts aren't taking them anywhere near back to where they were.

Council spending also increased massively too. I helped set a budget in 2003/04 and I recall the council was only making 1 single saving of £20k....(on a budget of £12m). Now, that council is trying to claw circa £800k pa out of a budget of £18m.

My point: once people have something, it is very, very hard to take it off them.

Now, make the poeple doing the taking off them reliant on those same poeple to vote them into office, and there you have it. It's not going ot happen without a huge fight.

Some way of breaking this cycle has to be found in order for really large sums to be taken out of public spending. The Jeremy Hunt/Junior Doctors saga is merely trimmings round the edge, and look at the kerfuffle it's causing.

4) Public sector ethos: yes, I'll have to admit that in some cases, this counts against the sector. Social work in particular see their role as "get the outcome, no matter the cost". I would prefer "get the outcome within the cost envelope we've got". But then I don't have to look the family in the eye and tell them their life's gone to pot and it's just tough.


5) Getting people to help themselves - so much wasted time and money due to this. What can you do? Make a really nasty incentive for people to work:

- bring back the workhouse (one of the points on the second page I think)
- use the African model (if you don't work, you go hungry?)

Much of local government was set up in the 1830s to try and end the awful polarisaton a pure market economy created. I don't think most people could stomach that these days, and then the problem would simply be crime.

Jonah35 is happy enough sitting behind his/her keyboard having ceased benefits for the under 25s, cut benefits for all others. How long until they're in your house at night to get food / money? Gated communities / armed guards appeal to you? It doesn't to me.

What is really needs is more early intervention. I.e. assist the potential problem families before they end up costing over £100k a year to deal with.

It's hard, because a) you have to claw that money out of existing demand for services and b) overcoming the usual criticism of "why is that family getting support when my family work hard and dont' get it?".


6) Trust the public sector more? Someone also mentioned ceasing PFI deals. They do indeed cost a lot of money. WHilst perfected under Blair / Brown, it was actually John Major who introduced them.

They were set up to hide public sector borrowing from the (then) economic tests on borrowing, but also included huge mark-ups to deal with "risk".

But often, public sector colleagues tell me they could actually do the job far better if they weren't so starved of cash in the first place (see the ICT example). But we're in catch 22 now where the money isn't around to develop those skills, so they're the only show in town.

Yes, the private sector has the commercial drive to be efficient, but they are bloody good at sucking huge fees out of public sector budgets: often with more consultants providing "due diligence" checks, all of whom have an interest in keeping the gravy trailing chugging on.

Why are the public sector so bad at managing this? I hear you ask. Why are those incompetent managers who allow this not fired this very instant?

These would be the same managers who aren't allowed to earn more than the PM, yes?

The ones who aren't allowed to keep their non pay benefits like final salary pension schemes, even though with these market rates are still way below the private sector, yes?

The ones who are useless at everything, so the better graduates overlook that sector and go elsewhere?

The problem is, the public sector can't compete with top private sector firms who hoover up oxbridge graduates and pay them £100k + for these sort of sales and advisory roles.

But if the fees that went to private sector companies were instead retained by the public sector (ie NHS managers, Whitehall, Local Authorities, other exec agencies) to build a proper graduate base and managerial capacity to deliver these projects internally, we'd probably stand a chance of getting somewhere.

I realise this is "chicken and egg" though, and I'm not sure when the point of no return is.


OK, well done to anyone whose made it down here. Sorry, I've not really answered the question of "simple" ways to save money.

How about: no-one in the public sector eats meat on a Tuesday?


Ian

[Gecko1978]

Value of house does not always have a direct correlation to wealth in fact in the uk with ageing population that's very tenuous. The truth is the alternative was not liked by the money for nothing crowds and the government at the time was falling apart. Progressive is a local income tax but again abused by councils to pay pensions and social housing bills.

Simple each year work out the cost of devices divide by number working set charge. Councils that are poor an bad value for money will see people move out of the area. Market economics in action there.

Oh a I don't think the public sector has to be as efficient as the private sector given nature of the service. It just has not to be totally rubbish...like councils putting all cash in ice bank. Who did they pay to manage this...answer morons

[rscott]

highway said:

As much as the amounts saved via changes, charges etc I'm interested in the fairness angle. I haven't read a valid critique of why those who are late/skip doctors appointments, shouldn't be charged. It's reasonable and fair. A suggestion that it would cost more to administrate than it would deliver can't be the case as a similar system has worked for years re parking fines.

I don't understand why significant public funds to the opera and arts compared to how many people use them. I don't grasp why museums aren't free to those presenting a UK passport but charged for tourists. Anomalies and savings are hard to miss yet no one seems to care.

I mentioned the problems with council properties being sublet earlier, a massive issue which no one has commented on. Not reasonable or fair and ripe to be dealt with. Apathy....

If doctors started charging for missed/late appointments, then surely it would follow that patients receive compensation for the doctor being late? On more than one occasion I've had the first appointment in the morning or afternoon session and had to wait 15-20 minutes past my time.


Tendring District Council have announced they will be taking action on sublet council properties.

[Gecko1978]

rscott said:

highway said:

As much as the amounts saved via changes, charges etc I'm interested in the fairness angle. I haven't read a valid critique of why those who are late/skip doctors appointments, shouldn't be charged. It's reasonable and fair. A suggestion that it would cost more to administrate than it would deliver can't be the case as a similar system has worked for years re parking fines.

I don't understand why significant public funds to the opera and arts compared to how many people use them. I don't grasp why museums aren't free to those presenting a UK passport but charged for tourists. Anomalies and savings are hard to miss yet no one seems to care.

I mentioned the problems with council properties being sublet earlier, a massive issue which no one has commented on. Not reasonable or fair and ripe to be dealt with. Apathy....

If doctors started charging for missed/late appointments, then surely it would follow that patients receive compensation for the doctor being late? On more than one occasion I've had the first appointment in the morning or afternoon session and had to wait 15-20 minutes past my time.


Tendring District Council have announced they will be taking action on sublet council properties.

Just a point but of the Dr is late by say 20 mins you still did see them right? Where as if you don't turn up that slot is gone wasted etc.

Also it being a medical service it may well be appointments over run as some people need more of the Dr's time and that's something the Dr makes a call on when the person is sat before them.

Not saying its right you have to wait etc but again maybe Dr's has person x at 10am they fail to turn up next slot is 10.15 that person turns up at 10.14 etc on time and thus get there slot the 15 mins at 10.am are wasted and can't be reused but you can wait 20mins to get your care.

[sidicks]

GroundEffect said:

Like what benefits? Decent pension, sure but I don't see many other. Less pay and Fewer holidays per year than I get in private sector!

The pension is the massive benefit.

How much holiday do you get - standard in the private sector is probably circa 28 days. Teachers get a lot more than that.

[highway]

You are getting to see a skilled professional at your request who is there to help you. I don't see that waiting 15 mins is an issue. Besides, if people turned up on time maybe the doctors could see people on time.
People here are pedantic beyond belief. For me there can be few reasonable excuses to simply NOT turn up to an appointment with a doctor. How people manage to 'forget' they have an operation in hospital scheduled is inexplicable. Yet people here suggest that fining these people is somehow unreasonable or not cost effective.

[oyster]

turbobloke said:

Repeal the baseless, pointless and astronomically expensive Climate Change Act.

At the time of passing, so to speak, the then Labour government estimated the costs of the Act as totalling between £324 billion and £404 billion. That's approximately £16,000-£20,000 per household in taxes, levies, subsidies and higher prices. Benefits are illusory, in keeping with the Act's non-basis.

Nowadays within Turbine Toryism the costs won't have decreased.

I'm interested to see your breakdown of that £16-£20k of household impact from that act?

I'm not in favour of the act at all, just intrigued by your suggestion that it's a major cause of government spend.

[AstonZagato]

highway said:

You are getting to see a skilled professional at your request who is there to help you. I don't see that waiting 15 mins is an issue. Besides, if people turned up on time maybe the doctors could see people on time.
People here are pedantic beyond belief. For me there can be few reasonable excuses to simply NOT turn up to an appointment with a doctor. How people manage to 'forget' they have an operation in hospital scheduled is inexplicable. Yet people here suggest that fining these people is somehow unreasonable or not cost effective.

It grinds my gears too. I'd take a £100 deposit on a card to book an appointment. If you turn up on time, the £100 gets refunded.